Policy

Congress is conducting a major economic experiment that has never been attempted in the U.S. outside of wartime; substantial fiscal stimulus when the economy is already at full employment. The budget deficit is on track to surpass 6% of GDP in a few years. It would likely peak above 8% in the case of a recession. The alarming long-term U.S. fiscal outlook is well known, but it has just become far worse. The combination of rising life expectancy and a decline in the ratio of taxpayers to retirees will place growing financial strains on the Social Security and Medicare systems. The federal government will be spilling far more red ink over the next decade than during any economic expansion phase since the 1940s. The debt/GDP ratio could surpass the previous peak set during WWII within 12 years. Shockingly large budget deficits in the past have sparked some attempt in Congress to limit the damage. Unfortunately, there will be little appetite to tighten the fiscal purse strings for the next decade. Voters have shifted to the left and politicians are following along. Factors that explain the political shift include disappointing income growth, income inequality, and rising political clout for Millennials, Hispanics and the elderly. Fiscal conservatism is out of fashion and this is unlikely to change over the next decade, no matter which party is in power. This means that a market riot will be required to shake voters and the political establishment into making the tough decisions necessary. While the U.S. is not at imminent risk of a market riot over the deteriorating fiscal trends, there are costs: in the long-term, the dollar will be weaker, borrowing rates will be higher and living standards will be lower than otherwise would be the case. Profligacy: (Noun) Unconstrained by convention or morality. Congress is conducting a major economic experiment that has never been attempted before in the U.S. outside of wartime; substantial fiscal stimulus at a time when the economy is already at full employment. Investors are celebrating the growth-positive aspects of the new fiscal tailwind at the moment, but it may wind up generating a party that is followed by a hangover as the Fed is forced to lean hard against the resulting inflationary pressures. Moreover, even in the absence of a recession, the federal government will likely be spilling far more red ink than during any economic expansion since the 1940s (Chart II-1). What are the long-term implications of this macro experiment? Will the U.S. continue to easily fund large and sustained budget deficits? Chart II-1U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period Historically, shockingly large budget deficits sparked some attempt by Congress to limit the damage. Unfortunately, we argue in this Special Report that there will be little appetite to tighten the fiscal purse strings for the next decade. Voters have shifted to the left and politicians are following along. While the U.S. is not at imminent risk of a market riot over the deteriorating fiscal trends, the dollar will be weaker, borrowing rates will be higher and living standards will be lower than otherwise would be the case. On The Bright Side The Trump tax cuts, the immediate expensing of capital spending and a lighter regulatory touch have stirred animal spirits in the U.S. The Administration's trade policies are a source of concern, but CEO confidence is generally high. The NFIB survey highlights that small business owners are almost euphoric regarding the outlook. The IMF estimates that the tax cuts and less restrictive spending caps will provide a direct fiscal thrust of 0.8% in 2018 and 0.9% in 2019 (Chart II-2). The overall impact on the economy over the next 12-18 months could be larger to the extent that business leaders follow through on their newfound bullishness and ramp up capital spending. Chart II-2Lots Of Fiscal Stimulus In 2018 And 2019 July 2018 July 2018 Fiscal policy is a clear positive for stocks and other risk assets in the near term, as long as inflation is slow to respond. In addition to the near-term boost, there will be longer-term benefits from the 2017 tax act. Various provisions of the act affect the long-run productive potential of the U.S. economy, by promoting increases in investment and labor supply. Corporate tax cuts and the full expensing of business capital outlays should permanently increase the nation's capital stock relative to what it otherwise would be, leading to a slightly faster trend pace of productivity growth. Similarly, lower income taxes are projected to encourage more people to enter the workforce or to work longer hours. The CBO estimates that the tax act will boost the level of potential real GDP by 0.9% by the middle of the next decade. This may not sound like much, but it translates into almost a million extra jobs. The supply-side benefits of the 2017 tax act are therefore meaningful. Unfortunately, given the lack of offsetting spending cuts, it comes at the cost of a dramatically worse medium- and long-term outlook for government debt. The CBO estimates that the recent changes in fiscal policy will cumulatively add $1.7 trillion to the federal government's debt pile, relative to the previous baseline (Chart II-3). The annual deficit is projected to surpass $1 trillion in 2020, and peak as a share of GDP at 5.4% in 2022. Federal government debt held by the private sector will rise from 76% this year to 96% in 2028 in this scenario. Chart II-3Comparing To The Reagan Era Comparing To The Reagan Era Comparing To The Reagan Era The budget situation begins to look better after 2020 in the CBO's baseline forecast because a raft of "temporary provisions" are assumed to sunset as per current law, including some of the personal tax cuts and deductions included in the 2017 tax package. As is usually the case, the vast majority of these provisions are likely to be extended. The CBO performed an alternative scenario in which it extends the temporary provisions and grows the spending caps at the rate of inflation after 2020. In this more realistic scenario, the deficit reaches 7% of GDP by 2028 and the federal debt-to-GDP ratio hits 105% (Chart II-3). Moreover, there will undoubtedly be a recession sometime in the next five years. Even a mild downturn, on par with the early 1990s, could inflate the budget deficit to 8% or more of GDP. The Demographic Time Bomb Chart II-4The Withering Support Ratio The Withering Support Ratio The Withering Support Ratio The pressure that the aging population will place on federal coffers over the medium term is well known, but it is worth reviewing in light of Washington's new attitude toward deficit financing. The combination of rising life expectancy and a decline in the ratio of taxpayers to retirees will place growing financial strains on the Social Security and Medicare systems. In 1970, there were 5.4 people between the ages of 20 and 64 for every person 65 or older. That ratio has since dropped to 4 and will be down to 2.6 within the next 20 years (Chart II-4). Spending on entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Income Security and government pensions) is on an unsustainable trajectory (Charts II-5 and II-6). In fiscal 2017, these programs absorbed 76% of federal revenues and the CBO estimates that this will rise to almost 100% by 2028, absent any change in law. If we also include net interest costs, total mandatory spending1 is projected to exceed total federal government revenues as early as next year, meaning that deficit financing will be required for all discretionary spending. Chart II-5Entitlements Will Explode ##br##Mandatory Spending Entitlements Will Explode Mandatory Spending Entitlements Will Explode Mandatory Spending Chart II-6All Discretionary Spending ##br##To Be Deficit Financed? All Discretionary Spending To Be Deficit Financed? All Discretionary Spending To Be Deficit Financed? The CBO last published a multi-decade outlook in 2017 (Chart II-7). The Federal debt/GDP ratio was projected to reach 150% by 2047. If we adjust this for the new (higher) starting point in 2028 provided by the CBO's alternative scenario, the debt/GDP ratio would top 164% in 2047. Chart II-7An Unsustainable Debt Accumulation An Unsustainable Debt Accumulation An Unsustainable Debt Accumulation To put this into perspective, the demands of WWII swelled the federal debt/GDP ratio to 106% in 1946, the highest on record going back to the early 1700s (Chart II-8). The debt ratio could rocket past that level before 2030, even in the absence of a recession. Chart II-8U.S. Debt In Historical Context U.S. Debt In Historical Context U.S. Debt In Historical Context These extremely long-term projections are only meant to be suggestive. A lot of things can happen in the coming years that could make the trajectory better or even worse. But the point is that current levels of taxation are insufficient to fund entitlements in their current form in the long run. Chart II-9 shows that outlays as a share of GDP have persistently exceeded revenues since the mid-1970s, except for a brief period during the Clinton Administration. The gap is set to widen over the coming decade. Something will have to give. Chart II-9U.S. Outlays And Revenues U.S. Outlays And Revenues U.S. Outlays And Revenues Forget Starving The Beast "Starve the Beast" refers to the idea that the size of government can be restrained through a low-tax regime that spurs growth and pressures Congress to cut spending and control the budget deficit. It has been the mantra of Republicans since the Reagan era. The 1981 Reagan tax cuts included an across-the-board reduction in marginal tax rates, taking the top rate down from 70% to 50%. Corporate taxes were slashed by $150 billion over a 5-year period and tax rates were indexed for inflation, among other changes. It was not surprising that the budget deficit subsequently ballooned. Outrage grew among fiscal conservatives, but Congress spent the next few years passing laws to reverse the loss of revenues, rather than aggressively attacking the spending side. Today, Congressional fiscal hawks are in retreat and the Republican Party under President Donald Trump is not as fiscally conservative as it once was. This trend reflects the pull toward the center of the economic policy spectrum in response to a shift to the left among voters. BCA's political strategists have highlighted that this is the "median voter theory" (MVT) in action.2 The MVT posits that parties and politicians will approximate the policy choices of the median voter in order to win an election or stay in power. Every U.S. presidential election involves candidates making a mad dash to the most popularly appealing positions. President Trump exhibited this process when he ran in the Republican primary on a platform of increased infrastructure spending and zero cuts to "entitlement" spending. The Great Financial Crisis, disappointingly slow growth, stagnating middle class incomes and the widening income distribution have resulted in a leftward shift among voters on economic issues. Adding to the shift is the rising political clout of the Millennial generation, which generally favors more government involvement in the economy and will become the major voting block as it ages in the 2020s. There also are important changes underway in the ethnic composition of the electorate. The rising proportion of Hispanic voters will on balance favor the Democrats, according to voting trends (Chart II-10). A previous Special Report by Peter Berezin, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, predicted that Texas will become a swing state in as little as a decade and a solid Democrat state by 2030.3 Chart II-10The Proportion Of Minority Voters Set To Grow The Proportion Of Minority Voters Set To Grow The Proportion Of Minority Voters Set To Grow President Trump's shift to the left on economic policy helped him to out-flank Clinton in the election, particularly in the Rust Belt, where his protectionist and anti-austerity message resonated. Even his anti-immigration appeal is mostly based on economic reasoning - i.e. jobs, rather than cultural factors. Trump has admitted that he is not all that concerned about taking the country deeper into hock. The Republican rank-and-file has generally gone along with Trump's agenda because he has delivered traditional Republican tax cuts and continues to rate highly among his supporters (his approval is around 90% among Republicans). Fiscal hawks within the GOP have been forced to the sidelines while Trump and moderate Republicans have passed bipartisan spending increases with Democratic assistance. Where's The Outrage? Chart II-11Entitlements Are Popular* July 2018 July 2018 The implication is that, unlike the Reagan years, we do not expect there will be a strong political force capable of leading a fight against budget deficits. After a decade of disappointing income growth, voters are in no mood for tax hikes. On the spending side, health care and pensions are still politically untouchable. A recent study by the Pew Research Center confirms that only a very small percentage of Americans of either political stripe would agree with cuts to spending on education, Medicare, Social Security, defense, infrastructure, veterans or anti-terrorism efforts (Chart II-11). It is therefore no surprise that a populist such as Trump has promised to defend entitlement programs. Moreover, the graying of America will make it increasingly difficult for politicians to tame the entitlement beast. An aging population might generally favor the GOP, but it will also solidify opposition towards cutting Medicare and Social Security. As for defense, U.S. military spending was 3.3% of GDP and almost 15% of total spending in 2017 (Chart II-12). Congress recently lifted the spending cap for defense expenditures, but it is still projected to fall as a share of total government spending and GDP in the coming years. It is conceivable that Congress could eventually trim the defense budget even faster, but spending is already low by historical standards and it is hard to see any future Congress gutting the military at a time when the global challenge from China and Russia is rising. Indeed, given the geopolitical atmosphere of great power competition, defense spending is more likely to rise. Chart II-12What's Left To Cut? What's Left To Cut? What's Left To Cut? So, what is left to cut? If entitlements and defense are off the table, that leaves non-defense discretionary spending as the sacrificial lamb. This category includes spending by the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Justice, State and Veteran Affairs. Such spending has already declined sharply during the past several decades (Chart II-12). Non-defense discretionary spending amounted to $610 billion in 2017, which is only 15.3% of total federal spending. To put this into perspective, cutting every last cent of non-defense discretionary spending by 2022 would still leave a budget deficit of about 2½% of GDP. And it would be political suicide. The Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice and Veterans Affairs account for more than half of non-defense discretionary spending. But these programs are very popular among voters. And, at only 1.3% of total spending, eliminating all foreign aid won't make much difference. Either President Trump or Vice-President Mike Pence will be the GOP presidential candidate in 2020. Pence could be more fiscally conservative than Trump, but Congress is unlikely to remain GOP-controlled through 2024. Similarly, it is difficult to see the Democrats making more than a token effort to rein in the deficit if the party is in charge after 2020. Perhaps they will raise taxes on the rich and push the corporate rate back up a bit, but voters will probably not favor a full reversal of the Trump tax cuts. Democrats will not tackle entitlements either. In other words, we can forget about "starving the beast" as a viable option no matter which party is in power. There will be little appetite for fiscal austerity in the U.S. through to the mid-2020s at a minimum. International Comparison This all places the U.S. out of sync with other major industrialized countries, where structural budget deficits have been tamed in most cases and are expected to remain so according to the IMF's latest projections (Chart II-13). The U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit is projected to be almost 7% of GDP in 2019, by far the highest among other industrialized countries except for Norway. Spain and Italy are expected to have relatively small structural deficits of 2½% and 0.8%, respectively, next year. Greece is running a small structural surplus! Including all levels of government, the IMF estimates that the U.S. general government gross debt/GDP ratio is projected to be well above that of the U.K., France, Germany, Spain and Portugal in 2023 (Chart II-14). It is expected to be on par with Italy at that time, although the newly-installed populist government there is likely to negotiate a loosening of the fiscal rules with Brussels, leading to higher debt levels than the IMF currently expects. The implication is that the U.S. government appears destined to become one of the most indebted in the developed world. Chart II-13U.S. Budget Deficit Stands Out July 2018 July 2018 Chart II-14International Debt Comparison July 2018 July 2018 The Fiscal Tipping Point Investors are not yet worried about the path of U.S. fiscal policy; the yield curve is quite flat, CDS spreads on U.S. Treasurys have not moved and the dollar is still overvalued by most traditional measures. The challenge is timing when a fiscally-induced crisis might occur. A warning bell does not ring when government debt or deficits reach certain levels. Fiscal trends generally do not suddenly spiral out of control - it is a gradual and insidious process reflected in multi-year deficits and slowly accumulating debt burdens. Eventually, a tipping point is reached where the only solution is drastic policy shifts or in extreme cases, default. Along the way, there are a number of signs that fiscal trends are entering dangerous territory. The relevance of the various signs will be different for each country, reflecting, among other things, the depth and structure of the financial system, the soundness of the economy, the dependence on foreign capital, and the asset preferences of domestic investors. Some key signs of building fiscal stress are given in Box II-1. None of the factors in Box II-1 appear to be a threat at the moment for the U.S. Moreover, comparisons with other countries that have hit the debt wall in the past are not that helpful because the U.S. is a special case. It has a huge economy and has political and military clout. The dollar is the world's main reserve currency and the country is able to borrow in its own currency. This suggests that the U.S. will be able to "get away with" its borrowing habit for longer than other countries have in the past. At the same time, financial markets are fickle and, even with hindsight, it not always clear why investors switch from acceptance to bearishness about a particular state of affairs. BOX II-1 Traditional Signs Of An Approaching Debt Crisis Government deficits absorb a rising share of net private savings, leaving little for new investment. Interest payments account for an increasingly large share of government revenues, squeezing out discretionary spending and requiring tough budget action merely to stop the deficit from rising. The government exhausts its ability to raise tax burdens. Traditional sources of debt finance dry up, requiring alternative funding strategies. Fears of inflation and/or default lead to a rising risk premium on interest rates and/ or a falling exchange rate. Political shifts occur as governments get blamed for eroding living standards, high taxes, and continued pressure to cut spending. The Costs Of Fiscal Profligacy Even if the U.S. is not near a fiscal tipping point, this does not mean that massive debt accumulation is costless: Interest Costs: Spending 3% of GDP on servicing the federal government's debt load over the next decade is not a disaster. Nonetheless, it does reduce the tax dollars available to fund entitlements or investing in infrastructure. Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy: Lawmakers would have less flexibility to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected events, such as natural disasters or recessions. As noted above, a recession in 2020 could generate a federal deficit of more than 8% of GDP. In that case, Congress may feel constrained in supporting the economy with even temporary fiscal stimulus. National Savings: Because government borrowing reduces national savings, then either capital spending must assume a smaller share of the economy or the U.S. must borrow more from abroad. Most likely it will be some combination of both. Crowding Out: If global savings are not in plentiful supply, then the additional U.S. debt issuance will place upward pressure on domestic interest rates and thereby "crowd out" business capital spending. This would reduce the nation's capital stock, leading to lower growth in productivity and living standards than would otherwise be the case. The CBO estimates that the positive impact on the capital stock from the changes to the corporate tax structure will overwhelm the negative impact from higher interest rates over the next decade. Nonetheless, the crowding out effect may dominate over a longer-time horizon. Academic studies suggest that every percentage point rise in the government's debt-to-GDP ratio adds 2-3 basis points to the equilibrium level of bond yields. If this is correct, then a rise in the U.S. ratio of 25 percentage points over the next decade in the CBO's baseline would lift equilibrium long-term bond yields by a meaningful 50-75 basis points. Much depends, however, on global savings backdrop at the time. External Trade Gap: If global savings are plentiful, then it may not take much of a rise in U.S. interest rates to attract the necessary foreign inflows to fund both the higher U.S. federal deficit and the private sector's borrowing requirements. Of course, this implies a larger current account deficit and a faster accumulation of foreign IO Us. Twin Deficits The U.S. has run a current account deficit for most of the past 40 years, which has cumulated into a rising stock of foreign-owned debt. The Net International Investment Position (NIIP) is the difference between the stock of foreign assets held by U.S. residents and the stock of U.S. assets held by foreign investors. The NIIP has fallen increasingly into the red over the past few decades, reaching 40% of GDP today (Chart II-15). The current account deficit was 2.4% at the end of 2017, matching the post-Lehman average. Nonetheless, this deficit is set to worsen as increased domestic demand related to the fiscal stimulus is partly satisfied via higher imports. Chart II-15Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position We estimate that a two percentage point rise in the budget deficit relative to the baseline could add a percentage point or more to the current account deficit, taking it up close to 4% of GDP. Upward pressure on the external deficit will also be accentuated in the next few years to the extent that the U.S. business sector ramps up capital spending. The implication is that the NIIP will fall deeper into negative territory at an even faster pace. A 2% current account deficit would be roughly consistent with stabilization in the NIIP/GDP ratio. But a 4% deficit would cause the NIIP to deteriorate to almost 80% of GDP by 2040 (Chart II-15). The sustainability of the U.S. twin deficits has been an area of intense debate among academics and market practitioners for many years. The U.S. has been able to get away with the twin deficits for so long in part because of the dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. The critical role of the dollar in international transactions underpins global demand for the currency. This has allowed the U.S. to issue most of its debt obligations in U.S. dollars, forcing the currency risk onto foreign investors. The worry is that foreign investors will at some point begin to question the desirability of an oversized exposure to U.S. assets within their global portfolios. We argued in our April 2018 Special Report 4 that the U.S. situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar and Treasury bond prices are about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns about the unsustainability of the current account deficit. Even though the NIIP/GDP ratio will continue to deteriorate in the coming years, it does not appear that the U.S. is close to the point where foreign investors would begin to seriously question America's ability or willingness to service its debt. That said, the "twin deficits" and the downward trend in U.S. productivity relative to the rest of the world will ensure that the underlying long-term trend in the dollar will remain down (Chart II-16).5 Chart II-16Structural Drivers Of The U.S. Dollar Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar Conclusions The long-term U.S. fiscal outlook was dire even before the Great Recession and the associated shift to the political left in America. Fiscal conservatism is out of fashion and this is unlikely to change before the mid-2020s, no matter which party is in power. This means that a market riot will be required to shake voters and the political establishment into making the tough decisions. Given demographic trends, it appears more likely that taxes will rise than entitlements cut. We do not foresee a crisis occurring in the next few years. Nonetheless, arguing that the U.S. fiscal situation is sustainable for the foreseeable future does not mean that it is desirable. There will be costs associated with current fiscal trends, even on a relatively short 5-10 year horizon. Interest costs will mushroom, potentially crowding out government spending in other areas. U.S. government debt has already been downgraded by S&P to AA+ in 2013, and the other two main rating agencies are likely to follow suit during the next recession as the deficit balloons to 8% or more. Investors may begin to demand a risk premium in order to entice them to continually raise their exposure to U.S. government bonds in their portfolios. Taxes will eventually have to rise to service the government debt, and some capital spending will be crowded out, both of which will undermine the economy's growth potential. Finally, the dollar will also be weaker than it otherwise would be in the long-term, representing an erosion in America's standard of living because everything imported is more expensive. Could Japan offer a roadmap for the U.S.? The Bank of Japan has effectively monetized 43% of the JGB market and has control over yields, at least out to the 10-year maturity. Moreover, Japan has enjoyed a "free lunch" so far because monetization has not resulted in inflation. The reason that Japan has enjoyed a free lunch is that it has suffered from a chronic lack of demand and excess savings in the private sector. The government has persistently run a deficit and fiscally stimulated the economy in order to offset insufficient demand in the private sector. The Bank of Japan purchased bonds and drove short-term interest rates down to zero. These policies have made very slow progress in eradicating lingering deflationary economic forces. However, if animal spirits in the business sector perk up, then inflation could make a comeback unless the policy stimulus is dialed down in a timely manner. In other words, the BoJ-financed fiscal "free lunch" should disappear at some point. The U.S. is in a very different situation. There is no lack of aggregate demand or excessive savings in the private sector. The economy is at full employment, and thus persistent budget deficits should turn into inflation much more quickly than was the case in Japan. In other words, the U.S. is unlikely to enjoy much of a "free lunch", whether the Fed monetizes the debt or not. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Mandatory spending refers to entitlements; that is, government expenditure programs that are required by current law. These include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, government pensions and other smaller programs. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing The Median Voter Theory," June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "America's Fiscal Fortune: Leave Your Wallet On The Way Out," June 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed?," April, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 In the near term, fiscal stimulus and increased business capital spending will likely boost the dollar. But this effect on the dollar will reverse in the long-term.

Highlights We have been cautious on asset allocation on a tactical (3-month) horizon for two months. The backdrop has deteriorated enough that we believe that caution is now warranted beyond a tactical horizon. Trim exposure to global stocks to benchmark and place the proceeds in cash on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon. Government bonds remain at underweight. Our growth and earnings indicators are not flashing any warning signs. Indeed, while economic growth is peaking at the global level, it remains impressive in the U.S. Nonetheless, given the advanced stage of the economic cycle and the fact that a lot of good news is discounted in risk assets, we believe that it is better to be early and leave some money on the table than to be late. There are several risks that loom large enough to justify caution. First, the clash between monetary policy and the markets that we have been expecting is drawing closer. The FOMC may soon be forced to more aggressively tighten the monetary screws. The ECB signaled that it will push ahead with tapering. Perhaps even more important are escalating trade tensions, which could turn into a full-scale trade war with possible military implications. China has eased monetary policy slightly, but the broad thrust of past policy tightening will continue to weigh on growth. The RMB may be used to partially shield the economy from rising tariffs. Global bonds remain vulnerable. In the U.S., rate expectations in 2019 and beyond are still well below the path implied by a "gradual" tightening pace. In the Eurozone, there is also room for the discounted path of interest rates beyond the next year to move higher. Lighten up on both U.S. IG and HY corporate bonds, placing the proceeds at the short-end of the Treasury and Municipal bond curves. Duration should be kept short. We would consider upgrading if there is a meaningful correction in risk assets. More likely, however, we will shift to an outright bearish stance later this year or in early 2019 in anticipation of a global recession in 2020. Diverging growth momentum, along with the ongoing trade row, will continue to place upward pressure on the dollar. Shift to an overweight position in U.S. equities versus the other major markets on an unhedged basis. The risk of an oil price spike to the upside is rising. Feature The time to reduce risk-asset exposure on a cyclical horizon has arrived. Escalating risks and our assessment that equities and corporate bonds offered a poor risk/reward balance caused us to trim our tactical (3-month) allocation to risk assets to neutral two months ago. We left the 6-12 month cyclical view at overweight, because we expected to shed our near-term caution once the global slowdown ran its course, geopolitical risk calmed down a little, and EM assets stabilized. Nonetheless, the backdrop for global financial markets has deteriorated enough that we believe that caution is now warranted beyond a tactical horizon. It is not that there have been drastic changes in any particular area. Indeed, while profit growth is peaking at the global level, 12-month forward earnings continue to rise smartly in the major markets (Chart I-1). In the U.S., our corporate pricing power indicator is still climbing, forward earnings estimates have "gone vertical", and the net earnings revisions ratio is elevated (Chart I-2). The negative impact of this year's dollar strength on corporate profits will be trounced by robust sales activity. The U.S. economy is firing on all cylinders and growth appears likely to remain well above-trend in the second half of the year. Chart I-1Forward EPS Estimates Still Rising Forward EPS Estimates Still Rising Forward EPS Estimates Still Rising Chart I-2Some Mixed Signals For Stocks Some Mixed Signals For Stocks Some Mixed Signals For Stocks This economic and profit backdrop might make the timing of our downgrade seem odd at first glance. Nevertheless, valuations and the advanced stage of the economic and profit cycle mean that it is prudent to focus on capital preservation and be quicker to take profits than would be the case early in the cycle. BCA has recommended above-benchmark allocations to equities and corporate bonds for most of the time since mid-2009. There are several risks that loom large enough to justify taking some money off the table. One of our main themes for the year, set out in the 2018 BCA Outlook, is that markets are on a collision course with policy. This is particularly the case in the U.S. Real interest rates and monetary conditions still appear to be supportive by historical norms, but this cycle has been anything but normal and the level of real interest rates that constitute "neutral" today is highly uncertain. The fact that broad money growth has slowed in absolute terms and relative to nominal GDP is a worrying sign (Chart I-3). Dollar-based global liquidity is waning based on our proxy measure, which is particularly ominous for EM assets (bottom panel). Chart I-3Liquidity Conditions Are Deteriorating Liquidity Conditions Are Deteriorating Liquidity Conditions Are Deteriorating Moreover, our Equity Scorecard remained at 'two' in June, which is below a level that is consistent with positive excess returns in the equity market (please see the Overview section of the May 2018 Bank Credit Analyst). Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay indicator reveals that investment flows are no longer favoring stocks over bonds in the U.S. (Chart I-2). Perhaps even more importantly for the near term are the escalating trade tensions, which could turn into a full trade war with possible military implications (see below). These and other risks suggest to us that the period of "prudent caution" may extend well into the 6-12 month cyclical horizon. For those investors not already at neutral on equities and corporate bonds, we recommend trimming exposure and placing the proceeds in cash rather than bonds. Fixed-income remains at underweight. There are risks on both sides for government bonds, but we believe that it is more likely that yields rise than fall. Trade Woes: Not Yet At Peak Pessimism The Trump Administration upped the ante in June by announcing plans to impose tariffs on another $200 billion of Chinese exports to the U.S., as well as to restrict Chinese investment in the U.S. We would expect China to retaliate if this is implemented but, at that point, China's proportionate response would cover more goods than the entire range of U.S. imports. Retaliation will therefore have to occur elsewhere. Tariffs are bad enough, but our geopolitical team flags the risk that trade tensions spill over into the South China Sea and other areas of strategic disagreement. The South China Sea or Taiwan could produce market-moving "black swan" geopolitical events this year or next.1 The Trump Administration has also launched an investigation into the auto industry, and has threatened to tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Congress will likely push hard to save the agreement because it is important for so many U.S. companies, especially those with supply chains that criss-cross the borders with Canada and Mexico. Still, Trump has the option of triggering the six-month withdrawal period as a negotiating tactic to increase the pressure on the two trading partners. This would really rattle equity markets. Many believe that Trump will back away from his aggressive negotiating tactics if the U.S. stock market begins to feel pain. We would not bet on that. The President's popularity is high, and has not been overly correlated with the stock market. Moreover, blue collar workers, Trump's main support base, do not own many stocks. The implication is that the President will be willing to take risks with the equity market in order to score points with his base heading into the mid-term elections. The bottom line is that we do not believe that investors have seen "peak pessimism" on the trade front. A trade war would result in a lot of stranded capital, forcing investors to mark down the value of the companies in their portfolios. Can Trump Reduce The Trade Gap? One of the Administration's stated goals is to reduce the U.S. trade deficit. It is certainly fair to ask China to pay for the intellectual property it takes from other countries. Broadly speaking, rectifying unfair trade practices is always a good idea. However, erecting a higher tariff wall alone is unlikely to either shrink the trade gap or boost U.S. economic growth, especially given that other countries are retaliating in kind. During the 2016 election campaign, then-candidate Trump proposed a 35% and 45% across-the-board tariff on Mexican and Chinese imports, respectively. We estimated at the time that, with full retaliation, this policy would reduce U.S. real GDP by 1.2% over two years, not including any knock-on effects to global business confidence.2 Cancelling NAFTA would be much worse. The bottom line is that nobody wins a trade war. Moreover, the trade deficit is more likely to swell than deflate in the coming years, irrespective of U.S. trade policy action. The flip side of the U.S. external deficit is an excess of domestic investment over domestic savings. The latter is set to shrivel given the pending federal budget deficit blowout and the fact that the household savings rate continues to decline and is close to all-time lows. This, together with an expected acceleration in business capital spending, pretty much guarantees that the U.S. external deficit will swell in the next few years. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 18, discusses the consequences of the deteriorating long-term fiscal outlook and the associated "twin deficits" problem. We conclude that a market riot point will be required to change current trends. But even if disaster is avoided for a few more years, the dollar will ultimately be a casualty. In the near term, however, trade friction and the decoupling of U.S. from global growth should continue to support the dollar. We highlighted the divergence in growth momentum in last month's Overview. Fiscal policy is pumping up the U.S. economy, while trade woes are souring confidence abroad. Coincident and leading economic indicators confirm that the divergence will continue for at least the near term (Chart I-4). Policy Puts We do not believe that the current 'soft patch' in the Eurozone and Japanese economies will turn into anything worse over the next year. We are much more concerned with the Chinese economy. May data on industrial production, retail sales, and fixed asset investment all disappointed. Property prices in tier 1 cities are down year-over-year. Our leading indicator for the Li Keqiang index, a widely followed measure of economic activity, is in a clear downtrend (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Growth Divergence To Continue Growth Divergence To Continue Growth Divergence To Continue Chart I-5China's Growth Slowdown China's Growth Slowdown China's Growth Slowdown The authorities will likely provide fresh stimulus if the trade war intensifies. Indeed, recent statements from the Ministry of Finance suggest that planned fiscal spending for the year will be accelerated/brought forward, and the PBOC has already made a targeted cut to the reserve requirement ratio and reduced the relending rate for small company loans. Chart I-6U.S. Small Business Is Ecstatic U.S. Small Business Is Ecstatic U.S. Small Business Is Ecstatic However, the bar for a fresh round of material policy stimulus is higher today than it was in the past; elevated debt levels, excess capacity in some parts of the industrial sector, and worries about pollution all limit the extent to which the authorities can respond with monetary or fiscal stimulus. The most effective way for China to retaliate to rising U.S. tariffs is to weaken the RMB, but this too could be quite disruptive for financial markets and, thus, provides another reason for global investors to scale back on risk. Similarly, the bar is also rising in terms of the Fed's willingness to come to the rescue. Policymakers have signaled that they will not mind an overshoot of the inflation target. Nonetheless, the facts that core PCE inflation is closing in on 2% and that unemployment rate is well below the Fed's estimate of full employment, mean that the FOMC will be slower to jump to stock market's defense were there to be a market swoon. Small business owners are particularly bullish at the moment because of Trump's regulatory, fiscal and tax policies. The NFIB survey revealed that confidence soared to the second highest level in the survey's 45-year history (Chart I-6). Expansion plans are also the most robust in survey history. With the output gap effectively closed, increasing pressure on resource utilization should translate into faster wage gains and higher inflation. This was also quite apparent in the latest NFIB survey. Reports of higher compensation hit an all-time high as firms struggle to find qualified workers, and a growing proportion of small businesses plan to increase selling prices. Despite the signs of a very tight labor market, the FOMC's inconsistent macro projection remained in place in June. Policymakers expect continued above-trend growth for 2018-2020, but they forecast a flat jobless rate and core inflation at 3.5% and 2.1%, respectively. If the Fed is right on growth, then the overshoot of inflation will surely be larger than officials are currently expecting. Risk assets will come under downward pressure when the Fed is forced to shift into a higher gear and actively target slower economic growth. We expect the Fed to hike more aggressively next year than is discounted, and lift the consensus 'dot' for the neutral Fed funds rate from the current 2¾-3% range. Bonds remain vulnerable to this shift because rate expectations in 2019 and beyond are still well below the path implied by a "gradual" quarter-point-per-meeting tightening pace (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Market Expectations For Fed Funds Are Below A ''Gradual'' Pace Market Expectations For Fed Funds Are Below A ''Gradual'' Pace Market Expectations For Fed Funds Are Below A ''Gradual'' Pace At a minimum, rising inflation pressures have narrowed the Fed's room to maneuver, which means that the "Fed Put" is less of a market support. Italy Backs Away From The Brink Last month we flagged Italy as a reason to avoid risk in financial markets, but we are less concerned today. We believe that Italy will eventually cause more volatility in global financial markets, but for the short-term it appears that this risk has faded. The reason is that the M5S-Lega coalition has already punted on three of its most populist promises: wholesale change to retirement reforms, a flat tax of 15%, and universal basic income. The back-of-the-envelope cost of these three proposals is €100bn, which would easily blow out Italy's budget deficit to 7% of GDP. There was also no mention of issuing government IOUs that would create a sort of "parallel currency" in the country. If this is wrong and there is another blowout in Italian government spreads, investors should fade any resulting contagion to the peripheral countries. Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain - the hardest-hit economies in 2010 - have undertaken significant fiscal adjustment and, unlike Italy, have closed a lot of the competitiveness gap relative to Germany. Spread widening in these countries related to troubles in Italy should be considered a buying opportunity.3 ECB: Tapering To Continue The ECB looked through the recent Italian political turmoil and struck a confident tone in the June press conference. President Draghi described the first quarter cooling of the euro area economy as a soft patch driven mainly by external demand. We agree with the ECB President; in last month's Overview we highlighted several factors that had provided extra lift to the Eurozone economy last year. These tailwinds are now fading, but we believe that growth is simply returning to a more sustainable, but still above-trend, pace. That said, rising trade tensions are a wildcard to the economic outlook, especially because of Europe's elevated trade sensitivity. Draghi provided greater clarity on the outlook for asset purchases and interest rates. The pace of monthly purchases will slow from the current €30bn to €15bn in the final three months of year and then come to a complete end (Chart I-8). On interest rates, the ECB expects rates to remain at current levels "at least through the summer of 2019". This means that September 2019 could be the earliest timing for the ECB to deliver the first rate hike. Chart I-8ECB Balance Sheet Will Soon Stop Growing ECB Balance Sheet Will Soon Stop Growing ECB Balance Sheet Will Soon Stop Growing We agree with this assessment on the timing of the first rate increase. It will likely take that long for inflation to move into the 1½-2% range, and for long-term inflation expectations to surpass 2%. These thresholds are consistent with the ECB's previous rate hike cycles. Still, there is room for the discounted path of interest rates beyond the next year to move higher as Eurozone economic slack is absorbed. The number of months to the first rate hike discounted in the market has also moved too far out (24 months). Thus, we expect that bunds will contribute to upward pressure on global yields. Bond investors should be underweight the Eurozone within global fixed income portfolios. In contrast, we recommend overweight positions in U.K. gilts because market expectations for the Bank of England (BoE) are too hawkish. Investors should fade the central bank's assertion that policymakers now have a lower interest rate threshold for beginning to shrink the balance sheet. The knee-jerk rally in the pound and gilt selloff in June will not last. First, the OECD's leading economic indicator remains in a downtrend, warning that the U.K. economy faces downside risks (Chart I-9). Second, Brexit uncertainty will only increase into the March 2019 deadline. Prime Minister May managed to win a key parliamentary vote on the Withdrawal Bill in late June, but the Tories will face more tests ahead, including a vote on the Trade and Customs Bill. The fault lines between the hard and soft Brexiteers within the Tory party could bring an early end to May's government. Either May could be replaced with a hard Brexit prime minister, such as Brexit Secretary David Davis, or the U.K. could face a new general election. The latter implies the prospect of a Labour-led government. Admittedly, this will ensure a soft Brexit, but Jeremy Corbyn would almost surely herald far-left economic policies that will dampen business sentiment. As a result, we believe that the BoE is sidelined for the remainder of the year, which will keep a lid on gilt yields and sterling. Corporate Bonds: Poor Value And Rising Leverage Our newfound caution for equities on a 6-12 month investment horizon carries over to the corporate bond space. Corporate balance sheets have been deteriorating since 2015 Q1 based on our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM). The first quarter's improvement in the CHM simply reflected the tax cuts and thus does not represent a change in trend (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Fade BoE Hawkish Talk Fade BoE Hawkish Talk Fade BoE Hawkish Talk Chart I-10Q1 Improvement In Corporate ##br##Health To Reverse Q1 Improvement In Corporate Health To Reverse Q1 Improvement In Corporate Health To Reverse The improvement was concentrated in the components of the Monitor that use after-tax cash flows, and as such they were influenced by the sharp decline in the corporate tax rate. Profit margins, for example, increased from 25.8% to 26.4% on an after-tax basis in Q1 (Chart I-10, panel 2), but would have fallen to 25.5% if the effective corporate tax rate had remained the same as in 2017 Q4. As the effective corporate tax rate levels-off around its new lower level (bottom panel), last quarter's improvement in the Corporate Health Monitor will start to unwind. More importantly, the corporate sector has been leveraging aggressively, as we highlighted in our special reports that analysed company-level data from the U.S. and the Eurozone.4 We highlighted that investors and rating agencies are not too concerned about leverage at the moment, but that will change when growth slows. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to plunge to new historic lows (Charts I-11A and I-11B). Chart I-11ACorporate Leverage Will Come ##br##Back To Haunt Bondholders Corporate Leverage Will Come Back To Haunt Corporate Leverage Will Come Back To Haunt Chart I-11BCorporate Leverage Will Come ##br##Back To Haunt Bondholders Corporate Leverage Will Come Back To Haunt Corporate Leverage Will Come Back To Haunt Both U.S. investment grade (IG) and high-yield (HY) corporates are expensive, but not at an extreme, based on the 12-month breakeven spread.5 However, both IG and HY are actually extremely overvalued once we adjust for gross leverage (Chart I-12). Chart I-12U.S. Leverage - Adjusted ##br##Corporate Bond Valuation U.S. Leverage - Adjusted Corporate Bond Valuation U.S. Leverage - Adjusted Corporate Bond Valuation We have highlighted several other indicators to watch to time the exit from corporate bonds. These include long-term inflation expectations (when the 10-year TIPS inflation breakeven reaches the 2.3-2.5% range), bank lending standards for C&I loans, the slope of the yield curve, and real short-term interest rates or monetary conditions. While monetary conditions have tightened, the overall message from these indicators as a group is that it is still somewhat early to expect rising corporate defaults and sustained spread widening. That said, we have also emphasized that it is very late in the credit cycle and return expectations are quite low. Excess returns historically have been modest when the U.S. 3-month/10-year yield curve slope has been in the 0-50 basis point range. Similar to our logic behind trimming our equity exposure, the expected excess return from corporate bonds no longer justifies the risk. We recommend lightening up on both U.S. IG and HY corporate bonds, moving to benchmark and placing the proceeds at the short-end of the Treasury and Municipal bond curves. Duration should be kept short. Also downgrade EM hard currency sovereign and corporate debt to maximum underweight. We are already underweight on Eurozone corporates within European fixed-income portfolios due to the pending end to the ECB QE program. Conclusions The political situation in Italy and tensions vis-à-vis North Korea appear to be less of a potential landmine for investors, at least for the next year. Nonetheless, the risks have not diminished overall - they have simply rotated into other areas such as international trade. It is also worrying that the FOMC will have to become more aggressive in toning down the labor market. What makes the asset allocation decision especially difficult is that the economic and earnings backdrop in the U.S. is currently constructive for risk assets. Nonetheless, recessions and bear markets are always difficult to spot in real time. Given the advanced stage of the economic cycle and the fact that a lot of good news is discounted in risk assets, we believe that it is better to be early and leave some money on the table than to be late and go over the cliff. This does not mean that we will recommend a neutral allocation to risk assets for the remainder of the economic expansion. We would consider upgrading if there is a meaningful correction in equity and corporate bond prices at a time when our growth indicators remain positive. More likely, however, we will shift to an outright bearish stance on risk assets later this year or in early 2019 in anticipation of global recession in 2020. The divergence in growth momentum between the U.S. and the rest of the major economies, along with the ongoing trade row, will continue to place upward pressure on the dollar. We envision the following pecking order from weakest to strongest currency versus the greenback: dollar bloc and EM commodity currencies, non-commodity sensitive EM currencies, the euro and yen. The Canadian dollar is an exception; we are bullish versus the U.S. dollar beyond a short-term horizon due to expected Bank of Canada rate hikes. Tightening financial conditions are likely to culminate in a crisis in one or more EM countries; as a share of GDP, exports and international reserves, U.S. dollar debt is at levels not seen in over 15 years. Slowing Chinese growth and trade tensions just add to the risk in this space. The recent upturn in base metal prices will likely reverse if we are correct on the Chinese growth outlook. Oil is a different story, despite our bullish dollar view. OPEC 2.0 - the oil-producer coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia - agreed in June to raise oil output by 1 million bpd. The coalition aims to increase production to compensate for an over-compliance of previous deals to trim output, as well as production losses due to lack of investment and maintenance (Chart I-13). The bulk of the losses reflect the free-fall in Venezuela's output. Our oil experts believe that OPEC 2.0 does not have much spare capacity to lift output. Meanwhile, the trend decline in production by non-OPEC 2.0 states is being magnified by unplanned outages in places like Nigeria, Libya and Canada. While U.S. shale producers can be expected to grow their output, infrastructure constraints - chiefly insufficient pipeline capacity to take all of the crude that can be produced in the Permian Basin to market - will continue to limit growth in the short-term. In the face of robust demand, the risk to oil prices thus remains to the upside. A stronger dollar will somewhat undermine the profits of U.S. multinationals. U.S. equities also appear a little expensive versus Europe and Japan based on our composite valuation indicators (Chart I-14). Nonetheless, the sector composition of the U.S. stock market is more defensive than it is elsewhere and relative economic growth will favor the U.S. market. On balance, we no longer believe that euro area and Japanese equities will outperform the U.S. in local currency terms. Overweight the U.S. market on an unhedged basis. Chart I-13Oil Production Outlook Oil Production Outlook Oil Production Outlook Chart I-14Composite Equity Valuation Indicators Composite Equity Valuation Indicators Composite Equity Valuation Indicators Consistent with our shift in broad asset allocation this month, we have adjusted our global equity sector allocation to be more defensive. Materials and Industrials were downgraded to underweight, while Healthcare and Telecoms were upgraded (Consumer Staples was already overweight). Financials was downgraded to benchmark because the flattening term structure is expected to pressure net interest margins. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 28, 2018 Next Report: July 26, 2018 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?," March 28, 2017 and "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan," March 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Overview, dated December 2016, Box I-1. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap?," June 13, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, March 2018 and June 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 The breakeven spread is the amount of spread widening that would have to occur over 12 months for corporates to underperform Treasurys. We focus on the breakeven spread to adjust for changes in the average duration of the index over time. II. U.S. Fiscal Policy: An Unprecedented Macro Experiment Congress is conducting a major economic experiment that has never been attempted in the U.S. outside of wartime; substantial fiscal stimulus when the economy is already at full employment. The budget deficit is on track to surpass 6% of GDP in a few years. It would likely peak above 8% in the case of a recession. The alarming long-term U.S. fiscal outlook is well known, but it has just become far worse. The combination of rising life expectancy and a decline in the ratio of taxpayers to retirees will place growing financial strains on the Social Security and Medicare systems. The federal government will be spilling far more red ink over the next decade than during any economic expansion phase since the 1940s. The debt/GDP ratio could surpass the previous peak set during WWII within 12 years. Shockingly large budget deficits in the past have sparked some attempt in Congress to limit the damage. Unfortunately, there will be little appetite to tighten the fiscal purse strings for the next decade. Voters have shifted to the left and politicians are following along. Factors that explain the political shift include disappointing income growth, income inequality, and rising political clout for Millennials, Hispanics and the elderly. Fiscal conservatism is out of fashion and this is unlikely to change over the next decade, no matter which party is in power. This means that a market riot will be required to shake voters and the political establishment into making the tough decisions necessary. While the U.S. is not at imminent risk of a market riot over the deteriorating fiscal trends, there are costs: in the long-term, the dollar will be weaker, borrowing rates will be higher and living standards will be lower than otherwise would be the case. Profligacy: (Noun) Unconstrained by convention or morality. Congress is conducting a major economic experiment that has never been attempted before in the U.S. outside of wartime; substantial fiscal stimulus at a time when the economy is already at full employment. Investors are celebrating the growth-positive aspects of the new fiscal tailwind at the moment, but it may wind up generating a party that is followed by a hangover as the Fed is forced to lean hard against the resulting inflationary pressures. Moreover, even in the absence of a recession, the federal government will likely be spilling far more red ink than during any economic expansion since the 1940s (Chart II-1). What are the long-term implications of this macro experiment? Will the U.S. continue to easily fund large and sustained budget deficits? Chart II-1U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period Historically, shockingly large budget deficits sparked some attempt by Congress to limit the damage. Unfortunately, we argue in this Special Report that there will be little appetite to tighten the fiscal purse strings for the next decade. Voters have shifted to the left and politicians are following along. While the U.S. is not at imminent risk of a market riot over the deteriorating fiscal trends, the dollar will be weaker, borrowing rates will be higher and living standards will be lower than otherwise would be the case. On The Bright Side The Trump tax cuts, the immediate expensing of capital spending and a lighter regulatory touch have stirred animal spirits in the U.S. The Administration's trade policies are a source of concern, but CEO confidence is generally high. The NFIB survey highlights that small business owners are almost euphoric regarding the outlook. The IMF estimates that the tax cuts and less restrictive spending caps will provide a direct fiscal thrust of 0.8% in 2018 and 0.9% in 2019 (Chart II-2). The overall impact on the economy over the next 12-18 months could be larger to the extent that business leaders follow through on their newfound bullishness and ramp up capital spending. Chart II-2Lots Of Fiscal Stimulus In 2018 And 2019 July 2018 July 2018 Fiscal policy is a clear positive for stocks and other risk assets in the near term, as long as inflation is slow to respond. In addition to the near-term boost, there will be longer-term benefits from the 2017 tax act. Various provisions of the act affect the long-run productive potential of the U.S. economy, by promoting increases in investment and labor supply. Corporate tax cuts and the full expensing of business capital outlays should permanently increase the nation's capital stock relative to what it otherwise would be, leading to a slightly faster trend pace of productivity growth. Similarly, lower income taxes are projected to encourage more people to enter the workforce or to work longer hours. The CBO estimates that the tax act will boost the level of potential real GDP by 0.9% by the middle of the next decade. This may not sound like much, but it translates into almost a million extra jobs. The supply-side benefits of the 2017 tax act are therefore meaningful. Unfortunately, given the lack of offsetting spending cuts, it comes at the cost of a dramatically worse medium- and long-term outlook for government debt. The CBO estimates that the recent changes in fiscal policy will cumulatively add $1.7 trillion to the federal government's debt pile, relative to the previous baseline (Chart II-3). The annual deficit is projected to surpass $1 trillion in 2020, and peak as a share of GDP at 5.4% in 2022. Federal government debt held by the private sector will rise from 76% this year to 96% in 2028 in this scenario. Chart II-3Comparing To The Reagan Era Comparing To The Reagan Era Comparing To The Reagan Era The budget situation begins to look better after 2020 in the CBO's baseline forecast because a raft of "temporary provisions" are assumed to sunset as per current law, including some of the personal tax cuts and deductions included in the 2017 tax package. As is usually the case, the vast majority of these provisions are likely to be extended. The CBO performed an alternative scenario in which it extends the temporary provisions and grows the spending caps at the rate of inflation after 2020. In this more realistic scenario, the deficit reaches 7% of GDP by 2028 and the federal debt-to-GDP ratio hits 105% (Chart II-3). Moreover, there will undoubtedly be a recession sometime in the next five years. Even a mild downturn, on par with the early 1990s, could inflate the budget deficit to 8% or more of GDP. The Demographic Time Bomb Chart II-4The Withering Support Ratio The Withering Support Ratio The Withering Support Ratio The pressure that the aging population will place on federal coffers over the medium term is well known, but it is worth reviewing in light of Washington's new attitude toward deficit financing. The combination of rising life expectancy and a decline in the ratio of taxpayers to retirees will place growing financial strains on the Social Security and Medicare systems. In 1970, there were 5.4 people between the ages of 20 and 64 for every person 65 or older. That ratio has since dropped to 4 and will be down to 2.6 within the next 20 years (Chart II-4). Spending on entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Income Security and government pensions) is on an unsustainable trajectory (Charts II-5 and II-6). In fiscal 2017, these programs absorbed 76% of federal revenues and the CBO estimates that this will rise to almost 100% by 2028, absent any change in law. If we also include net interest costs, total mandatory spending1 is projected to exceed total federal government revenues as early as next year, meaning that deficit financing will be required for all discretionary spending. Chart II-5Entitlements Will Explode ##br##Mandatory Spending Entitlements Will Explode Mandatory Spending Entitlements Will Explode Mandatory Spending Chart II-6All Discretionary Spending ##br##To Be Deficit Financed? All Discretionary Spending To Be Deficit Financed? All Discretionary Spending To Be Deficit Financed? The CBO last published a multi-decade outlook in 2017 (Chart II-7). The Federal debt/GDP ratio was projected to reach 150% by 2047. If we adjust this for the new (higher) starting point in 2028 provided by the CBO's alternative scenario, the debt/GDP ratio would top 164% in 2047. Chart II-7An Unsustainable Debt Accumulation An Unsustainable Debt Accumulation An Unsustainable Debt Accumulation To put this into perspective, the demands of WWII swelled the federal debt/GDP ratio to 106% in 1946, the highest on record going back to the early 1700s (Chart II-8). The debt ratio could rocket past that level before 2030, even in the absence of a recession. Chart II-8U.S. Debt In Historical Context U.S. Debt In Historical Context U.S. Debt In Historical Context These extremely long-term projections are only meant to be suggestive. A lot of things can happen in the coming years that could make the trajectory better or even worse. But the point is that current levels of taxation are insufficient to fund entitlements in their current form in the long run. Chart II-9 shows that outlays as a share of GDP have persistently exceeded revenues since the mid-1970s, except for a brief period during the Clinton Administration. The gap is set to widen over the coming decade. Something will have to give. Chart II-9U.S. Outlays And Revenues U.S. Outlays And Revenues U.S. Outlays And Revenues Forget Starving The Beast "Starve the Beast" refers to the idea that the size of government can be restrained through a low-tax regime that spurs growth and pressures Congress to cut spending and control the budget deficit. It has been the mantra of Republicans since the Reagan era. The 1981 Reagan tax cuts included an across-the-board reduction in marginal tax rates, taking the top rate down from 70% to 50%. Corporate taxes were slashed by $150 billion over a 5-year period and tax rates were indexed for inflation, among other changes. It was not surprising that the budget deficit subsequently ballooned. Outrage grew among fiscal conservatives, but Congress spent the next few years passing laws to reverse the loss of revenues, rather than aggressively attacking the spending side. Today, Congressional fiscal hawks are in retreat and the Republican Party under President Donald Trump is not as fiscally conservative as it once was. This trend reflects the pull toward the center of the economic policy spectrum in response to a shift to the left among voters. BCA's political strategists have highlighted that this is the "median voter theory" (MVT) in action.2 The MVT posits that parties and politicians will approximate the policy choices of the median voter in order to win an election or stay in power. Every U.S. presidential election involves candidates making a mad dash to the most popularly appealing positions. President Trump exhibited this process when he ran in the Republican primary on a platform of increased infrastructure spending and zero cuts to "entitlement" spending. The Great Financial Crisis, disappointingly slow growth, stagnating middle class incomes and the widening income distribution have resulted in a leftward shift among voters on economic issues. Adding to the shift is the rising political clout of the Millennial generation, which generally favors more government involvement in the economy and will become the major voting block as it ages in the 2020s. There also are important changes underway in the ethnic composition of the electorate. The rising proportion of Hispanic voters will on balance favor the Democrats, according to voting trends (Chart II-10). A previous Special Report by Peter Berezin, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, predicted that Texas will become a swing state in as little as a decade and a solid Democrat state by 2030.3 Chart II-10The Proportion Of Minority Voters Set To Grow The Proportion Of Minority Voters Set To Grow The Proportion Of Minority Voters Set To Grow President Trump's shift to the left on economic policy helped him to out-flank Clinton in the election, particularly in the Rust Belt, where his protectionist and anti-austerity message resonated. Even his anti-immigration appeal is mostly based on economic reasoning - i.e. jobs, rather than cultural factors. Trump has admitted that he is not all that concerned about taking the country deeper into hock. The Republican rank-and-file has generally gone along with Trump's agenda because he has delivered traditional Republican tax cuts and continues to rate highly among his supporters (his approval is around 90% among Republicans). Fiscal hawks within the GOP have been forced to the sidelines while Trump and moderate Republicans have passed bipartisan spending increases with Democratic assistance. Where's The Outrage? Chart II-11Entitlements Are Popular* July 2018 July 2018 The implication is that, unlike the Reagan years, we do not expect there will be a strong political force capable of leading a fight against budget deficits. After a decade of disappointing income growth, voters are in no mood for tax hikes. On the spending side, health care and pensions are still politically untouchable. A recent study by the Pew Research Center confirms that only a very small percentage of Americans of either political stripe would agree with cuts to spending on education, Medicare, Social Security, defense, infrastructure, veterans or anti-terrorism efforts (Chart II-11). It is therefore no surprise that a populist such as Trump has promised to defend entitlement programs. Moreover, the graying of America will make it increasingly difficult for politicians to tame the entitlement beast. An aging population might generally favor the GOP, but it will also solidify opposition towards cutting Medicare and Social Security. As for defense, U.S. military spending was 3.3% of GDP and almost 15% of total spending in 2017 (Chart II-12). Congress recently lifted the spending cap for defense expenditures, but it is still projected to fall as a share of total government spending and GDP in the coming years. It is conceivable that Congress could eventually trim the defense budget even faster, but spending is already low by historical standards and it is hard to see any future Congress gutting the military at a time when the global challenge from China and Russia is rising. Indeed, given the geopolitical atmosphere of great power competition, defense spending is more likely to rise. Chart II-12What's Left To Cut? What's Left To Cut? What's Left To Cut? So, what is left to cut? If entitlements and defense are off the table, that leaves non-defense discretionary spending as the sacrificial lamb. This category includes spending by the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Justice, State and Veteran Affairs. Such spending has already declined sharply during the past several decades (Chart II-12). Non-defense discretionary spending amounted to $610 billion in 2017, which is only 15.3% of total federal spending. To put this into perspective, cutting every last cent of non-defense discretionary spending by 2022 would still leave a budget deficit of about 2½% of GDP. And it would be political suicide. The Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice and Veterans Affairs account for more than half of non-defense discretionary spending. But these programs are very popular among voters. And, at only 1.3% of total spending, eliminating all foreign aid won't make much difference. Either President Trump or Vice-President Mike Pence will be the GOP presidential candidate in 2020. Pence could be more fiscally conservative than Trump, but Congress is unlikely to remain GOP-controlled through 2024. Similarly, it is difficult to see the Democrats making more than a token effort to rein in the deficit if the party is in charge after 2020. Perhaps they will raise taxes on the rich and push the corporate rate back up a bit, but voters will probably not favor a full reversal of the Trump tax cuts. Democrats will not tackle entitlements either. In other words, we can forget about "starving the beast" as a viable option no matter which party is in power. There will be little appetite for fiscal austerity in the U.S. through to the mid-2020s at a minimum. International Comparison This all places the U.S. out of sync with other major industrialized countries, where structural budget deficits have been tamed in most cases and are expected to remain so according to the IMF's latest projections (Chart II-13). The U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit is projected to be almost 7% of GDP in 2019, by far the highest among other industrialized countries except for Norway. Spain and Italy are expected to have relatively small structural deficits of 2½% and 0.8%, respectively, next year. Greece is running a small structural surplus! Including all levels of government, the IMF estimates that the U.S. general government gross debt/GDP ratio is projected to be well above that of the U.K., France, Germany, Spain and Portugal in 2023 (Chart II-14). It is expected to be on par with Italy at that time, although the newly-installed populist government there is likely to negotiate a loosening of the fiscal rules with Brussels, leading to higher debt levels than the IMF currently expects. The implication is that the U.S. government appears destined to become one of the most indebted in the developed world. Chart II-13U.S. Budget Deficit Stands Out July 2018 July 2018 Chart II-14International Debt Comparison July 2018 July 2018 The Fiscal Tipping Point Investors are not yet worried about the path of U.S. fiscal policy; the yield curve is quite flat, CDS spreads on U.S. Treasurys have not moved and the dollar is still overvalued by most traditional measures. The challenge is timing when a fiscally-induced crisis might occur. A warning bell does not ring when government debt or deficits reach certain levels. Fiscal trends generally do not suddenly spiral out of control - it is a gradual and insidious process reflected in multi-year deficits and slowly accumulating debt burdens. Eventually, a tipping point is reached where the only solution is drastic policy shifts or in extreme cases, default. Along the way, there are a number of signs that fiscal trends are entering dangerous territory. The relevance of the various signs will be different for each country, reflecting, among other things, the depth and structure of the financial system, the soundness of the economy, the dependence on foreign capital, and the asset preferences of domestic investors. Some key signs of building fiscal stress are given in Box II-1. None of the factors in Box II-1 appear to be a threat at the moment for the U.S. Moreover, comparisons with other countries that have hit the debt wall in the past are not that helpful because the U.S. is a special case. It has a huge economy and has political and military clout. The dollar is the world's main reserve currency and the country is able to borrow in its own currency. This suggests that the U.S. will be able to "get away with" its borrowing habit for longer than other countries have in the past. At the same time, financial markets are fickle and, even with hindsight, it not always clear why investors switch from acceptance to bearishness about a particular state of affairs. BOX II-1 Traditional Signs Of An Approaching Debt Crisis Government deficits absorb a rising share of net private savings, leaving little for new investment. Interest payments account for an increasingly large share of government revenues, squeezing out discretionary spending and requiring tough budget action merely to stop the deficit from rising. The government exhausts its ability to raise tax burdens. Traditional sources of debt finance dry up, requiring alternative funding strategies. Fears of inflation and/or default lead to a rising risk premium on interest rates and/ or a falling exchange rate. Political shifts occur as governments get blamed for eroding living standards, high taxes, and continued pressure to cut spending. The Costs Of Fiscal Profligacy Even if the U.S. is not near a fiscal tipping point, this does not mean that massive debt accumulation is costless: Interest Costs: Spending 3% of GDP on servicing the federal government's debt load over the next decade is not a disaster. Nonetheless, it does reduce the tax dollars available to fund entitlements or investing in infrastructure. Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy: Lawmakers would have less flexibility to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected events, such as natural disasters or recessions. As noted above, a recession in 2020 could generate a federal deficit of more than 8% of GDP. In that case, Congress may feel constrained in supporting the economy with even temporary fiscal stimulus. National Savings: Because government borrowing reduces national savings, then either capital spending must assume a smaller share of the economy or the U.S. must borrow more from abroad. Most likely it will be some combination of both. Crowding Out: If global savings are not in plentiful supply, then the additional U.S. debt issuance will place upward pressure on domestic interest rates and thereby "crowd out" business capital spending. This would reduce the nation's capital stock, leading to lower growth in productivity and living standards than would otherwise be the case. The CBO estimates that the positive impact on the capital stock from the changes to the corporate tax structure will overwhelm the negative impact from higher interest rates over the next decade. Nonetheless, the crowding out effect may dominate over a longer-time horizon. Academic studies suggest that every percentage point rise in the government's debt-to-GDP ratio adds 2-3 basis points to the equilibrium level of bond yields. If this is correct, then a rise in the U.S. ratio of 25 percentage points over the next decade in the CBO's baseline would lift equilibrium long-term bond yields by a meaningful 50-75 basis points. Much depends, however, on global savings backdrop at the time. External Trade Gap: If global savings are plentiful, then it may not take much of a rise in U.S. interest rates to attract the necessary foreign inflows to fund both the higher U.S. federal deficit and the private sector's borrowing requirements. Of course, this implies a larger current account deficit and a faster accumulation of foreign IO Us. Twin Deficits The U.S. has run a current account deficit for most of the past 40 years, which has cumulated into a rising stock of foreign-owned debt. The Net International Investment Position (NIIP) is the difference between the stock of foreign assets held by U.S. residents and the stock of U.S. assets held by foreign investors. The NIIP has fallen increasingly into the red over the past few decades, reaching 40% of GDP today (Chart II-15). The current account deficit was 2.4% at the end of 2017, matching the post-Lehman average. Nonetheless, this deficit is set to worsen as increased domestic demand related to the fiscal stimulus is partly satisfied via higher imports. Chart II-15Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position We estimate that a two percentage point rise in the budget deficit relative to the baseline could add a percentage point or more to the current account deficit, taking it up close to 4% of GDP. Upward pressure on the external deficit will also be accentuated in the next few years to the extent that the U.S. business sector ramps up capital spending. The implication is that the NIIP will fall deeper into negative territory at an even faster pace. A 2% current account deficit would be roughly consistent with stabilization in the NIIP/GDP ratio. But a 4% deficit would cause the NIIP to deteriorate to almost 80% of GDP by 2040 (Chart II-15). The sustainability of the U.S. twin deficits has been an area of intense debate among academics and market practitioners for many years. The U.S. has been able to get away with the twin deficits for so long in part because of the dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. The critical role of the dollar in international transactions underpins global demand for the currency. This has allowed the U.S. to issue most of its debt obligations in U.S. dollars, forcing the currency risk onto foreign investors. The worry is that foreign investors will at some point begin to question the desirability of an oversized exposure to U.S. assets within their global portfolios. We argued in our April 2018 Special Report 4 that the U.S. situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar and Treasury bond prices are about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns about the unsustainability of the current account deficit. Even though the NIIP/GDP ratio will continue to deteriorate in the coming years, it does not appear that the U.S. is close to the point where foreign investors would begin to seriously question America's ability or willingness to service its debt. That said, the "twin deficits" and the downward trend in U.S. productivity relative to the rest of the world will ensure that the underlying long-term trend in the dollar will remain down (Chart II-16).5 Chart II-16Structural Drivers Of The U.S. Dollar Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar Conclusions The long-term U.S. fiscal outlook was dire even before the Great Recession and the associated shift to the political left in America. Fiscal conservatism is out of fashion and this is unlikely to change before the mid-2020s, no matter which party is in power. This means that a market riot will be required to shake voters and the political establishment into making the tough decisions. Given demographic trends, it appears more likely that taxes will rise than entitlements cut. We do not foresee a crisis occurring in the next few years. Nonetheless, arguing that the U.S. fiscal situation is sustainable for the foreseeable future does not mean that it is desirable. There will be costs associated with current fiscal trends, even on a relatively short 5-10 year horizon. Interest costs will mushroom, potentially crowding out government spending in other areas. U.S. government debt has already been downgraded by S&P to AA+ in 2013, and the other two main rating agencies are likely to follow suit during the next recession as the deficit balloons to 8% or more. Investors may begin to demand a risk premium in order to entice them to continually raise their exposure to U.S. government bonds in their portfolios. Taxes will eventually have to rise to service the government debt, and some capital spending will be crowded out, both of which will undermine the economy's growth potential. Finally, the dollar will also be weaker than it otherwise would be in the long-term, representing an erosion in America's standard of living because everything imported is more expensive. Could Japan offer a roadmap for the U.S.? The Bank of Japan has effectively monetized 43% of the JGB market and has control over yields, at least out to the 10-year maturity. Moreover, Japan has enjoyed a "free lunch" so far because monetization has not resulted in inflation. The reason that Japan has enjoyed a free lunch is that it has suffered from a chronic lack of demand and excess savings in the private sector. The government has persistently run a deficit and fiscally stimulated the economy in order to offset insufficient demand in the private sector. The Bank of Japan purchased bonds and drove short-term interest rates down to zero. These policies have made very slow progress in eradicating lingering deflationary economic forces. However, if animal spirits in the business sector perk up, then inflation could make a comeback unless the policy stimulus is dialed down in a timely manner. In other words, the BoJ-financed fiscal "free lunch" should disappear at some point. The U.S. is in a very different situation. There is no lack of aggregate demand or excessive savings in the private sector. The economy is at full employment, and thus persistent budget deficits should turn into inflation much more quickly than was the case in Japan. In other words, the U.S. is unlikely to enjoy much of a "free lunch", whether the Fed monetizes the debt or not. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Mandatory spending refers to entitlements; that is, government expenditure programs that are required by current law. These include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, government pensions and other smaller programs. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing The Median Voter Theory," June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "America's Fiscal Fortune: Leave Your Wallet On The Way Out," June 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed?," April, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 In the near term, fiscal stimulus and increased business capital spending will likely boost the dollar. But this effect on the dollar will reverse in the long-term. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The divergence between the U.S. corporate earnings data and our equity-related indicators continued in June. Forward earnings estimates continue to climb at an impressive pace. The U.S. net revisions ratio pulled back a little, but remains well above the zero line. Moreover, positive earnings surprises continue to trounce negative surprises. That said, the earnings upgrades are partly due to the Trump tax cuts, which are still being reflected in analysts' estimates. Second, some of our indicators are warning that there are clouds on the horizon. Our Monetary Indicator has fallen to levels that are low by historical standards, which is a negative sign for risk assets. This partly reflects the slowdown in growth in the monetary aggregates (see the Overview section). Our Equity Technical Indicator is threatening to dip below the zero line, which would be a clear 'sell' signal. Our Equity Valuation Indicator is flirting with our threshold of overvaluation, at +1 standard deviations. This is not bearish on its own, but valuation does provide information on the downside risks when the correction finally occurs. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. has rolled over, although this hasn't yet occurred for Japan and the Eurozone. 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. This indicator suggests that flows into the U.S. stock market are waning. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on a 'sell' signal in June. 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. The dollar is expensive on a PPP basis, but is not yet overbought. The long-term outlook for the dollar is down, but it has more upside in the next 6-12 months. 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

Please note that we are also publishing a Special Report on Mexico. Highlights The selloff in EM financial markets has been induced by slowing global trade amid lingering poor EM fundamentals. The Federal Reserve's resolve to tighten is aggravating the situation but is not the main cause of the EM turmoil. Consequently, the necessary conditions for a reversal in ongoing EM turbulence are not the Fed turning dovish but rather a bottom in the global trade cycle and China's growth. The latter two are not on the horizon, and we therefore believe there is much more downside in EM risk assets and currencies. Feature In our trip to Asia last week, the majority of investors we met attributed the current emerging market (EM) selloff to Federal Reserve tightening and trade wars. While we are not suggesting that the Fed tightening or trade war rhetoric have not impacted EM risk assets, we do contend that these reasons are inadequate to explain the selloff. In our opinion, the EM selloff has as much been driven by a slowdown in global trade as by expectations of higher U.S. interest rates and other factors. Diagnosing the underlying bases of a market move correctly is instrumental in gauging its sustainability and an eventual reversal. If one believes that the EM selloff has been due to the Fed, it would require the Fed turning dovish for the selloff to halt and reverse. If, however, the EM carnage has been driven by slowing global trade, the necessary condition for a reversal would be a bottom in the global trade cycle. In such a case, a dovish turn by the Fed or a drop in U.S. bond yields in and of themselves are unlikely to be sufficient. While EM risk assets could rebound for a couple of weeks on lower interest rate expectations in the U.S., any rebound will prove to be short-lived, and EM will resume their downtrend. Assessing the dynamics of both financial markets and the business cycle has led us to conclude that the EM selloff has been not only due to Fed tightening and the U.S.-China trade confrontation, but even more so due to a slowdown in global trade. The latter has transpired even though U.S. economic growth remains very robust. Chart I-1 illustrates that EM currencies and sovereign spreads correlate well with global trade growth. Since the beginning of this year, global trade and EM manufacturing have been decelerating, despite ongoing strength in U.S. demand. This, in our opinion, has been the main reason for the selloff in EM risk assets. In fact, EM manufacturing PMI and EM non-financials' corporate profit growth have rolled over since early this year, explaining widening in EM credit spreads (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM Cracks Have Opened As Global Trade##br## Has Begun Slowing Down EM Cracks Have Opened As Global Trade Has Begun Slowing Down EM Cracks Have Opened As Global Trade Has Begun Slowing Down Chart I-2Slowdown In EM Corporate Profits ##br##Explains Widening Of EM Credit Spreads Slowdown In EM Corporate Profits Explains Widening Of EM Credit Spreads Slowdown In EM Corporate Profits Explains Widening Of EM Credit Spreads In turn, Chart I-3 demonstrates that the correlation between EM corporate spreads and share prices on one hand and U.S. bond yields on the other is rather loose. Notably, U.S. bond yields are at the same level they were in early April when the EM-centred selloff began. Meanwhile, EM equity and credit markets have diverged from their U.S. peers since early April (Chart I-4). Chart I-3EM Risk Assets And U.S. Bond Yields: ##br##Loose Correlation EM Risk Assets And U.S. Bond Yields: Loose Correlation EM Risk Assets And U.S. Bond Yields: Loose Correlation Chart I-4The Recent Divergence##br## Between EM And U.S. The Recent Divergence Between EM And U.S. The Recent Divergence Between EM And U.S. In this context, an important question is as follows: Why are EM economies and financial markets more vulnerable to rising U.S. borrowing costs than the U.S. itself? In reality, the American economy, stock market and corporate credit should be more exposed to Fed tightening than EM economies and financial markets. Yet the U.S. economy, stocks and corporate credit market have so far weathered rising borrowing costs quite well. Most interest rate-sensitive segments such as mortgages for home purchases and the junk corporate credit market have remained resilient. Historically, the correlation between EM risk assets and the Fed funds rate has been mixed - albeit more positive than negative (Chart I-5). On this chart, we shaded the periods when EM stocks rallied despite rising Fed funds rate. Chart I-5EM Stocks And Fed Tightening Cycles EM Stocks And Fed Tightening Cycles EM Stocks And Fed Tightening Cycles The episodes when EMs crashed amid rising U.S. interest rates were the 1982 Latin America debt crisis and the 1994 Mexican Tequila crisis. Yet, it is vital to emphasize that these crises occurred because of poor EM fundamentals - elevated foreign currency debt levels, negative terms-of-trade shocks, large current account deficits and pegged exchange rates. Chart I-6The 1997/98 EM Crises Pushed U.S. Bond Yields Lower The 1997/98 EM Crises Pushed U.S. Bond Yields Lower The 1997/98 EM Crises Pushed U.S. Bond Yields Lower Dire EM fundamentals also prevailed before the Asian/EM crises of 1997-'98. These late 1990 EM crises occurred without much in the way of Fed tightening or rising U.S. bond yields (Chart I-6). In contrast, EM stocks, credit markets and currencies did well during a period of rising Fed funds rate in 1988-89, 1999-2000, and 2017 as illustrated in Chart I-5. Altogether, we conclude that rising U.S. interest rates in and of themselves are not a sufficient condition for EM to sell off. Only in combination with poor EM fundamentals and a weakening global business cycle are rising U.S. borrowing costs negative for EM financial markets. EM fundamentals have been and remain indigent since early this decade. The 2016-'17 rally in EM was due to improving global growth. Yet the global business cycle has rolled over since early this year. This, in combination with lingering weak fundamentals throughout EM and the Fed's tightening, has produced the current EM selloff. All in all, the ongoing selloff in EM risk assets has been mainly due to the slowdown in global trade/business cycle. When global trade expands, weak parts of the chain do well. Conversely, when global trade growth dwindles, these same weak links are the first to break. As we have argued repeatedly, EM fundamentals have remained destitute in spite of 2016-17 rally. Indeed as soon as global trade began decelerating, the weakest parts of the global chain cracked. Specifically, China's import volumes for many raw materials and commodities have decelerated significantly (Chart I-7A and Chart I-7B). Imports of consumer goods, machinery, and transport equipment remain strong (Chart 7A, bottom panel). We believe it is a matter of time before the ongoing slowdown in credit and capital spending brings about weaker imports of industrial goods and machinery. Chart I-7AChina: Imports Volumes Have Been Slowing Down China: Imports Volumes Have Been Slowing Down China: Imports Volumes Have Been Slowing Down Chart I-7BChina: Imports Volumes Have Been Slowing Down China: Imports Volumes Have Been Slowing Down China: Imports Volumes Have Been Slowing Down Even though consumer spending in China remains robust, it has had a limited impact on the global economy in general and the rest of EM in particular. Most consumer goods and services that Chinese households buy are produced and sold domestically by mainland companies. In short, China's impact on EM and the rest of the world are primarily via its imports of commodities/raw materials and industrial goods, which are very vulnerable. On-shore listed Chinese stocks are also signaling that a pronounced growth deceleration is underway. Even though the MSCI China investable equity indexes remain elevated, their onshore peers have plunged. Chart I-8A and 8B demonstrate that China's onshore listed stock prices - large cap, small cap and many sectors - have plunged to or below their early 2016 lows. Chart I-8AChinese Share Prices: Onshore And Offshore Markets Chinese Share Prices: Onshore And Offshore Markets Chinese Share Prices: Onshore And Offshore Markets Chart I-8BChinese Share Prices: Onshore And Offshore Markets What's Really Driving The EM Selloff? What's Really Driving The EM Selloff? Chart I-9New Cyclical Lows For EM Relative Performance New Cyclical Lows For EM Relative Performance New Cyclical Lows For EM Relative Performance This downbeat message from Chinese onshore equity prices along with the recent sharp depreciation of the RMB corroborate that the mainland growth slowdown is gaining speed, which in turn argues for a bearish outlook for EM financial markets. Bottom Line: Our diagnosis is that the selloff in EM financial markets has been induced by slowing global trade and China's growth deceleration amid lingering poor EM fundamentals. The Fed's resolve in tightening is aggravating the situation, but it is not the main cause behind the EM turmoil. Consequently, the necessary conditions for a reversal of the ongoing EM turbulence are not the Fed turning dovish but a bottom in the global trade cycle and Chinese growth. The latter two are not on the horizon, and we therefore posit there is much more downside in EM risk assets and currencies. EM relative equity performance versus DM has broken to new cycle lows for the small-cap and equal-weighted indexes (Chart I-9, top and middle panels). The market cap-weighted overall index will likely be heading to new lows for this cycle too (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Investors should stay short/underweight EM risk assets. Our recommended country allocation is presented below. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

NOTE: There will be a few minor scheduling changes to BCA's China Investment Strategy service in July. We will publishing next week's report and the report scheduled on July 25 one day late, on Thursday, July 5 and 26, respectively. There will also be no report on Wednesday, July 18 due to our regular summer break. Highlights In response to the sharp spike in the risk of a full-blown U.S./China trade war, many market participants have concluded that significant fiscal and/or monetary policy stimulus is forthcoming. But for now, a depreciation in the RMB is the only clear and significant policy response to the imposition of U.S. import tariffs that we can currently observe, and we would still classify it as just a remedial measure. While a falling RMB will improve the financial position of China's exporters, it also increases the risk that the U.S. will follow through with the worst of their threats. Despite two conceivable upside scenarios for the equity market, we recommend a neutral stance towards Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio and currently view the risks as largely to the downside. We are closing our long China / short Taiwan trade for a considerable profit, and recommend that investors go long low-beta sectors within the MSCI China index. Feature Chart 1A Decisive Technical Breakdown In ##br##Ex-Tech Stocks Vs Global A Decisive Technical Breakdown In Ex-Tech Stocks Vs Global A Decisive Technical Breakdown In Ex-Tech Stocks Vs Global In a Special Alert last week, we recommended that investors downgrade Chinese ex-tech stocks versus their global peers to neutral from overweight,1 after having placed them on downgrade watch at the end of March.2 Our recommendation was made in response to the ongoing slowdown in China's industrial sector, a significant escalation in the imposition of import tariffs between the U.S. and China, and an unfavorable shift in the risk/reward balance of global risky asset prices.3 It was also timely, as Chinese ex-tech stock prices have now decisively broken below their 200-day moving average (Chart 1). Following our shift in stance, the question facing BCA's China team, as well as global investors, is straightforward: Now what? Stimulus Watch The answer to this question among many market participants is that fiscal and/or monetary policy stimulus is forthcoming. We have no doubt that China will announce some remedial or compensatory measures in response to protectionist action from the U.S. Indeed, recent statements from the Ministry of Finance (MOF) suggest that planned fiscal spending for the year will be accelerated/brought forward, and the PBOC has already made a targeted cut to the reserve requirement ratio and reduced the relending rate for small company loans. However, we have argued that the bar for a fresh round of material stimulus is higher today than it was in the past, and we continue to hold this view. Elevated debt levels, excess capacity in some parts of the industrial sector, and worries about pollution all limit the extent to which the authorities can respond with the usual barrage of infrastructure spending and increased bank lending. The economy likely needs to feel more pain before policymakers come to its aid with enough magnitude to potentially spark another upswing in economic activity. Below we outline a few perspectives on the potential for stimulus, and how investors can gauge whether policymakers are deploying enough stimulus to materially impact China's economic outlook: Fiscal Stimulus The MOF's statement reflects the first fiscal policy action that China would likely take to combat any economic weakness, which is to speed up spending that has already been approved but was planned to occur later in the year. But from the perspective of whether a policy action is likely to materially boost economic activity, frontloading pre-approved spending would qualify, at best, as a remedial measure. In our view, tracking China's budgetary government finance data represents the best method for investors to determine whether policymakers are truly stimulating via the fiscal channel. While it is true that China's shadow budget deficit is much larger than the official data show (Chart 2), there is a crucial aspect of China's recent mini-cycle that is not well understood by many investors: almost all of the expansion of China's fiscal stance from 2014-16 was from on-budget rather than off-budget spending. Given that China has been trying to limit off-budget spending as part of its structural reform program, our sense is that this time won't be different if China decides that significant fiscal stimulus is required. This is good news for investors, given that on-budget spending is easier to observe in real-time, and Chart 3 presents two simple measures that we are using to monitor China's fiscal stance, alongside their year-over-year changes: on-budget expenditure and the on-budget balance, both as a % of GDP. Based on these measures there are no signs yet that the fiscal stance is easing (in fact, the opposite has occurred over the past year), but we will watching Chart 3 closely over the coming months for any indication of a change. Chart 2China's Shadow Budget Deficit Is Large... Now What? Now What? Chart 3...But If China Stimulates It Will Likely Be On-Budget ...But If China Stimulates It Will Likely Be On-Budget ...But If China Stimulates It Will Likely Be On-Budget Monetary Stimulus In our judgement, the recent cut to the reserve requirement ratio is not likely to be effective at stimulating the domestic economy. Investors should note that the initial reaction of many market participants to the April 17 reserve requirement ratio cut of 1% was that it represented a shift in the PBOC's policy stance towards easing, which ultimately proved to be a false narrative. Chart 4 shows China's 3-month interbank repo rate (China's de-facto policy rate which leads average lending rates), and highlights the timing of two specific events: March 28, when news broke that the PBOC would extend the deadline for the implementation of new regulatory standards for asset management products, and April 17, when the PBOC announced its targeted reserve requirement ratio cut. The chart makes it clear that the decline in the repo rate was in response to the deadline extension rather than the repo rate cut. This is entirely consistent with the findings of our February 22 Special Report,4 particularly the fact that 75% of the monetary tightening that has occurred since late-2016 has been regulatory in nature. We have previously argued that the dip in the repo rate in response to the deadline extension would probably be temporary,5 and Chart 4 shows that the rate has indeed increased over that past two months. In short, there is no evidence that the April 17 reserve ratio cut had any measurable effect on the stance of monetary policy in China. Given this, there are two key points for investors. The first is that small cuts to the reserve requirement ratio should be viewed, at best, as remedial measures that may help blunt the impact of shock to the export sector, but they are unlikely to alter the downward trajectory of the "old economy" (the portion of China's economy that is most relevant to global investors). The second is that if cuts to the reserve requirement ratio or any other monetary policy action stimulates the provision of credit via easier lending standards (rather than by reducing the cost of borrowing), their effect should result in a pickup in broad measures of credit growth rather than a reduction in interest rates. Chart 5 highlights that, for now, no such pickup has occurred; adjusted total social financing, which excludes equity issuance but includes municipal bonds, remains in a downtrend. This series, along with its impulse equivalent, are both included in the BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator which is at the core of our efforts to monitor the cyclical condition of China's business cycle. Chart 4No Evidence That April RRR Cut Eased Interest Rates No Evidence That April RRR Cut Eased Interest Rates No Evidence That April RRR Cut Eased Interest Rates Chart 5No Evidence That April RRR Cut Eased Lending Standards No Evidence That April RRR Cut Eased Lending Standards No Evidence That April RRR Cut Eased Lending Standards The Exchange Rate BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team has recently argued that China is likely to retaliate to a potential tariff imposition by weakening CNY/USD. This would have the effect of improving the competitiveness of exports priced in RMB, or would bolster the revenue of exporters selling goods priced in U.S. dollars (by way of receiving more RMB after converting the dollars received). Evidence has emerged over the past week to suggest that the PBOC is indeed allowing China's currency to depreciate against the U.S. dollar. Chart 6 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, until very recently, reflected the strength in the U.S. dollar. However, the chart shows that CNY/USD has fallen over the past few days by magnitude in excess of what would be expected given movements in the U.S. dollar, implying that the very recent weakness is likely policy-driven. Chart 6The PBOC Is Letting CNY/USD Depreciate The PBOC Is Letting CNY/USD Depreciate The PBOC Is Letting CNY/USD Depreciate We agree that depreciating the currency versus the U.S. dollar will improve the financial condition of domestic exporters, but we would also caution investors against looking at a deep depreciation in CNY/USD in an encouraging light. We have noted in previous reports that such a development would be a clear sign of an outright, full-scale trade war between the U.S. and China, and in this context currency deprecation should still be classified as just a remedial measure (i.e. it is unlikely to lead to a renewed upswing in Chinese economic activity). Bottom Line: A depreciation in the RMB is the only clear and significant policy response to the imposition of U.S. import tariffs that we can currently observe, and we would still classify it as just a remedial measure. While a falling RMB will improve the financial position of China's exporters, it may also invite even further protectionist action from the U.S. Investment Recommendations Our recommendation to cut Chinese ex-tech stocks to neutral means that investors should be looking both for upside and downside risks when judging when to make their next allocation shift. For now, our discussion above underscores that we view the risks largely to the downside. The scenario that would cause us to further downgrade Chinese stocks to underweight within a global equity portfolio is not difficult to imagine: the worst outcome in the U.S. / China trade dispute materializes, the global economy slows meaningfully, and the inertia from the ongoing structural reform program causes Chinese policymakers to limit their stimulus to compensatory, remedial measures until a painful slowdown emerges in the domestic economy. We are not yet past the "point of no return" on the way to this outcome, but the events of the past two weeks have clearly moved us further along the path. Conversely, there are two scenarios that we can envision that could cause us to upgrade Chinese stocks back to overweight: Chart 7Keep Monitoring Floor Space Sold Keep Monitoring Floor Space Sold Keep Monitoring Floor Space Sold A protectionist exchange occurs between China and the U.S. but fails to devolve to the most damaging outcome. China's remedial measures are successful at easing the pain from tariffs on domestic producers, and the economic outlook stabilizes. In this scenario the most acute risk would be removed, but the gradual underlying downtrend in China's "old economy" would be intact. In this case we would be more comfortable upgrading Chinese stocks if there was an additional reflationary tailwind, such as a boost from fiscal spending or some reversal of the monetary tightening that has occurred since late-2016. But a significant, exogenous acceleration in economic activity from some other sector of China's economy would also fit the bill, and we have argued in past reports that housing appears to be the best candidate. Chart 7 highlights that residential sales volume may now be in a gradual uptrend, which could translate into stronger construction in the months ahead. The second scenario that would cause us to upgrade Chinese stocks is straightforward: Chinese policymakers determine that the risks to growth from an export shock are unacceptably large given the existing slowdown in the industrial sector, and decide to temporarily reverse course on the structural reform path by opting for "big bang" fiscal and/or monetary stimulus. A significant and highly investment-relevant mini-cycle upswing occurred in China the last time that the authorities strongly prioritized growth, and we will watching closely for real indications of a shift in attitude in this direction. For now our judgement is that policymakers have a higher pain threshold than in the past, suggesting that this is outcome is not yet probable. Related to our decision to downgrade Chinese ex-tech stocks to neutral within a global equity portfolio, we have three updates to our trade book: We are closing our long MSCI China / short MSCI Taiwan position and upgrading our Taiwanese cyclical stance to neutral: Despite being massively overweight technology stocks, Chart 8 highlights that Taiwan is a comparatively low-beta equity market versus China. Our trade has generated a 21% return since we initiated it in February 2017, and we believe it is time to book profits. Given Taiwan's small size it is actually possible that its economy and/or equity market will suffer disproportionately if the worst U.S. / China trade outcome materializes, which could cause us to revisit the trade. But for now our judgement is that a neutral position is warranted. We are sticking with our long China onshore corporate bond trade: We would certainly expect credit spreads on Chinese corporate bonds to flare in response to a deteriorating economic outlook, but we highlighted in our June 13 Weekly Report how high the bar is for investors to lose money on these bonds.6 In short, China's corporate bond market already offers a margin of safety given its high yield and a comparatively short duration, and we do not see recent developments on the trade front as a sufficiently compelling reason to exit the trade. We are initiating a new trade - within the MSCI China index, long low-beta sectors / short benchmark: Chart 9 presents the relative US$ stock price return of a portfolio of low-beta level 1 GICS sectors within the MSCI China index, relative to the index itself. Our methodology in calculating the portfolio is the same as that employed in the A-share factor analysis that we presented in our June 13 report; namely it is a value-weighted portfolio of sectors with below-median rolling 1-year market beta.7 The chart shows that the portfolio has outperformed over time, but sold off quite substantially last year as the high-flying tech sector boosted the performance of the overall index. The relative performance trend for low-beta has recently strengthened and crossed above its 200-day moving average, which we regard as a supportive technical signal to initiate the trade. Chart 8Taiwan's Equity Market Is Low Beta Vs China's Taiwan's Equity Market Is Low Beta Vs China's Taiwan's Equity Market Is Low Beta Vs China's Chart 9Go Long Low-Beta Sectors Vs The Broad Market Go Long Low-Beta Sectors Vs The Broad Market Go Long Low-Beta Sectors Vs The Broad Market Bottom Line: Despite two potential upside scenarios, we recommend a neutral stance towards Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio and currently view the risks as largely to the downside. We are closing our long China / short Taiwan for a considerable profit, and recommend that investors go long low-beta sectors within the MSCI China index. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Alert "Downgrade Chinese Stocks To Neutral", dated June 20, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Chinese Stocks: Trade Frictions Make For A Tenuous Overweight," dated March 28, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Pease see Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral", dated June 19, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy", dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China: A Low-Conviction Overweight", dated May 2, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "A Shaky Ladder", dated June 13, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 The current sector weights of the portfolio are: 26% telecom services, 24% industrials, 19% health care, 16% utilities, and 14% consumer staples. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Global Growth: The risk to U.S. financial markets from global growth divergences and increasingly hawkish trade policy is rising, and it is unlikely to be resolved without a market riot. Credit Cycle: Valuation is expensive and indicators of monetary conditions suggest we are very late in the cycle. Both factors suggest that excess returns to corporate bonds will be meager, even if recession is avoided. Given concerns about global growth, the risk/reward trade-off favors a more defensive allocation to spread product. Corporate Leverage: Profit growth has just barely kept pace with debt growth during the past few quarters and will likely moderate as wage costs accelerate in the second half of the year. The resultant increase in leverage will pressure corporate bond spreads wider. Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio##br## Specification Go To Neutral On Spread Product Go To Neutral On Spread Product Last week we sent a Special Report to all BCA clients advising them to cyclically reduce exposure to risk assets (equities and corporate bonds), moving from an overweight allocation to neutral.1 For U.S. bond portfolios, we recommend that investors adopt a neutral allocation to spread product versus Treasuries, while also upgrading the more defensive municipal bond sector at the expense of corporate credit. We also advise investors to maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration (Table 1). In this week's report we explain the rationale for these portfolio changes. Specifically, we run through our favorite credit cycle indicators, which we split into three categories: valuation, monetary conditions and credit quality. The message from the indicators is that it is still somewhat too soon to expect rising corporate defaults and sustained spread widening. However, the indicators also suggest that we are very late in the cycle and return expectations should be quite low. Put differently, the expected excess return from overweight corporate bond positions no longer justifies the risk of staying overweight for too long. This is particularly true given the ongoing slowdown in global growth and escalating tit-for-tat trade war. Neither of which is likely to be resolved without some market pain. Credit Cycle Indicators Valuation While value in the investment grade corporate bond space has improved somewhat since January, the sector remains expensive relative to history. Chart 1 shows the 12-month breakeven spread for each investment grade credit tier as a percentile rank for the period between 1996 and today.2 According to this measure, investment grade corporate bonds are about as expensive as they were in 2006/07, just prior to the 2008 recession and default cycle. Chart 2 shows the same valuation measure for the high-yield credit tiers. High-Yield spreads are somewhat wider than 2006/07 levels, though they are still quite low relative to the post-1996 timeframe as a whole. One critical difference between the late stages of the last credit cycle (2006/07) and the current environment is that corporate balance sheets are now in significantly worse shape. If we adjust for this by dividing the 12-month breakeven spread by our preferred measure of gross leverage we see that high-yield valuation now looks similar to 2006/07 levels, while investment grade credit looks significantly more expensive (Chart 3). Chart 1Investment Grade Valuation Investment Grade Valuation Investment Grade Valuation Chart 2High-Yield Valuation High-Yield Valuation High-Yield Valuation Chart 3Leverage-Adjusted Value Leverage-Adjusted Value Leverage-Adjusted Value These valuation measures do not suggest that spreads are about to widen. It is clear from the charts that valuation can remain expensive for long periods of time, particularly in the late stages of the credit cycle. However, the indicators do tell us that return expectations should be low relative to history and that relatively little spread widening is required before corporate bonds see losses relative to duration-matched Treasuries. All else equal, our threshold for moving out of corporate credit should be low. Monetary Conditions Chart 4Inflation Indicators Inflation Indicators Inflation Indicators We place a great deal of importance on monetary indicators for timing allocation shifts into and out of corporate bonds. The reason relates to our understanding of the Fed Policy Loop.3 When inflation is far below target, the central bank has a strong incentive to nurture economic growth. This means it will be quick to respond to any relapse in financial markets that might eventually lead to an economic slow-down. Credit spreads are unlikely to widen meaningfully in these environments of low inflation and a responsive Fed. However, as inflation approaches target the central bank's reaction function starts to change. It becomes marginally more concerned with preventing an overshoot of the inflation target and marginally less concerned with supporting economic growth. It will therefore be more willing to tolerate some widening in credit spreads before responding with a dovish policy action. With that in mind, we monitor three inflation indicators to help us determine when inflation is strong enough to significantly impair the "Fed put" on credit spreads. They are (Chart 4): Re-anchored long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates, within a range between 2.3% and 2.5%. The St. Louis Fed's Price Pressures Measure above 15%. Year-over-year core PCE inflation above 2%. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have increased significantly during the past year, but have not quite hit our target range. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently sits at 2.11% and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently sits at 2.17%. Similarly, the St. Louis Fed's Price Pressures Measure, an aggregate economic indicator designed to measure the percent chance that inflation exceeds 2.5% during the next 12 months, currently sits at 13%. This is only just below the 15% threshold that we have previously found to be correlated with significantly lower corporate bond excess returns (Table 2).4 Table 2Investment Corporate Bond Excess Returns* Under Different Ranges ##br##Of Price Pressures Measure** (January 1990 To Present) Go To Neutral On Spread Product Go To Neutral On Spread Product Finally, year-over-year core PCE inflation has not yet returned to the Fed's 2% target but appears to be on its way. The annualized 3-month rate of change has exceeded 2% in three of the past four months and the extreme tightness in labor markets and resultant wage pressures are likely to keep core inflation in a gradual uptrend going forward. Year-over-year core PCE inflation is very likely to reach the Fed's 2% target before the end of the year. All in all, inflation pressures suggest that investors' inflation expectations are not yet completely re-anchored around the Fed's 2% target, and probably have a bit more upside. However, we expect that all three of our inflation indicators will hit their key thresholds within the next few months. When we combine the fact that our inflation indicators are very close to sending a bearish signal for corporate bonds with our growing concerns about global growth and trade (see section titled "Global Growth Divergences: A Repeat Of 2015" below), we think it is prudent to start scaling back the credit risk in U.S. bond portfolios today. Another important indicator of monetary conditions is the slope of the yield curve. As Fed Chairman Jerome Powell explained at the last FOMC press conference, the yield curve is really about appropriate monetary policy. When it is very steep it signals that policy is currently accommodative and will tighten in the future. When it is inverted it signals that policy is restrictive and is likely to ease. Logically, when monetary conditions are close to neutral the yield curve will be very flat. The market will be uncertain about whether rates will rise or fall in the future. With that in mind we can split historical cycles into three phases based on the 3-year/10-year slope of the Treasury curve: (i) early in the recovery when the 3/10 slope is above 50 bps, (ii) the middle of the cycle when the 3/10 slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps, and (iii) late in the cycle when the 3/10 slope is inverted (Chart 5). Chart 5Corporate Bond Performance And The Yield Curve Corporate Bond Performance And The Yield Curve Corporate Bond Performance And The Yield Curve We find that corporate bond excess returns are highest early in the cycle when the yield curve is steep. Excess returns drop significantly once the 3/10 slope flattens to below 50 bps, and then turn negative once the yield curve inverts (Table 3). Table 3Risk Asset Performance In Different Yield Curve Regimes Go To Neutral On Spread Product Go To Neutral On Spread Product The 3/10 slope is currently 25 bps. We are firmly entrenched in the middle phase of the credit cycle where excess returns tend to be very low, though often still positive. Given the uncertainty surrounding when the yield curve will invert, sacrificing some small potential excess return by scaling back spread product exposure to neutral seems prudent. Credit Quality The final class of credit cycle indicators we track relates to the fundamental balance sheet health of the nonfinancial corporate sector. Chief among those indicators is our measure of gross leverage that we calculate as pre-tax profits divided by total debt. Typically, periods of rising gross leverage tend to coincide with corporate spread widening, and vice-versa. Alternatively, we can say that periods when profit growth is sustainably below the rate of debt growth tend to coincide with widening credit spreads (Chart 6). Using our most recent data, which extend only to the end of Q1 2018, profit growth has roughly kept pace with debt growth since the middle of 2016, resulting in relatively flat leverage. But this dynamic will probably not be sustained for much longer. While corporate revenue growth is strong, it cannot accelerate indefinitely. The ISM index is already peaking, and the recent bout of dollar strength will act as a headwind (Chart 7, panels 1 & 2). Chart 6Leverage Won't Stay Flat For Long Leverage Won't Stay Flat For Long Leverage Won't Stay Flat For Long Chart 7Watch Out For Rising Wages Watch Out For Rising Wages Watch Out For Rising Wages But more important is that tight labor markets are already putting upward pressure on wage costs and this wage acceleration is very likely to persist. Our Profit Margin Proxy, calculated as corporate selling prices less unit labor costs, already points to a moderation in profit growth in the second half of the year (Chart 7, panels 3 & 4). With profit growth very likely to moderate in the second half of the year, and given that it would be highly unusual for the rate of debt growth to decline meaningfully outside of recession, we expect corporate leverage to start rising again in the third and fourth quarters of this year. Bottom Line: The overall message from our credit cycle indicators is that we are very late in the cycle and expected excess returns to corporate bonds should be low. Given the risks to global growth on the horizon, it makes sense to turn more cautious on spread product. Global Growth Divergences: A Repeat Of 2015 Chart 8Global Growth Divergence Won't End Well Global Growth Divergence Won't End Well Global Growth Divergence Won't End Well From mid-2016 until a few months ago the global economy had benefited from a period of synchronized global growth, but that dynamic has now broken down. Leading indicators show that the large divergence between strong U.S. growth and weak growth in the rest of the world that was one of our key investment themes in 2014/15 has re-emerged (Chart 8). As in the 2014/15 period, the end result of divergent growth between the U.S. and the rest of the world is upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. This serves to tighten U.S. financial conditions at the margin, and exacerbates economic pain in emerging markets who have to contend with large balances of USD-denominated debt. Further, unlike in 2014/15, the global economy now has to deal with the imposition of tariffs and an escalating trade war that is unlikely to die down any time soon.5 Since the United States is a relatively large and closed economy, any moderation in global trade will be felt more acutely outside the U.S. But this only serves to increase global growth divergences and add to the upward pressure on the dollar. Eventually, as in 2015, we expect this divergence in growth and the resultant upward pressure on the dollar to culminate in a risk-off event in U.S. financial markets. At that point, the Fed will be forced to take notice and will likely pause rate hikes for a period of time. The Fed kept rate hikes on hold for an entire year following a similar market event in late 2015, but any future pause will probably not be as long. With inflation much closer to target than in 2015, the Fed will be reluctant to pause the rate hike cycle for more than a quarter or two. It is for this reason that we maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration even as we shift to a more defensive posture on spread product. The impact of divergent global growth will likely first be felt in credit spreads, and any knock-on impact to the pace of Fed rate hikes and Treasury yields could prove fleeting. Bottom Line: The risk to U.S. financial markets from global growth divergences and increasingly hawkish trade policies is rising, and is unlikely to be resolved without a market riot. Given meager expected returns in corporate bonds, it makes sense to get more defensive on spread product. Upgrade Municipal Bonds In addition to Treasuries, we also recommend allocating some of the proceeds from the corporate bond downgrade to tax-exempt municipals. As is shown in our Total Return Bond Map, municipal bonds are less risky than corporates and, depending on each investor's marginal tax rate, could offer reasonably high expected returns (Chart 9). Meanwhile, our Municipal Health Monitor remains entrenched below zero, suggesting that municipal ratings upgrades will continue to outpace downgrades, and net state & local government borrowing appears to be hooking down (Chart 10). Chart 9Total Return Bond Map (As Of June 21, 2018) Go To Neutral On Spread Product Go To Neutral On Spread Product Chart 10Municipal Health Still Improving Municipal Health Still Improving Municipal Health Still Improving In short, the current macro environment is much more negative for corporate credit quality than it is for municipal credit quality. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Special Report, "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral", dated June 19, 2018, available at www.bcaresearch.com/reports/view_report/25520/bca 2 We focus on the breakeven spread to adjust for changes in the average duration of the index over time. We calculate the 12-month breakeven spread as simply the index option-adjusted spread divided by index duration, ignoring the modest impact of convexity. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Caught In A Loop", dated September 29, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Are You 'Sick Of Winning' Yet?", dated June 20, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com

Three macro "policy puts" are in jeopardy of disappearing or, at the very least, being repriced. Fed Put: Rising inflation has made the Fed more reluctant to back off from rate hikes at the first hint of slower growth or falling asset prices. China Put: Worries about high debt levels, overcapacity, and pollution all mean that the bar for fresh Chinese stimulus is higher than in the past. Draghi Put: Bailing out Italy was a no-brainer in 2012 when the country was the victim of contagion from the Greek crisis. But now that Italy is the source of the disease, the rationale for intervention has weakened. These factors, along with additional risks such as mounting protectionism, warrant a more cautious 12-month stance towards global equities and other risk assets. The fact that valuations are stretched across most asset classes only adds to our concern. A neutral stance does not imply that we expect markets to move sideways. On the contrary, volatility is likely to increase over the balance of the year, with the next big move for global equities probably being to the downside. Buckle Up One of BCA's key ongoing themes is that policy and markets are on a collision course. We are starting to see this impending crash play out across the world. Higher Inflation Is Tying The Fed's Hands A slowdown in global growth caused the Fed to abort its tightening plans for 12 months starting in December 2015. Global growth is faltering again, but this time around the Fed is less eager to hit the pause button. In contrast to 2015, the U.S. economy has run out of spare capacity. The unemployment rate fell to a 48-year low of 3.75% in May. For the first time in the history of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), there are more job vacancies than unemployed workers (Chart 1). Average hourly earnings surprised on the upside in May, while the Employment Cost Index for private-sector workers - the cleanest and most reliable measure of U.S. wage growth - rose at a robust 4% annualized pace in the first quarter. Labor market surveys, which generally lead wage growth by three-to-six months, are pointing to a further acceleration in wages (Chart 2). Chart 1There Are Now More ##br##Vacancies Than Jobseekers There Are Now More Vacancies Than Jobseekers There Are Now More Vacancies Than Jobseekers Chart 2U.S. Wage Growth Is Set To Accelerate U.S. Wage Growth Is Set To Accelerate U.S. Wage Growth Is Set To Accelerate The Dollar Rally Can Keep Going Rising wages will put more income into workers' pockets, who will then spend it. Stronger demand can be partly satisfied by imports, but it will take a change in relative prices for that to happen. U.S. imports account for only 16% of GDP. Unless the prices of foreign-made goods decline in relation to the prices of domestically-produced goods, the bulk of any additional household income will be spent on goods produced in the U.S. This means that the dollar needs to strengthen. The Fed's broad trade-weighted dollar index is up 8% since the start of February. While we are not as bullish on the dollar as we were a few months ago, we still believe that the path of least resistance for the greenback is up. Our long DXY trade recommendation has gained 12.1% inclusive of carry since we initiated it. We are raising the target price from 96 to 98. A stronger dollar can help deflect some additional spending towards imports, but this won't be enough to fully cool the economy. Services, which generally cannot be imported, account for nearly two-thirds of GDP. Since it takes time to shift resources from goods-producing sectors to service sectors, any rising aggregate demand will boost service prices. Outside of housing, service-sector inflation is already running at 2.4%, a number that is likely to rise further over the coming year (Chart 3). This will keep the Fed on edge. Hard Times For Emerging Markets The combination of rising U.S. rates and a stronger dollar is bad news for emerging markets. Eighty percent of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. Outside of China, EM dollar debt is now back to late-1990s levels both as a share of GDP and exports (Chart 4). Chart 3Faster Wage Growth Will Push ##br##Up Service Inflation Faster Wage Growth Will Push Up Service Inflation Faster Wage Growth Will Push Up Service Inflation Chart 4EM Dollar Debt Back To Late-1990s Levels EM Dollar Debt Back To Late-1990s Levels EM Dollar Debt Back To Late-1990s Levels The wave of EM local-currency debt issued in recent years only complicates matters. If EM central banks raise rates to defend their currencies, this could imperil economic growth and make it difficult for local-currency borrowers to pay back their loans. Rather than hiking rates, some EM central banks may simply choose to inflate away debt. Consider the case of Brazil. Ninety percent of Brazilian sovereign debt is denominated in reais. The Brazilian government won't default on its debt per se. However, if push comes to shove, Brazil's central bank can always step in to buy government bonds, effectively monetizing the fiscal deficit. The specter of trade wars only adds to the risks facing emerging markets. A larger U.S. budget deficit will drain national savings, leading to a bigger trade deficit. Rather than blaming his own macroeconomic policies, President Trump will blame America's trading partners. Global trade has already been flatlining for over a decade (Chart 5). Trump's trade agenda will further undermine the global trading system. Emerging markets will bear the brunt of that development. Chart 5Global Trade Has Crested Global Trade Has Crested Global Trade Has Crested Chinese Stimulus To The Rescue? When emerging markets last succumbed to pressure in 2015, China saved the day by stepping in with massive new stimulus. Fiscal spending and credit growth accelerated to over 15% year-over-year. The government's actions boosted demand for all sorts of industrial commodities. Today, Chinese growth is slowing again. May data on industrial production, retail sales, and fixed asset investment all disappointed. Property prices in tier 1 cities are down year-over-year. Our leading indicator for the Li Keqiang index, a widely followed measure of economic activity, is in a clear downtrend (Chart 6). So far, the policy response has been fairly muted. Reserve requirements have been cut and some administrative controls loosened, but the combined credit and fiscal impulse has plunged (Chart 7). Onshore and offshore corporate bond yields have increased to multi-year highs. Bank lending rates are rising, while loan approvals are dropping (Chart 8). Chart 6Chinese Growth Is Slowing Anew Chinese Growth Is Slowing Anew Chinese Growth Is Slowing Anew Chart 7China: Policy Response To Slowdown ##br##Has Been Muted So Far China: Policy Response To Slowdown Has Been Muted So Far China: Policy Response To Slowdown Has Been Muted So Far Chart 8China: Credit Tightening China: Credit Tightening China: Credit Tightening We have no doubt that China will stimulate again if the economy appears to be heading for a deep slowdown. However, the bar for a fresh round of stimulus is higher today than it was in the past. Elevated debt levels, excess capacity in some parts of the industrial sector, and worries about pollution all limit the extent to which the authorities can respond with the usual barrage of infrastructure spending and increased bank lending. The economy needs to feel more pain before policymakers come to its aid. Draghi's Dilemma The Italian economy was showing signs of weakness even before bond yields exploded higher. Domestic demand slowed to a mere 0.3% qoq in Q1. The PMIs, consumer confidence, and the Bank of Italy's Ita-Coin cyclical indicator all decelerated (Chart 9). Italy would benefit from a more competitive cost structure, but the political will to undertake the sort of reforms Germany implemented in the late 1990s, and that Spain implemented after the Great Recession, has been sorely lacking (Chart 10). Unwilling to take tough actions to improve competitiveness, the Five Star-Lega coalition government has proposed loosening fiscal policy to support demand. Chart 9Italy's Economy Is Weakening... Again Italy's Economy Is Weakening... Again Italy's Economy Is Weakening... Again Chart 10Italy: More Work Needs To Be Done On ##br##The Labor Competitiveness Front Italy: More Work Needs To Be Done On The Labor Competitiveness Front Italy: More Work Needs To Be Done On The Labor Competitiveness Front Italy's shift towards populism is arriving at the same time that the ECB is looking to wind down its asset purchase program. This means that a key buyer of Italian debt is stepping back just when it may be needed the most. Getting the ECB to bail out Italy will not be as straightforward this time around. Recall that Mario Draghi and Jean-Claude Trichet penned a letter to the Italian government in 2011 outlining a series of reforms they wanted to see enacted as a condition of ongoing ECB support. The contents of the letter were so explosive that they precipitated the resignation of then-PM Silvio Berlusconi when they were leaked to the public. One of the reforms that Mario Draghi demanded - and the subsequent government led by Mario Monti ultimately undertook - was the extension of the retirement age. Italy's current government has explicitly promised to reverse that decision much to the consternation of the ECB and the European Commission. It was one thing for Mario Draghi to promise to do "whatever it takes" to protect Italy when the country was the victim of contagion from the Greek crisis. But now that Italy is the source of the disease, the rationale for intervention has weakened. Investment Conclusions The outlook for global risk assets is likely to be more challenging over the coming months. With that in mind, we are downgrading our 12-month recommendation on global equities and credit from overweight to neutral. A neutral stance does not imply that we expect markets to move sideways. On the contrary, volatility is likely to increase again over the balance of the year, with the next big move for global equities probably being to the downside. Although Treasurys could rally in the near term, higher U.S. inflation will push bond yields up over a 12-month horizon. Given that yields are positively correlated across international bond markets, rising U.S. yields will put upward pressure on yields in the rest of the world. As such, we recommend shifting equity allocations towards cash rather than long-duration bonds. We would also reduce credit exposure. Within the commodity complex, the backdrop for crude remains more favorable than for economically-sensitive metals. Investors should underweight EM equities, credit, and currencies relative to their developed market peers. The Fed needs to tighten U.S. financial conditions to prevent the economy from overheating. Chart 11 shows that EM equities almost always fall when that is happening. Chart 11Tighter U.S. Financial Conditions Do Not Bode Well For EM Stocks Tighter U.S. Financial Conditions Do Not Bode Well For EM Stocks Tighter U.S. Financial Conditions Do Not Bode Well For EM Stocks A stronger dollar will hurt the profits of U.S. multinationals. That said, the sector composition of the U.S. stock market is a bit more defensive than it is elsewhere. On balance, we no longer have a strong view that euro area and Japanese equities will outperform the U.S. in local-currency terms, and hence we are closing our trade recommendation to this effect for a loss of 5.4%. If macro developments evolve as we expect, we will shift to an outright bearish stance on risk assets later this year or in early 2019 in anticipation of a global recession in 2020. That said, we would consider moving our 12-month recommendation temporarily back to overweight if global equities were to sell off by more than 15% over the next few months or the policy environment becomes markedly more market friendly. But at current prices, the risk-reward trade-off no longer justifies a high degree of bullishness. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights BCA's Geopolitical Power Index (GPI) confirms that we live in a multipolar world; Most of President Trump's policies are designed to strike out against this structural reality; Trade war with China is real and presents the premier geopolitical risk in 2018; President Trump's aggression towards G7 allies boils down to greater NAFTA risk; We remain bullish USD, bearish EM, maintain our short U.S. China-exposed equities and closing all our "bullish" NAFTA trades; Remain short GBP/USD, Theresa May's days appear numbered. Feature "We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning." Candidate Donald Trump, May 26, 2016 In 2013, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy introduced the concept of multipolarity into our financial lexicon.1 Multipolarity is a term in political science that denotes when the number of states powerful enough to pursue an independent and globally relevant foreign policy is greater than one (unipolarity) or two (bipolarity). At the time, the evidence that U.S. global hegemony was in retreat was plentiful, but the idea of a U.S. decline was still far from consensus. By late 2016, however, President Donald Trump was overtly campaigning on it. His campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again," promised to reverse the process by striking out at the perceived causes of the decline: globalization, unchecked illegal immigration, and the ineffective foreign policy of the D.C. establishment. How can we quantitatively prove that the world is multipolar? We recently enhanced the classic National Capability Index (NCI) with our own measure, the Geopolitical Power Index (GPI). The original index, created for the Correlates of War project in 1963, had grown outdated. Its reliance on "military personnel" and "iron and steel production" harkened back to the late nineteenth century and overstated the power of China (Chart 1). Chart 1The National Capability Index Overstates China's Power The National Capability Index Overstates China's Power The National Capability Index Overstates China's Power Our own index avoids these pitfalls, while retaining the parsimony of the NCI, by focusing on six key factors: Population: We adapted the original population measure by penalizing countries with large dependency ratios. Yes, having a vast population matters, but having too many dependents (the elderly and youth) can strain resources otherwise available for global power projection. Global Economic Relevance: The original index failed to capture a country's relevance for the global economy. Designed at the height of the Cold War, the NCI did not foresee today's globalized future. As such, we modified the original index by introducing a measure that captures a country's contribution to global final demand. The more an economy imports, the greater its bargaining power in terms of trade and vis-à-vis its geopolitical rivals. Arms Exports: Having a large army is no longer as relevant now that wars have become a high-tech affair. To capture that reality, we replaced the NCI's focus on the number of soldiers with arms exports as a share of the global defense industry. We retained the original three variables that measure primary energy consumption, GDP, and overall military expenditure. Chart 2 shows the updated data. As expected, the U.S. is in decline, having lost nearly a third of its quantitatively measured geopolitical power since 1998. Over the same period, China has gone from having just 30% of U.S. geopolitical power to over 80%. Other countries, like Russia, India, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, have also seen an increase in geopolitical power over the same period, confirming their roles as regional powers (Chart 3). Chart 2BCA's Geopolitical Power Index Illustrates A Multipolar World BCA's Geopolitical Power Index Illustrates A Multipolar World BCA's Geopolitical Power Index Illustrates A Multipolar World Chart 3China Was Not The Only EM To Rise Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? President Trump was elected with the mandate of changing the trajectory of American power and getting the country back on a "winning" path. Investors can perceive nearly all the moves by the administration - from protectionist actions against China and traditional allies, to applying a "Maximum Pressure" doctrine against North Korea and Iran - as a fight against the structural decline of U.S. power. Isn't President Trump "tilting at windmills"? Fighting a vain battle against imaginary adversaries? Yes. The decline of the U.S. is a product of classic imperial overstretch combined with the natural lifecycle of any global hegemon. U.S. policymakers have made decisions that have hastened the decline, but the overarching American geopolitical trajectory would have been negative regardless: Global peace brought prosperity which strengthened Emerging Markets (EM), particularly China, relative to the U.S. That said, Trump is not as crazy as the media often imply. Chaos is not necessarily bad for a domestically driven economy secured by two oceans. The U.S. tends to outperform the rest of the world - economically, financially, and geopolitically - amid turbulence. Our own updated GPI shows that both World Wars were massively favorable for U.S. hegemony (Chart 4), although this time around the chaos is mostly self-inflicted. Chart 4America Profits From Chaos America Profits From Chaos America Profits From Chaos Similarly, Trump's economic populism at home is buoying sentiment and assuaging the negative consequences - real or imagined - of his protectionism. Meanwhile, the threat of tariffs is souring the mood abroad. This policy mix is causing U.S. assets to outperform (Chart 5). Most importantly, the U.S. dollar is now up 2.7% since the beginning of the year, putting pressure on EM assets. When combined with continued counter-cyclical structural reforms in China, we maintain that the overall macro and geopolitical context remains bearish for global risk assets. This is not the first time that an American president has deployed both an aggressive trade policy and an aggressive foreign policy. The difference, this time around, is that the world is multipolar. A defining feature of multipolarity is that it is less predictable and more likely to produce inter-state conflict (Chart 6). As more countries matter - geopolitically, economically, financially - the number of "veto players" rises, making stable equilibria more difficult to produce. As such, bullying as a negotiating tactic worked when used by Presidents Nixon, Reagan, Bush Jr., and Clinton, but may not work today. Investors should therefore prepare for a long period of uncertainty this summer as the world responds to a U.S. administration focused on "winning." Chart 5U.S. Assets Outperform U.S. Assets Outperform U.S. Assets Outperform Chart 6Multipolarity Produces Uncertainty Multipolarity Produces Uncertainty Multipolarity Produces Uncertainty Bottom Line: There is a clear logic behind President Trump's foreign and trade policy. He is trying to reverse a decline in U.S. hegemony. The problem is that his policy decisions are unlikely to address the structural causes of America's decline. What is much more likely is that his policy will cause the rest of the world to react in unpredictable ways. The U.S. may benefit, but that is not a forgone conclusion. Investors should position themselves for a volatile summer. Below we review three key issues, two negative and one positive. The U.S. Vs. China: The Trade War Is Real The Trump administration has announced that it will go ahead with tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports in retaliation for forced technology transfer and intellectual property theft under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. The tariffs will come in two tranches beginning on July 6. China will respond proportionately, based on both its statements and its response to the steel and aluminum tariffs (Chart 7). If the two sides stop here, then perhaps the trade war can be delayed. But Trump is already saying he will impose tariffs on a further $200 billion worth of goods. At that point, if Beijing re-retaliates, China's proportionate response will cover more goods than the entire range of U.S. imports (Chart 8). Retaliation will have to occur elsewhere. Chart 7Trump's Steel/Aluminum Tariffs Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Chart 8Trump's Tariffs On China Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? We would expect the CNY/USD to weaken as negotiations fail. We would also expect tensions to continue spilling over into the South China Sea and other areas of strategic disagreement.2 The South China Sea or Taiwan could produce market-moving "black swan" geopolitical events this year or next.3 Chart 9Downside Risks Continue Downside Risks Continue Downside Risks Continue It is critical to distinguish between the U.S. trade conflict with China and the one with the G7. In the latter case, the U.S. political establishment will push against the Trump administration, encouraging him to compromise. With China, however, Congress is becoming the aggressor and we certainly do not expect the Defense Department or the intelligence community to play the peacemaker with Beijing. In particular, members of Congress are trying to cancel Trump's ZTE deal while expanding the powers of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to restrict Chinese investments.4 These congressional factors underscore our theme that U.S.-China tensions are structural and secular.5 Would China stimulate its economy to negate the effects of tariffs? We see nothing yet on the policy side to warrant a change in our fundamental view, which holds that any stimulus will be limited due to the agenda of containing systemic financial risk. Credit growth remains weak and fiscal spending has not yet perked up (Chart 9), portending weak Chinese imports and negative outcomes for EM. The risk to Chinese growth remains to the downside this year (and likely next year) as the government continues with the reforms. Critically, stimulus is not the only possible Chinese response to trade war. A trade war with the United States will provide Xi with a "foreign devil" on whom he can blame the pain of structural reforms. As such, it is entirely possible that Beijing doubles-down on reforms in light of an aggressive U.S. Bottom Line: The U.S.-China trade war is beginning and will cause additional market volatility and, potentially, a "black swan" event, especially ahead of the U.S. midterm elections. We do not expect 2015-style economic stimulus from Beijing. Stay long U.S. small caps relative to large caps; short U.S. China-exposed equities; and remain short EM equities relative to DM. The U.S. Vs. The G6: This Is About NAFTA There was little rhyme or reason to President Trump's smackdown of traditional U.S. allies at the G7 summit in Quebec. As our colleague Peter Berezin recently pointed out, the U.S. is throwing stones while living in a glass house.6 While the overall level of tariff barriers within developed countries is low, the U.S. actually stands at the top end of the spectrum (Chart 10). The decision to launch an investigation into whether automobile imports "threaten to impair the national security" of the U.S. - under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 - falls into the same rubric of empty threats. The U.S. has had a 25% tariff on imported light trucks since 1964, a decision that likely caused its car companies to become addicted to domestic pickup truck demand to the detriment of global competitiveness. Meanwhile, only 15% of U.S. autos shipped to the EU were subject to the infamous European 10% surcharge on auto imports. This is because U.S. autos containing European parts are exempt from the tariff. Many foreign auto manufacturers have already adjusted to the U.S. market, setting up manufacturing inside the country (Chart 11). Tariffs would hurt luxury brands like BMW, Daimler, Volvo, and Jaguar.7 As such, we doubt the investment-relevance of Trump's threat against autos. Either way, the investigation is unlikely to be completed until the tail-end of Q1 2019. Chart 10Tariffs: Who Is Robbing The U.S.? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Chart 11Car Imports? What Imports? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Instead, investors should take Trump's aggressive comments from the G7 in the context of the ongoing NAFTA negotiations and the closing window for a deal. President Trump wants to get a NAFTA deal ahead of the U.S. midterms in November and prior to the new Mexican Congress being inaugurated on September 1.8 This means that a deal has to be concluded by late July, or early August, giving the "old" Mexican Congress enough time to ratify it before the new president - likely Andrés Manuel López Obrador - comes to power on December 1. This would conceivably give the U.S. Congress enough time to ratify a deal by December, assuming Republicans can remove some procedural hurdles before then. The rising probability of no resolution before the U.S. midterm election will increase the risk that Trump will trigger Article 2205 and announce the U.S.'s withdrawal. Trump has always had the option of triggering the six-month withdrawal period as a negotiating tactic to increase the pressure on Canada and Mexico. Withdrawing might fire up the base, while major concessions from Canada or Mexico might be presented as "victories" to voters. Anything short of these binary outcomes is useless to Trump on November 6. Therefore, if Canada and Mexico do not relent in the next month or two, the odds of Trump triggering Article 2205 will shoot up. The key is that Trump faces limited legal or economic constraints in withdrawing: Legal Constraints: Not only can Trump unilaterally withdraw from the agreement, triggering the six-month exit period, but Congress is unlikely to stop him. Announcing withdrawal automatically nullifies much of the 1993 NAFTA Implementation Act.9 Some provisions of NAFTA under this act may continue to be implemented, but the bulk would cease to have effect, and the White House could refuse to enforce the rest. Economic Constraints: The U.S. economy has far less exposure to Canada and Mexico than vice- versa (Chart 12). Certain states and industries would be heavily affected - ironically, the U.S. auto industry would be most severely impacted (Chart 13) - and they would lobby aggressively to save the agreement. But with the American economy hyper-charged with stimulus, the drag from leaving NAFTA is not prohibitive to Trump. Voters will feel any pocketbook consequences about three months late i.e., after the election. Chart 12U.S. Economy:##br## Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA Chart 13NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto ##br##Manufacturing More Competitive Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? The potential saving grace for Canada is the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), which took effect in 1989 and was incorporated into NAFTA. The U.S. and Canada agreed through an exchange of letters to suspend CUSFTA's operation when NAFTA took effect, but the suspension only lasts as long as NAFTA is in effect. However, reinstating CUSFTA is not straightforward. The NAFTA Implementation Act suspends some aspects of the CUSFTA and amends others (for instance, on customs fees), so there will not be an easy transition from NAFTA to a fully operational CUSFTA.10 Trump may well walk away from both CUSFTA and NAFTA in the same proclamation, or he could walk away from NAFTA while leaving CUSFTA in limbo. The latter would mitigate the negative impact on Canada, but it would still see rising tariffs, customs fees, and rising policy uncertainty. Bottom Line: We originally assigned a high probability to the abrogation of NAFTA.11 Subsequently, we lowered the probability due to positive comments from the White House and Trump's negotiating team. This was a mistake. As we initially posited, there are few constraints to abrogating NAFTA, particularly if President Trump intends to renegotiate the deal later, or conclude two separate bilateral deals that effectively maintain the same trade relationship. We are closing our trade favoring an equally-weighted basket of CAD/EUR and MXN/EUR. We are also closing our trade favoring Mexican local government bonds relative to EM. North Korea: A Geopolitical Opportunity, Not A Risk Not every move by the Trump administration is increasing geopolitical volatility. Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine may have elevated risks on the Korean Peninsula in 2017, but it ultimately worked. The media is missing the big picture on the Singapore Summit. Diplomacy is on track and geopolitical risk - namely the risk of war on the peninsula - is fading. It is false to claim that President Trump got nothing in return for the summit. Since November 28, North Korea has moderated its belligerent threats, ceased conducting missile tests, released three U.S. political prisoners, and largely blocked off access to the Punggye-ri nuclear testing site. Now, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has held the summit with Trump, reaffirmed his longstanding promise of "complete denuclearization," reaffirmed the peace-seeking April 2018 Panmunjom Declaration with South Korea, and pledged to dismantle a ballistic missile testing site and continue negotiations. In response, President Trump has given security guarantees to the North Korean regime and has pledged to discontinue U.S.-South Korea military drills for the duration of the negotiations. Trump has not yet eased economic sanctions and his administration has ruled out troop withdrawals from South Korea for now. There is much diplomatic work to be done. But the summit was undoubtedly a positive sign, dialogue is continuing at lower levels, and Kim is expected to visit the White House in the near future. Table 1 shows that the Singapore Summit is substantial when compared with major U.S.-North Korea agreements and inter-Korean summits - and it is unprecedented in that it was agreed between American and North Korean leaders. Table 1How The Singapore Summit Stacks Up To Previous Pacts With North Korea Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Because Trump demonstrated a credible military threat, and China enforced sanctions, the foundation is firmer than that of President Barack Obama's April 2012 agreement to provide food aid in payment for a cessation of nuclear and missile activity. It is much more similar to that of President Clinton and the "Agreed Framework" of 1994, which lasted until 2002, despite many serious failures on both the U.S. and North Korean sides. We should also bear in mind that it was originally U.S. Congress, not North Korea, which undermined the 1994 agreement. Aside from removing war risk, Korean diplomacy is of limited global significance. It marginally improves the outlook for South Korean industrials, energy, telecoms, and consumer staples relative to their EM peers (Chart 14). In the long run it should also be positive for the KRW. Chart 14Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement We maintain that a U.S.-China trade war will not be prevented because of a Korean deal. But we do not expect China to spoil the negotiations. Geopolitically, China benefits from reducing the basis for U.S. forces to be stationed in South Korea. Bottom Line: Go long a "peace dividend" basket of South Korean equity sectors (industrials, energy, consumer staples, and telecoms) and short South Korean "loser" sectors (financials, IT, consumer discretionary, and health care), both relative to their EM peers. Stick to our Korean 2-year/10-year sovereign bond curve steepener trade. Brexit Update: A New Election Is Now In Play Prime Minister Theresa May is fending off a revolt within her Conservative Party this week that could set the course for a new election this year. May reneged on a "compromise" with soft-Brexit/Bremain Tory backbenchers on an amendment that would have given the House of Commons a meaningful vote on the final U.K.-EU Brexit deal. According to the press, the compromise was killed by her own Brexit Secretary, David Davis. There is a fundamental problem with Brexit. The current path towards a hard Brexit, pushed on May by hard-Brexit members of her cabinet and articulated in her January 2017 speech, is incompatible with her party's preferences. According to their pre-referendum preferences, a majority of Tory MPs identified with the Bremain campaign ahead of the referendum (Chart 15). That would suggest that a vast majority prefer a soft Brexit today, if not staying in the EU. We would go further. The current trajectory is incompatible with the democratic preferences of the U.K. public. First, polls are showing rising opposition to Brexit (Chart 16). Second, most voters who chose to vote for Brexit in 2016 did so under the assumption that the Conservative Party would pursue a soft Brexit, including continued membership in the Common Market. Boris Johnson, the most prominent supporter of Brexit ahead of the vote and now the foreign minister, famously stated right after the referendum that "there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market."12 Chart 15Westminster MPs Support Bremain! Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Chart 16Bremain On The Rise Bremain On The Rise Bremain On The Rise So what happens now? We expect the government to be defeated on the crucial amendment giving Westminster the right to vote on the final EU-U.K. deal. If that happens, PM May could be replaced by a hard-Brexit prime minister, most likely Davis. Given the lack of support for an actual hard-Brexit outcome - both in Westminster and among the public - we believe that a new election remains likely by March 2019. Bottom Line: Political risk remains elevated in the U.K. A new election could resolve this risk, but the potential for a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party to win the election could add additional political risk to U.K. assets. We remain short GBP/USD. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013; and "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Pyongyang's Pivot To America," dated June 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan," dated March 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 The Senate has passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act with a rider that would boost CFIUS and maintain stringent restrictions on ZTE's business with the U.S. These restrictions have crippled the company but would have been removed under the Trump administration's snap deal in June. The White House claims it will remove the rider when the House and Senate hold a conference to resolve differences between their versions of the defense bill, but it is not clear that the White House will succeed. Congress could test Trump's veto. If Trump does not veto he will break a personal promise to Xi Jinping and escalate the trade war further than perhaps even he intended. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Piggy Bank No More? Trump And The Dollar's Reserve Currency Status," dated June 15, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 We do not include Porsche in this list as we would gladly pay the 25% tariff on top of its current price. 8 Mexican elections for both president and Congress will take place on July 1, but the new Congress will sit on September 1 while the new president will take office on December 1. 9 Please see Lori Wallach, "Presidential Authority to Terminate NAFTA Without Congressional Approval," Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, November 13, 2017, available at www.citizen.org. 10 The National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America, "Issues Surrounding US Withdrawal From NAFTA," available from GHY International at www.ghy.com. See also Dan Ciuriak, "What if the United States Walks Away From NAFTA?" C. D. Howe Institute Intelligence Memos, dated November 27, 2017, available at www.cdhowe.org. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 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. Geopolitical Calendar

Three macro "policy puts" are in jeopardy of disappearing or, at the very least, being repriced. Fed Put: Rising inflation has made the Fed more reluctant to back off from rate hikes at the first hint of slower growth or falling asset prices. China Put: Worries about high debt levels, overcapacity, and pollution all mean that the bar for fresh Chinese stimulus is higher than in the past. Draghi Put: Bailing out Italy was a no-brainer in 2012 when the country was the victim of contagion from the Greek crisis. But now that Italy is the source of the disease, the rationale for intervention has weakened. These factors, along with additional risks such as mounting protectionism, warrant a more cautious 12-month stance towards global equities and other risk assets. The fact that valuations are stretched across most asset classes only adds to our concern. A neutral stance does not imply that we expect markets to move sideways. On the contrary, volatility is likely to increase over the balance of the year, with the next big move for global equities probably being to the downside. Buckle Up One of BCA's key ongoing themes is that policy and markets are on a collision course. We are starting to see this impending crash play out across the world. Higher Inflation Is Tying The Fed's Hands A slowdown in global growth caused the Fed to abort its tightening plans for 12 months starting in December 2015. Global growth is faltering again, but this time around the Fed is less eager to hit the pause button. In contrast to 2015, the U.S. economy has run out of spare capacity. The unemployment rate fell to a 48-year low of 3.75% in May. For the first time in the history of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), there are more job vacancies than unemployed workers (Chart 1). Average hourly earnings surprised on the upside in May, while the Employment Cost Index for private-sector workers - the cleanest and most reliable measure of U.S. wage growth - rose at a robust 4% annualized pace in the first quarter. Labor market surveys, which generally lead wage growth by three-to-six months, are pointing to a further acceleration in wages (Chart 2). Chart 1There Are Now More ##br##Vacancies Than Jobseekers There Are Now More Vacancies Than Jobseekers There Are Now More Vacancies Than Jobseekers Chart 2U.S. Wage Growth Is Set To Accelerate U.S. Wage Growth Is Set To Accelerate U.S. Wage Growth Is Set To Accelerate The Dollar Rally Can Keep Going Rising wages will put more income into workers' pockets, who will then spend it. Stronger demand can be partly satisfied by imports, but it will take a change in relative prices for that to happen. U.S. imports account for only 16% of GDP. Unless the prices of foreign-made goods decline in relation to the prices of domestically-produced goods, the bulk of any additional household income will be spent on goods produced in the U.S. This means that the dollar needs to strengthen. The Fed's broad trade-weighted dollar index is up 8% since the start of February. While we are not as bullish on the dollar as we were a few months ago, we still believe that the path of least resistance for the greenback is up. Our long DXY trade recommendation has gained 12.1% inclusive of carry since we initiated it. We are raising the target price from 96 to 98. A stronger dollar can help deflect some additional spending towards imports, but this won't be enough to fully cool the economy. Services, which generally cannot be imported, account for nearly two-thirds of GDP. Since it takes time to shift resources from goods-producing sectors to service sectors, any rising aggregate demand will boost service prices. Outside of housing, service-sector inflation is already running at 2.4%, a number that is likely to rise further over the coming year (Chart 3). This will keep the Fed on edge. Hard Times For Emerging Markets The combination of rising U.S. rates and a stronger dollar is bad news for emerging markets. Eighty percent of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. Outside of China, EM dollar debt is now back to late-1990s levels both as a share of GDP and exports (Chart 4). Chart 3Faster Wage Growth Will ##br##Push Up Service Inflation Faster Wage Growth Will Push Up Service Inflation Faster Wage Growth Will Push Up Service Inflation Chart 4EM Dollar Debt Back To Late-1990s Levels EM Dollar Debt Back To Late-1990s Levels EM Dollar Debt Back To Late-1990s Levels The wave of EM local-currency debt issued in recent years only complicates matters. If EM central banks raise rates to defend their currencies, this could imperil economic growth and make it difficult for local-currency borrowers to pay back their loans. Rather than hiking rates, some EM central banks may simply choose to inflate away debt. Consider the case of Brazil. Ninety percent of Brazilian sovereign debt is denominated in reais. The Brazilian government won't default on its debt per se. However, if push comes to shove, Brazil's central bank can always step in to buy government bonds, effectively monetizing the fiscal deficit. The specter of trade wars only adds to the risks facing emerging markets. A larger U.S. budget deficit will drain national savings, leading to a bigger trade deficit. Rather than blaming his own macroeconomic policies, President Trump will blame America's trading partners. Global trade has already been flatlining for over a decade (Chart 5). Trump's trade agenda will further undermine the global trading system. Emerging markets will bear the brunt of that development. Chart 5Global Trade Has Crested Global Trade Has Crested Global Trade Has Crested Chinese Stimulus To The Rescue? When emerging markets last succumbed to pressure in 2015, China saved the day by stepping in with massive new stimulus. Fiscal spending and credit growth accelerated to over 15% year-over-year. The government's actions boosted demand for all sorts of industrial commodities. Today, Chinese growth is slowing again. May data on industrial production, retail sales, and fixed asset investment all disappointed. Property prices in tier 1 cities are down year-over-year. Our leading indicator for the Li Keqiang index, a widely followed measure of economic activity, is in a clear downtrend (Chart 6). So far, the policy response has been fairly muted. Reserve requirements have been cut and some administrative controls loosened, but the combined credit and fiscal impulse has plunged (Chart 7). Onshore and offshore corporate bond yields have increased to multi-year highs. Bank lending rates are rising, while loan approvals are dropping (Chart 8). Chart 6Chinese Growth Is Slowing Anew Chinese Growth Is Slowing Anew Chinese Growth Is Slowing Anew Chart 7China: Policy Response To Slowdown ##br##Has Been Muted So Far China: Policy Response To Slowdown Has Been Muted So Far China: Policy Response To Slowdown Has Been Muted So Far Chart 8China: Credit Tightening China: Credit Tightening China: Credit Tightening We have no doubt that China will stimulate again if the economy appears to be heading for a deep slowdown. However, the bar for a fresh round of stimulus is higher today than it was in the past. Elevated debt levels, excess capacity in some parts of the industrial sector, and worries about pollution all limit the extent to which the authorities can respond with the usual barrage of infrastructure spending and increased bank lending. The economy needs to feel more pain before policymakers come to its aid. Draghi's Dilemma The Italian economy was showing signs of weakness even before bond yields exploded higher. Domestic demand slowed to a mere 0.3% qoq in Q1. The PMIs, consumer confidence, and the Bank of Italy's Ita-Coin cyclical indicator all decelerated (Chart 9). Italy would benefit from a more competitive cost structure, but the political will to undertake the sort of reforms Germany implemented in the late 1990s, and that Spain implemented after the Great Recession, has been sorely lacking (Chart 10). Unwilling to take tough actions to improve competitiveness, the Five Star-Lega coalition government has proposed loosening fiscal policy to support demand. Chart 9Italy's Economy Is Weakening... Again Italy's Economy Is Weakening... Again Italy's Economy Is Weakening... Again Chart 10Italy: More Work Needs To Be Done On ##br##The Labor Competitiveness Front Italy: More Work Needs To Be Done On The Labor Competitiveness Front Italy: More Work Needs To Be Done On The Labor Competitiveness Front Italy's shift towards populism is arriving at the same time that the ECB is looking to wind down its asset purchase program. This means that a key buyer of Italian debt is stepping back just when it may be needed the most. Getting the ECB to bail out Italy will not be as straightforward this time around. Recall that Mario Draghi and Jean-Claude Trichet penned a letter to the Italian government in 2011 outlining a series of reforms they wanted to see enacted as a condition of ongoing ECB support. The contents of the letter were so explosive that they precipitated the resignation of then-PM Silvio Berlusconi when they were leaked to the public. One of the reforms that Mario Draghi demanded - and the subsequent government led by Mario Monti ultimately undertook - was the extension of the retirement age. Italy's current government has explicitly promised to reverse that decision much to the consternation of the ECB and the European Commission. It was one thing for Mario Draghi to promise to do "whatever it takes" to protect Italy when the country was the victim of contagion from the Greek crisis. But now that Italy is the source of the disease, the rationale for intervention has weakened. Investment Conclusions The outlook for global risk assets is likely to be more challenging over the coming months. With that in mind, we are downgrading our 12-month recommendation on global equities and credit from overweight to neutral. A neutral stance does not imply that we expect markets to move sideways. On the contrary, volatility is likely to increase again over the balance of the year, with the next big move for global equities probably being to the downside. Although Treasurys could rally in the near term, higher U.S. inflation will push bond yields up over a 12-month horizon. Given that yields are positively correlated across international bond markets, rising U.S. yields will put upward pressure on yields in the rest of the world. As such, we recommend shifting equity allocations towards cash rather than long-duration bonds. We would also reduce credit exposure. Within the commodity complex, the backdrop for crude remains more favorable than for economically-sensitive metals. Investors should underweight EM equities, credit, and currencies relative to their developed market peers. The Fed needs to tighten U.S. financial conditions to prevent the economy from overheating. Chart 11 shows that EM equities almost always fall when that is happening. Chart 11Tighter U.S. Financial Conditions Do Not Bode Well For EM Stocks Tighter U.S. Financial Conditions Do Not Bode Well For EM Stocks Tighter U.S. Financial Conditions Do Not Bode Well For EM Stocks A stronger dollar will hurt the profits of U.S. multinationals. That said, the sector composition of the U.S. stock market is a bit more defensive than it is elsewhere. On balance, we no longer have a strong view that euro area and Japanese equities will outperform the U.S. in local-currency terms, and hence we are closing our trade recommendation to this effect for a loss of 5.4%. If macro developments evolve as we expect, we will shift to an outright bearish stance on risk assets later this year or in early 2019 in anticipation of a global recession in 2020. That said, we would consider moving our 12-month recommendation temporarily back to overweight if global equities were to sell off by more than 15% over the next few months or the policy environment becomes markedly more market friendly. But at current prices, the risk-reward trade-off no longer justifies a high degree of bullishness. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Fed: The Fed delivered a confidently hawkish rate hike last week, but its projections for growth and, more importantly, inflation appear too cautious. With the market still not fully priced to the Fed's interest rate "dots", and with inflation expectations likely to continue rising to levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target, Treasury yields will remain under upward pressure. Maintain a defensive, below-benchmark U.S. duration stance. ECB: The ECB finally signaled the end of its current Asset Purchase Program, while sticking with its message that interest rate hikes are not likely until at least September 2019. The ECB's optimistic growth and inflation forecasts for the next couple of years may not be realized, but that will not prevent euro area bond yields from drifting higher as the ECB stops buying. Stay below-benchmark on euro area duration exposure. Feature Chart Of the WeekFed Vs. ECB: Still Diverging Fed vs. ECB: Still Diverging Fed vs. ECB: Still Diverging Central bank watching used to be a fairly black and white endeavor for investors and analysts. Policies were either "hawkish", "dovish" or perhaps "neutral". New buzzwords have entered the lexicon in the post-crisis era, however, as central banks have often struggled to adjust policy settings without upsetting financial markets. Now, the combination of action on interest rates and central bank communications can create additional types of policy moves, like a "hawkish hold" or a "dovish hike". With the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank (ECB) announcing policy moves last week, we dedicate this Weekly Report to our assessment of the actions taken by each bank, while trying to throw a few more monetary policy buzzwords into the mix to describe their decisions. Our conclusion is that while there is a need to see tighter monetary conditions on both sides of the Atlantic, the Fed is still delivering a combination of rate changes and language that is creating more upside for bond yields in the U.S. than in Europe (Chart of the Week). The Fed: Hawkishly Hawkish The Fed sounded a confident tone at last week's policy meeting, delivering another 25bp rate hike while also upgrading its growth and inflation forecasts for 2018. In the press conference following the FOMC meeting, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell expressed a very upbeat view on the state of the economy and even sounded a bit surprised as to how resilient growth has been. Yet it appears that the Fed is still erring a bit on the cautious side when it comes to its economic growth projections and, by association, its inflation forecast. The Fed now expects U.S. real GDP growth of 2.8% in 2018, up a mere 0.1 percentage point from its projection from last March. Yet the economy has accelerated in the recent months and the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model is calling for growth to hit a whopping 4.8% in the second quarter. While that model tends to over-predict actual growth outcomes, it does underscore how strong the current run of U.S. data has been and how the risks on the economy are tilted to the upside. That strength is also manifesting itself in robust business confidence, as evidenced by the latest read on small business optimism from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) that was released last week.1 The overall NFIB Optimism Index reached the second highest level in its 45-year history in May, while a record number of respondents felt that now was a "good time to expand" (Chart 2). Reports of positive earnings trends also hit a record high, while reports of positive sales growth were the highest since 1995. At the same time, concerns about labor quality hit the second highest level in the history of the NFIB survey, while reports of compensation increases hit a record high. This booming economy is also impacting price-setting behavior, with reports of actual and planned price increases hitting the highest levels in a decade. Against this backdrop of very robust growth, the Fed did lower its forecast for the unemployment rate for 2018 (now 3.6%), 2019 (3.5%) and 2020 (3.5%). Yet its 2018 projections for headline and core PCE inflation were only nudged up by 0.2 percentage points (to 2.1%) and 0.1 percentage points (to 2.0%), respectively. Inflation is expected to remain around those levels in 2019 and 2020. Does the Fed still believe that NAIRU in the U.S. is 4.5%? If so, there is a serious disconnect between its unemployment and inflation forecasts - one that is more likely to be resolved via higher inflation, especially if those readings from the NFIB data are to be taken at face value. The FOMC did send a mildly hawkish message last week through its interest rate projections (the "dots"). They added one more expected rate increase to 2018, which would bring the total amount of hikes this year to 100bps. However, no cumulative additional increases were added beyond 2018, which means that the Fed merely pulled forward a rate hike that would have occurred in 2020. We still anticipate that a 25bps-per-quarter pace of hikes is the most likely outcome for the Fed over the next year, especially now that the inflation-adjusted funds rate is hovering around the Fed's own estimate of the neutral "r-star" level. That path of rates is still not fully discounted in U.S. money markets (Chart 3), however, which suggests that Treasury yields will remain under upward pressure from a higher front-end of the yield curve. Chart 2U.S. Economy Is On Fire U.S. Economy Is On Fire U.S. Economy Is On Fire Chart 3Market Still Not Fully Converged To Fed Dots Market Still Not Fully Converged To Fed Dots Market Still Not Fully Converged To Fed Dots The Fed will likely err on the side of caution regarding the pace of rate increases, however, given the fact that a) wage growth is still relatively subdued given how tight the labor market is; b) TIPS breakevens are not yet at levels consistent the with the market believing that the Fed has achieved its inflation target; c) the rising U.S. dollar is tightening monetary conditions at the margin; and d) the growing threat of a U.S.-vs-The-World trade war may pose a more serious risk to global growth. Yet all those factors are likely not enough to derail the booming U.S. growth locomotive. Only a move to an outright restrictive Fed monetary policy will make that happen. However, at the moment, the Fed seems more willing to tolerate a potential overshoot of its inflation target than to try and slow an overheating economy. This means that Treasury yields will likely rise through higher inflation expectations, as well as through a convergence of market pricing to the Fed's interest rate projections. Stay below-benchmark on U.S. Treasury market duration exposure. Bottom Line: The Fed delivered a confidently hawkish rate hike last week, but its projections for growth and, more importantly, inflation appear too cautious. With the market still not fully priced to the Fed's interest rate "dots", and with inflation expectations likely to continue rising to levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target, Treasury yields will remain under upward pressure. Maintain a defensive, below-benchmark U.S. duration stance. The ECB: Dovishly Hawkish The ECB announced last week what had widely been expected by the market - that there would be no net new bond buying in its Asset Purchase Program (APP) after December of this year. Yet at the same time, the central bank was able to convey a dovish signal on the timing and pace of rate hikes after the bond purchases stop. Financial markets latched onto the latter message, triggering a rally in euro area bond markets and a daily decline of two big figures on EUR/USD. The central bank sounded a very confident tone - perhaps, surprisingly so - on both the growth and inflation outlook. ECB President Mario Draghi described the deceleration of the euro area economy in the first quarter as a "soft patch" and that the 0.4% (non-annualized) growth in real GDP was "still high growth". Draghi went even further in his description of the strong economy seen last year, and the slowing seen so far in 2018, as being largely driven by external demand: "Basically, it's a pullback from the very high levels of growth in 2017, mostly justified by an extraordinary pickup in exports, which is unlikely to repeat itself now, compounded by an increase - an undeniable increase in uncertainty - and for a variety of reasons really, mostly geopolitical reasons, and some temporary and supply-side factors at both the domestic and the global level as well as weaker impetus from external trade." That assessment for the cause of the Q1/2018 growth slowdown is accurate, as the peak in euro area data such as the manufacturing PMI, industrial confidence and the OECD's leading economic indicator all occurred alongside a slowing of export growth (Chart 4). Yet the ECB may be too optimistic in thinking that the softening in export demand will prove to be "temporary". In the ECB's updated macroeconomic projections, the forecast for real GDP growth in 2018 was revised down from 2.4% to 2.1%, largely due to a reduction in expected export growth from 5.3% to 4.2%. Yet the GDP forecasts for 2019 (+1.9%) and 2020 (+1.7%) were unchanged, and the export growth projection for 2019 was upgraded from 4.1% to 4.4%. That is a view that may prove to be too optimistic. Global trade activity is slowing fast at the moment, primarily on the back of diminished Chinese demand (bottom panel), and leading economic indicators (outside of the U.S.) have rolled over. With U.S. President Donald Trump now turning his protectionist trade rhetoric into actual tariff actions - aimed not just at China but also Europe - the risks are all to the downside for the ECB's growth projections. We find it a bit surprising that the market reacted so strongly to the ECB's indication that interest rates would be kept at current levels "at least through the summer of 2019".2 That language is consistent with the message that the ECB had been signaling prior to last week that any rate hikes would not take place soon after the net new bond purchases end. Taking the ECB's statement at face value, it would suggest that September 2019 is the first possible "live" meeting where a rate hike could occur. According to a survey of economists taken in early June by Bloomberg, the consensus view was that the net bond purchases would stop in December, the ECB would raise the deposit rate in the second quarter of 2019, and then raise the main refinancing rate (the ECB's primary policy rate) from 0% in the third quarter of 2019.3 This is broadly consistent with the pricing we see in our own "months-to-hike" indicator for the euro area, which shows that a 10bp rate increase is priced into the euro Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve by August 2019, but with a full 25bps of increases not discounted until March 2020 (Chart 5). That date for the 10bp hike was at June 2019 on the day prior to last week's policy meeting, so the market repriced more or less in line with the ECB's messaging on the potential timing of that first hike. Chart 4Is The ECB Too Optimistic On Growth? Is The ECB Too Optimistic On Growth? Is The ECB Too Optimistic On Growth? Chart 5Market & ECB Are In Agreement Market & ECB Are In Agreement Market & ECB Are In Agreement Draghi gave no specific indication as to which of the ECB's policy rates would be moved first - when the ECB finally does decide to move - nor what the size of that first move could be. Yet even if the ECB "goes small" on that first move and does not move in 25bp increments like the Fed has been doing, that outcome has now been largely been discounted in the money market yield curve. Our view remains that there will be no rate hikes from the ECB until euro area core inflation and, more importantly, inflation expectations are much higher (Chart 6). As a rough rule of thumb, the ECB's previous rate hikes during the mid-2000s tightening cycle, and even the much-criticized hikes in 2011 that played a role in triggering the European Debt Crisis, did not occur until market-based inflation expectations measures like the 5-year CPI swap, 5-years forward were above 2% (bottom panel). Realized core euro area inflation was pushing toward 1.5-2% during those prior two episodes, which the ECB is not projecting to occur until later in 2019. So with core inflation only at 1.1%, and with inflation expectations still mired at 1.7%, the market is correct to take the ECB at its word that it will not even consider raising rates until next September. So why did bond yields and the euro decline after last week's ECB meeting? Perhaps it was Draghi mentioning in his press conference that bond purchases could be restarted, if needed: "[...] APP is not disappearing; it remains part of the toolbox. It's a new instrument of monetary policy that will be used for contingencies that we don't see now, and that's what we anticipate. But it remains now as a normal instrument to monetary policy." This is not a provocative statement, of course. The Bank of England did exactly that - restarting its quantitative easing (QE) program after the shock of the 2016 Brexit vote - while the Fed has also stated that it could do more rounds of QE in the future if the situation required it (but only after the funds rate had been cut back to the zero once again). Perhaps by leaving the door open a crack to ramping up the APP again, at a time when euro area growth is decelerating and core inflation remains well below target, the ECB was seen by the market to be hedging its bets with regards to exiting the current extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy settings. The ECB has been trying to communicate consistently over the past few months that the decisions on stopping bond purchases and hiking interest rates should be treated separately. In other words, a decision on the former would not have any sort of immediate implications for the latter. We discussed the possibility of the ECB avoiding a Fed-style Taper Tantrum when it exited its APP program back in March.4 Our conclusion was that while the ECB had been absorbing a greater share of government bond issuance than the Fed ever did during its QE programs, the "flow effect" of the ECB buying fewer bonds as it exited the APP would still push up euro area bond yields through the normalization of negative term premia (Chart 7). The ECB has been arguing that the "stock effect" of it owning such a large share of the euro area bond market has created a scarcity of risk-free assets that will keep yields subdued. Yet as was shown in the U.S. experience, the bigger impact on U.S. Treasury yields from its QE program was the signaling effect on the expected path of interest rates post QE. That can be seen by the very tight correlation between the term premium on 10-year U.S. Treasury yields and our measure of the market's expectation for the neutral rate fed funds rate - the 5-year U.S. OIS rate, 5-years forward minus the 5-year U.S. CPI swap rate, 5-years forward (Chart 8). A similarly tight correlation exists in the euro area interest rate markets (bottom panel), suggesting that the ECB may have a tougher time keeping a lid on bond yields than they expect if the market starts to raise the expected path of interest rates at a faster pace than the ECB would like to see. Chart 6ECB Will Not Hike Until Inflation ##br##Expectations Are Much Higher ECB Will Not Hike Until Inflation Expectations Are Much Higher ECB Will Not Hike Until Inflation Expectations Are Much Higher Chart 7The 'Flow Effect' Of Less ECB Buying##br## Will Boost Bond Yields The 'Flow Effect' Of Less ECB Buying Will Boost Bond Yields The 'Flow Effect' Of Less ECB Buying Will Boost Bond Yields Chart 8Markets Do Not Treat Tapering ##br##& Rate Hikes Separately Markets Do Not Treat Tapering & Rate Hikes Separately Markets Do Not Treat Tapering & Rate Hikes Separately For now, the uncertainty of the current state of euro area economic growth, combined with core inflation that is still undershooting the ECB's target, suggests that euro area bond yields will remain subdued in the near term. Yet as the ECB begins to cut its pace of asset purchases after September of this year, a slow drift higher in euro area bond yields is still the most likely outcome. If the euro area economy rebounds as the ECB expects, then the risk of an even bigger move higher in yields would increase as the market reprices the ECB rate hike cycle, although only if accompanied by an acceleration in core inflation and inflation expectations. We are maintaining our strategic recommendation to stay below-benchmark on duration risk within euro area bond portfolios. In terms of country allocation, we are sticking with our modest underweight stance, however, although we do still prefer owning core European bonds over U.S. Treasuries (especially on a currency hedged basis into U.S. dollars), as the risks of higher bond yields are still much greater in the U.S. than in Europe. Bottom Line: The ECB finally signaled the end of its current Asset Purchase Program, while sticking with its message that interest rate hikes are not likely until at least September 2019. The ECB's optimistic growth and inflation forecasts for the next couple of years may not be realized, but that will not prevent euro area bond yields from drifting higher as the ECB stops buying. Stay below-benchmark on euro area duration exposure. ­­ Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.nfib.com/surveys/small-business-economic-trends/ 2 http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2018/html/ecb.is180614.en.html 3 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/draghi-s-bond-buying-era-seen-ending-as-ecb-gears-up-for-talks 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Bond Markets Are Suffering Withdrawal Symptoms", dated March 20th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Hawks & Doves And Everything In Between Hawks & Doves And Everything In Between Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Monetary Policy: Position for rate hikes of 25 bps per quarter for the next 6-12 months and watch nominal GDP growth, cyclical spending and the price of gold for signals about the position of the fed funds rate relative to its equilibrium level. Yield Curve: Curve flattening will proceed as the Fed lifts rates, but some flattening pressure will be mitigated by the re-anchoring of long-dated inflation expectations. Against this back-drop, and given currently attractive valuations, a position long the 7-year bullet and short the duration-matched 1/20 barbell makes the most sense. IG Credit: Moving down-in-quality has a greater positive impact on the risk-adjusted performance of a credit portfolio when excess return volatility and index duration-times-spread are low. At present, down-in-quality allocations within investment grade credit are only marginally attractive. Feature "You just let the machines get on with the adding up," warned Majikthise, "and we'll take care of the eternal verities, thank you very much. [...] "That's right," shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, By Douglas Adams Jerome Powell put his stamp on Fed communications at last week's FOMC meeting. He trimmed 100 words from the policy statement and began his post-meeting press conference with a concise "plain-English" summary of how the economy is doing. In short: "the economy is doing very well". But while he expressed confidence in the Fed's assessment of the economy, he was also keen to point out areas where the outlook is cloudier. His central theme seemed to be that we must delineate between those questions that can be addressed by the Fed's reading of the economic data and those that are better left to the philosophers in Douglas Adams' novel. The Chairman stressed the uncertainty surrounding two concepts in particular: the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU) and the neutral (or equilibrium) interest rate, even advising that "we can't be too attached to these unobservable variables." But what can we say about these traditionally important policy guideposts? And more importantly, how should we think about them when formulating an investment strategy? The Importance Of NAIRU Chart 1The Fed's Projections The Fed's Projections The Fed's Projections One issue that came up repeatedly in the Chairman's press conference was the seeming disconnect between the Fed's labor market projections and its inflation projections. The Fed expects the unemployment rate to fall far below NAIRU during the next two years, and yet it anticipates only a mild overshoot of its inflation target (Chart 1).1 Ultimately this disconnect will be resolved in one of two ways. Either the Fed is underestimating the inflation pressures that will result from running the unemployment rate so far below NAIRU and will be forced to hike rates more quickly than anticipated, or it will eventually revise its estimate of NAIRU downward. From an investment perspective, this disconnect will only matter if inflation starts to rise more quickly than anticipated and the Fed is forced to ramp up the pace of rate hikes. We discussed this possibility in a recent report and concluded that, on a 6-12 month horizon, the odds of the Fed hiking more quickly than its current 25 bps per quarter pace are low.2 This is principally because the Fed will likely tolerate a fairly substantial overshoot of its inflation target before it feels the need to tighten more quickly. The Importance Of The Neutral Rate For bond investors the theoretical concept of the neutral (or equilibrium) interest rate is much more important. This interest rate represents the threshold between accommodative and restrictive monetary policy. When the fed funds rate is above neutral we should expect the pace of economic growth to slow and inflation pressures to dissipate. At present, the majority of FOMC participants estimate that the neutral fed funds rate is between 2.75% and 3%. At the Fed's current 25 bps per quarter pace, the funds rate will reach neutral by the middle of next year (Chart 2). Chart 2The Federal Funds Rate Will Hit Neutral Next Year The Federal Funds Rate Will Hit Neutral Next Year The Federal Funds Rate Will Hit Neutral Next Year The important question for investors is whether the Fed will start to slow its rate hike pace at that time, or whether it will revise its estimate of the neutral rate based on trends in the economy. Chairman Powell's emphasis on uncertainty makes us lean toward the latter. In a recent report we outlined three factors to monitor that will help us determine whether monetary policy is accommodative (fed funds rate below neutral) or restrictive (fed funds rate above neutral).3 The first factor is the year-over-year growth rate in nominal GDP relative to the fed funds rate (Chart 3). Historically, the year-over-year growth rate in nominal GDP falling below the fed funds rate is a reliable (though often lagging) signal that monetary policy has turned restrictive. A more leading signal of restrictive monetary policy is the proportion of nominal GDP that comes from the most cyclical (or interest rate sensitive) sectors of the economy. Those sectors being consumer spending on durable goods, residential investment and investment on equipment & software. When cyclical spending declines as a proportion of overall growth it is often a sign that the fed funds rate is above its neutral level (Chart 3, panel 2). Finally, we also recommend monitoring the price of gold for clues about the neutral rate of interest. Gold tends to appreciate when the stance of monetary policy becomes more accommodative and depreciate when it becomes more restrictive. The steep decline in the gold price between 2013 and 2016 even preceded downward revisions to the Fed's estimate of the neutral rate (Chart 4). Going forward, an upside breakout in the price of gold would be a signal that we should revise our estimate of the neutral fed funds rate higher. Conversely, a large decline would suggest that monetary policy is turning restrictive and we should think about calling the cyclical peak in bond yields. Chart 3Tracking The Neutral Rate I Tracking The Neutral Rate I Tracking The Neutral Rate I Chart 4Tracking The Neutral Rate II Tracking The Neutral Rate II Tracking The Neutral Rate II Bottom Line: Rather than rely on current estimates of unobservable variables like NAIRU and the neutral rate of interest, investors should monitor developments in the economy and consider how those estimates might evolve over time. For now, investors should expect a rate hike pace of 25 bps per quarter and watch nominal GDP growth, cyclical spending and the price of gold for signals about the position of the fed funds rate relative to its equilibrium level. Gradualism And The Slope Of The Curve The Fed's fairly explicit guidance that rates will rise by 25 bps per quarter is quite helpful when formulating expectations about the slope of the yield curve. For example, we know that the current 1-year par coupon Treasury yield of 2.35% is priced for exactly 100 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months with no term premium. In other words, investors today should be indifferent between an investment in cash and an investment in a 1-year Treasury note if they are 100% certain that the Fed will stick to its 25 bps per quarter hike pace for the next 12 months. We can also forecast where the 1-year Treasury yield will be six months from now under a few different scenarios (Table 1). The forward curve is consistent with a 1-year Treasury yield of 2.69% six months from now, and we calculate that it will be 2.83% if the market moves to fully discount a rate hike pace of 25 bps per quarter until the end of 2019. If the market only prices in the Fed's median funds rate projection, which calls for three hikes in 2019, then the 1-year Treasury yield will be between 2.62% and 2.81% six months from now, depending on which meetings in 2019 those three rate hikes are delivered. Table 1Forecasting The 1-Year Treasury Yield Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty The main takeaway from these observations is that even in the most hawkish scenario the 1-year Treasury yield will only rise to 2.83%. This is 48 bps above its current level and a mere 14 bps more than what is already priced into the forward curve. Now let's consider the long-end of the curve. The 10-year and 20-year TIPS breakeven inflation rates currently sit at 2.12% and 2.10%, respectively. If inflation expectations become re-anchored around the Fed's 2% target during the next six months, which we expect they will, then both of these rates will reach a range between 2.3% and 2.5% (Chart 5). This alone will apply between 20 bps and 40 bps of upward pressure to the 20-year Treasury yield. The nominal 20-year Treasury yield is currently 2.98% and the forward curve is priced for it to rise to 3.01% in six months. In the most hawkish scenario where the Fed lifts rates 25 bps per quarter and long-maturity yields remain constant, the 1/20 Treasury slope will flatten by 48 bps during the next six months. In the more likely scenario where Fed rate hikes coincide with the re-anchoring of long-dated inflation expectations, the 1/20 slope will flatten by 28 bps or less. Meanwhile, our model of the 1/7/20 butterfly spread shows that it is priced for 55 bps of 1/20 flattening during the next six months (Chart 6). Or put differently, there is so much extra yield pick-up in the 7-year bullet relative to the duration-matched 1/20 barbell that being long the bullet and short the barbell will be profitable unless the 1/20 slope flattens by more than 55 bps. Chart 5Inflation Expectations Are Still Too Low Inflation Expectations Are Still Too Low Inflation Expectations Are Still Too Low Chart 6Butterfly Spread Fair Value Model Butterfly Spread Fair Value Model Butterfly Spread Fair Value Model Bottom Line: Curve flattening will proceed as the Fed lifts rates, but some flattening pressure will be offset by the re-anchoring of long-dated inflation expectations. Against this back-drop, and given currently attractive valuations, a position long the 7-year bullet and short the duration-matched 1/20 barbell makes the most sense. Risk Update On May 22 we initiated a tactical long duration position premised on extended net short positioning in the bond market and the high likelihood of negative near-term data surprises.4 We have seen considerable movement in our indicators during the past two weeks - positioning is now much closer to neutral (Chart 7) and our model no longer expects data surprises to turn negative (Chart 8). Therefore, this week we remove our tactical long duration recommendation. The biggest current risk to our below-benchmark duration stance is the large divergence that has opened up between U.S. growth and the rest of the world (Chart 9). This divergence is putting upward pressure on the U.S. dollar and, much like in 2015, is starting to hurt growth in emerging markets, as we discussed last week. Chart 7Bond Market Positioning Bond Market Positioning Bond Market Positioning Chart 8Data Surprises Should Remain Positive Data Surprises Should Remain Positive Data Surprises Should Remain Positive Chart 9Foreign Growth Is The Greatest Risk Foreign Growth Is The Greatest Risk Foreign Growth Is The Greatest Risk But dollar strength and emerging market weakness is not an imminent threat to higher U.S. yields. Using the 2015 experience as a template, we see in Chart 9 that U.S. yields did not fall until after emerging market financial conditions and global growth had already troughed. In fact, it was not until dollar strength and weak global growth culminated in a dramatic tightening of U.S. financial conditions that the Fed finally signaled a slower pace of rate hikes and Treasury yields declined (Chart 9, bottom panel). Similarly, we don't think the Fed will react to a strong dollar and weak foreign growth until the impact is felt by U.S. risk assets. With U.S. growth still elevated and the dollar having appreciated only modestly so far, we think Treasury yields will avoid this risk during the next few months. Nonetheless, the divergence between U.S. and foreign growth is a risk that bears close monitoring. We will not hesitate to alter our duration stance if the dollar continues to appreciate and the divergence appears close to a breaking point. The Best Time To Move Down In Quality In last week's report we reviewed our assessment of where we stand in the credit cycle. That assessment determines whether we should be overweight or underweight investment grade corporate bonds relative to a duration-equivalent position in Treasuries. This week we zero-in on our allocation to investment grade corporate bonds and consider how we should allocate between the different credit tiers (Aaa, Aa, A and Baa). In next week's report we will look at positioning across the different maturity buckets and industries. We begin our analysis with the four Bond Maps presented in Charts 10-13. These Bond Maps show risk-adjusted return potential on the y-axis. Specifically, the number of months of average spread tightening necessary to achieve the excess return threshold listed in each map's title. The risk-adjusted potential for losses is shown on the x-axis. In this case, it shows the number of months of average spread widening required to underperform Treasuries by the amount listed in the title. Chart 10Investment Grade Corporate Excess Return Bond Map:##br## +/- 50 BPs Threshold Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Chart 11Investment Grade Corporate Excess Return Bond Map: ##br##+/- 100 BPs Threshold Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Chart 12Investment Grade Corporate Excess Return Bond Map: ##br##+/- 200 BPs Threshold Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Chart 13Investment Grade Corporate Excess Return Bond Map:##br## +/- 300 BPs Threshold Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Credit tiers plotting closer to the bottom-left of the Bond Maps have less potential for return and less risk. Credit tiers plotting closer to the upper-right have greater potential for return and more risk. What we find particularly interesting is that when we set a low return threshold, such as +/- 50 bps, the credit tiers plot almost right on top of each other. In other words, an allocation to Baa-rated corporate bonds gives you a much greater chance of earning 50 bps with about the same risk of losing 50 bps as the other credit tiers. But as we increase the excess return threshold the risk/reward trade-off between the different credit tiers becomes more linear. In Chart 13 we see that Baa-rated bonds have a greater chance of earning 300 bps than the other credit tiers, but also carry a significantly greater risk of losing 300 bps. Chart 14Down-In-Quality Works ##br##Best When Vol Is Low Down-In-Quality Works Best When Vol Is Low Down-In-Quality Works Best When Vol Is Low This leads to an interesting conclusion. A macro environment where we would expect low excess return volatility is also one where moving down in quality within investment grade corporate bonds is most beneficial from a risk/reward perspective. Conversely, moving down in quality will improve the risk-adjusted performance of your portfolio by less (and might even hurt the risk-adjusted performance of your portfolio) in a highly volatile return environment. To test this theory, we first recognize that the excess return volatility of the investment grade corporate bond index is tightly linked with its duration-times-spread (DTS). Low DTS environments have lower excess return volatility, and also less of a spread differential between the lower and higher credit tiers (Chart 14). With this in mind we split the historical time series of monthly corporate bond excess returns into four quartiles based on the index DTS (Table 2). We also exclude recessions from our sample, meaning this analysis is only valid during periods of economic recovery. Not surprisingly, the results show that the standard deviation of monthly excess returns increases alongside index DTS. But we also see that the average return advantage in the Baa-rated credit tier is lower when the index DTS is higher. Table 2Investment Grade Corporate Bond Excess Returns By Credit Tier (1989-Present)* Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty When the index DTS is between 3 and 4.5, the reward/risk ratio in the Baa-rated credit tier exceeds the average of the other three credit tiers by 0.13. This advantage falls to 0.07 when the DTS is between 4.5 and 6.7; and falls further to 0.04 when the DTS is between 6.7 and 9.7. In the highest DTS quartile, the Baa-rated credit tier provides a lower reward/risk ratio than the average of the other three credit tiers. At present the index DTS is 8.4. This puts us in the second highest quartile relative to history, and is consistent with a 12-month standard deviation of monthly excess returns of roughly 77 bps for the corporate bond index. In this environment we should expect down-in-quality allocations to positively impact the risk-adjusted performance of a credit portfolio, but not by as much as in lower DTS environments. Bottom Line: Moving down-in-quality has a greater positive impact on the risk-adjusted performance of a credit portfolio when excess return volatility and index duration-times-spread are low. At present, down-in-quality allocations within investment grade credit are only marginally attractive. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 In order to display a longer history, Chart 1 shows the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of NAIRU rather than the Fed's. At present both estimates are very close. The CBO estimates NAIRU to be 4.65% and the Fed's median projection calls for a NAIRU of 4.5%. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Breaking Points", dated May 29, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Pulling Back And Looking Ahead", dated May 22, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification