Policy

Highlights Russian equities are among the cheapest emerging markets, and among the cheapest in the world - a re-rating could be epic; Weak growth potential and poor governance present tremendous challenges; Yet macro fundamentals are sound and economic policy is orthodox - Russia should behave as a low-beta EM market going forward; The government is highly likely to build on recent micro-level improvements with reforms to improve human capital and infrastructure; Vladimir Putin's military adventurism has stalled, reducing geopolitical risk from high levels; Continue to overweight Russian assets within EM portfolios; go long Russian / short Brazilian local currency government bonds. Feature Russia has one of the cheapest equity markets in EM and in the world. With conflict in Ukraine frozen, a stalemate in Syria, and domestic politics stable (if not inspiring), could the country be on the verge of an epic re-rating? To answer this question, investors have to first understand why Russia is cheap. Shockingly, geopolitical adventures and the 2014 collapse in oil prices have nothing to do with the bargain prices! Russian P/E plummeted in 2011 because investors realized that President Vladimir Putin was here to stay for potentially another two decades (Chart 1). And that signaled that weak governance and an atrocious record on attracting foreign investment would persist for the long term. And yet, Russian equity outperformance amidst the most recent global volatility rout serves as an indication that Russian equities have the capacity to outperform (Chart 2). Is this a fluke, or the start of something more long-term? Chart 1Russian Equities Are Cheap Russian Equities Are Cheap Russian Equities Are Cheap Chart 2Russia Outperformed In ##br##High Vol Environment Russia Outperformed In High Vol Environment Russia Outperformed In High Vol Environment This ... Is ... Sparta! Russia faces extreme challenges as a nation. It is an austere, isolated, and militaristic society - a modern-day Sparta compared to the West's Athens. Its few competitive wares are wheat, hydrocarbons, and guns. Its lack of openness toward immigration, foreign trade, services, technology, and human development tend to limit its productivity. To assess Russia's long-term economic potential, we should begin with the bad news. First, Russia has a disastrous population profile. Both labor force growth and the working age population are shrinking (Chart 3). The dependency ratio is high and rising at 45%. Though the fertility rate has notably perked up, it remains far below the replacement rate of 2.1 (Chart 4). Even given the current population, there is limited room to increase the labor participation rate, as it is already higher than in the U.S. and is not rising anymore. Chart 3Russia Loses Workers Russia Loses Workers Russia Loses Workers Chart 4Russian Fertility Beneath Replacement Rate Russian Fertility Beneath Replacement Rate Russian Fertility Beneath Replacement Rate Second, immigration is in decline. Most immigrants come from the Russian commonwealth, but in net terms, immigration has been drifting away since the global financial crisis, even more rapidly since the 2014 oil shock (Chart 5). Russia is rife with xenophobia and anti-immigrant politics. Even if policy were to become more inviting, the Russian-speaking sources of immigration are also seeing weak working-age population growth. And Russia is unlikely ever to become an all-weather migrant country (Chart 6).1 Chart 5Immigrants Not Welcome Immigrants Not Welcome Immigrants Not Welcome Chart 6Slow Growth In Immigration Sources Slow Growth In Immigration Sources Slow Growth In Immigration Sources Third, labor productivity growth has only just begun to recover and is weaker than in the past. Russia has fallen behind its emerging European neighbors (Chart 7). The same can be said for total factor productivity growth, which is a very important indicator for economies that want to modernize - it currently stands at zero. Fourth, Russia suffers from chronically weak institutions and poor governance: Inequality is high and rising (Chart 8). Chart 7Russian Productivity Has Fallen Russian Productivity Has Fallen Russian Productivity Has Fallen Chart 8Inequality Is On The Rise... Inequality Is On The Rise... Inequality Is On The Rise... Governance indicators are deeply negative - worse than China's (Chart 9). Corruption is rampant - Russia ranks 135 out of 180 countries on the Corruption Perceptions Index, only very slightly improving since 2014. Corruption reduces economic efficiency and the effectiveness of public investments.2 For instance, despite the rise in spending on the judicial system in Russia, "rule of law" has declined, according to the World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators (Chart 9, bottom panel). Nationalization remains the government's modus operandi. Not only have privatization schemes failed, but new nationalizations have continued to occur - namely the electricity sector and most recently the banks (see Chart 14 below). State ownership has risen from 30% of GDP in 2000 to 70% today.3 Fifth, Russia's self-inflicted standoff with the western world has resulted in a closed economy that misses out on the benefits of human capital, technology transfer, and trade. The country's international competitiveness is clearly suffering: Russian exports have lost market share in the world and in the EU. Even in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, two areas where Russia has the biggest advantages and lacks geopolitical constraints, Russian exports have been lackluster. Crucially, Russia is gaining market share in East Asia, though even here with difficulty (Chart 10). Leaving aside commodities, Russia has failed to develop a competitive manufacturing sector. Chart 9...And Governance Is Poor Vladimir Putin, Act IV Vladimir Putin, Act IV Char 10Lack Of Export Competitiveness Lack Of Export Competitiveness Lack Of Export Competitiveness Sixth, Russia's government spending priorities are heavily focused on national security and thus constrained from promoting economic productivity and improving governance. Total spending on national defense, state security, and diplomacy has risen to 6.4% of GDP and 31.7% of the government budget. This is twice as much as the U.S. and China at 3.2% and 2.8% of GDP, respectively. By contrast, total spending on social policy is 5.5% of GDP and 29% of the budget. Spending on education and healthcare, at 0.7% and 0.5% of GDP respectively, is well below European, American, and Chinese levels, and it has hardly increased as a share of government spending in recent years. Basic and applied research spending is tiny and falling. So far the most significant investments in social wellbeing have been limited to pensions. Yet it is a well-attested fact that increases to state pensions precede elections, as pensioners are a key political constituency for the ruling United Russia party. The spending tends to be fleeting and does not enhance productivity.4 Cutting military spending would give Russia more fiscal resources to address badly needed economic weaknesses. But it is not on the horizon, so economic reforms will face budgetary constraints. Bottom Line: Russia's long-term potential is stunted by population shrinkage, slow productivity growth, lack of openness and competitiveness, lack of diversification and complexity, weak institutions, and poor governance. Some Good News: Orthodox Macroeconomic Policy Now for the good news: Russia's economy has stabilized and its macroeconomic policy backdrop is sound and orthodox, especially relative to emerging markets. First and foremost, fiscal and monetary policies have become less pro-cyclical. This will reduce volatility in the real economy and ensure that the current cyclical recovery is sustainable (Chart 11). Fiscal policy has been tight and conservative. In fact, the government has only slightly let nominal expenditures grow since the oil crash, while spending has fallen considerably in real terms (Chart 12). Chart 11Russia Is Undergoing A Cyclical Recovery Russia Is Undergoing A Cyclical Recovery Russia Is Undergoing A Cyclical Recovery Chart 12Russia: Orthodox Fiscal Policy Russia: Orthodox Fiscal Policy Russia: Orthodox Fiscal Policy Consequently, the fiscal deficit has significantly narrowed. The conservative budget assumption of $40/bbl oil is still being upheld (Chart 12, bottom panel). Moreover, the new fiscal rule implemented by the Ministry of Finance last year has allowed Russia to rebuild its FX reserves (Chart 13). The rule stipulates that the Ministry of Finance will buy foreign currency when the price of oil rises above the set target level of 2,700 RUB per barrel (i.e. $40/bbl times 67 USD/RUB exchange rate), and sell foreign exchange when the oil price falls below that level. The objective is to create a counter-cyclical ballast that will limit fluctuations in the ruble caused by swings in oil prices. Lastly, the public debt-to-GDP ratio is a mere 16% in Russia. On the monetary policy side, the Central Bank of Russia has been highly orthodox. Unlike many other EM central banks, it has refrained from injecting excess liquidity into the banking system and has maintained high real interest rates (Chart 13, bottom panels). All in all, Russia is much more advanced in its macroeconomic adjustment phase than other emerging markets: Commercial banks have been increasing provisions, even though the NPL ratio has begun to fall (Chart 14). Furthermore, the central bank has been reducing the number of dysfunctional banks by removing their licenses (Chart 14, bottom panel). Chart 13Russia: Orthodox Monetary Policy Russia: Orthodox Monetary Policy Russia: Orthodox Monetary Policy Chart 14Russian Banking Sector Underwent A Clean-Up Russian Banking Sector Underwent A Clean-Up Russian Banking Sector Underwent A Clean-Up Russia is further along in its deleveraging cycle than other EMs. Having gone through the pain of a massive currency devaluation followed by substantial increases in interest rates and bank restructuring, Russia can begin to re-leverage, which will be positive for consumption and investment. In fact, re-leveraging is already underway. Bank loans are expanding after a pronounced contraction. The credit impulse - i.e. the change in bank loan growth - continues to recover (Chart 15, top panel). Importantly, debt has room to grow, especially in the consumer sector where debt levels are low (Chart 15, bottom panel). Capital spending, which had collapsed both in absolute terms and relative to GDP, has started to recover. It is supported by a recovery in broad money supply (Chart 16). Starting from an extremely under-invested position, the recovery warrants major upside in investment outlays. Chart 15Russia: Re-leveraging ##br##Has Room To Continue Russia: Re-leveraging Has Room To Continue Russia: Re-leveraging Has Room To Continue Chart 16Russia: Capital Expenditures ##br##Will Rise From Low Level Russia: Capital Expenditures Will Rise From Low Level Russia: Capital Expenditures Will Rise From Low Level Exposure to external risks is limited: External debt across private and public sectors remains extremely low, limiting the impact of potential foreign currency sell-offs (Chart 17). Russia's foreign funding requirement - calculated by subtracting the current account balance from external debt servicing over the next 12 months - is the second-lowest in emerging markets after Thailand, making Russia's balance-of-payments position one of the least vulnerable in the EM universe. Furthermore, Russia is making clear improvements despite the dismal trends outlined above. On the margin these improvements could raise the country's long-term growth prospects: On the external side, the composition of exports is shifting away from commodity exports (Chart 18). Although commodity exports still account for the large majority of the export pool at 81%, a gradual shift towards other sectors will allow the economy to diversify its sources of revenue and employment. The allocation of government expenditures has marginally shifted towards addressing some of Russia's long-standing structural problems. Spending on infrastructure (transport and roads) has climbed steadily (Chart 19). This is critical as the road system in Russia is significantly underinvested and is a medium through which productivity can be efficiently increased. Chart 17Russia: External Debt Has Fallen And Is Low Russia: External Debt Has Fallen And Is Low Russia: External Debt Has Fallen And Is Low Chart 18Russia: Export Composition Is Improving Russia: Export Composition Is Improving Russia: Export Composition Is Improving In the private sector, employment for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has been rising (Chart 20). Importantly, this is happening in the peripheral districts as well as the economically more vibrant central federal district. Policy is becoming more supportive of SMEs, for instance via tax holidays. Allowing SMEs to gain a bigger share of the economy will hold the key to creating an environment where innovation and business confidence can start improving Russia's productivity prospects. Chart 19Russia: Road And Transport ##br##Expenditures Are Rising Russia: Road And Transport Expenditures Are Rising Russia: Road And Transport Expenditures Are Rising Chart 20Russia: SME Employment Is Rising Russia: SME Employment Is Rising Russia: SME Employment Is Rising Interestingly, the number of privately owned businesses being created is rising relative to the number of state-owned businesses. In addition, more state-owned businesses are being liquidated relative to privately owned ones (Chart 21), suggesting a willingness to accommodate "creative destruction." The "Ease of Doing Business" has improved markedly under administrative reforms, easier land registration, and improved contract enforcement (Chart 22). "Regulatory quality," "control of corruption," and "absence of violence" are key governance indicators that are directly relevant for the corporate outlook and investors, and these are improving, albeit from a negative level (Chart 23). Chart 21Russia: More Private, Less State-Owned Businesses Russia: More Private, Less State-Owned Businesses Russia: More Private, Less State-Owned Businesses Chart 22Easier To Do Business In Russia Vladimir Putin, Act IV Vladimir Putin, Act IV Chart 23Some Slight Governance Improvements Vladimir Putin, Act IV Vladimir Putin, Act IV In sum, while macro stability has been achieved, Russia needs to expand and sustain recent marginal developments on the micro level in order to improve its long-term economic and investment outlook. Bottom Line: The economy has stabilized and macroeconomic policy is orthodox. Marginal improvements in export composition, government spending allocations, and treatment of the private sector may not turn Russia into a high-productivity country overnight, but they do mark an inflection point that could arrest the downward trend of productivity. This is especially so if private and public initiatives are taken to further these initial developments. More Good News: Foreign Adventurism Has Stalled Russia's geopolitics are also unlikely to worsen from here, at least not in a way that is relevant to investors. President Putin's rhetoric reached peak bluster in his lengthy "State of the Nation" address to the Duma on March 1. Western media took the bait immediately, encapsulated best by The New Yorker headline, "Vladimir Putin Is Campaigning On The Threat Of Nuclear War."5 Should investors dismiss Putin's slick, computer-generated images of Florida getting nuked by multiple warheads? It depends. On one hand, our Russian geopolitical risk indicator suggests that investors have been demanding an ever smaller premium on Russian assets (Chart 24).6 There is, therefore, considerable room for the market to be surprised in the future. On the other hand, Chart 24 also shows that the premium is still at elevated levels, at least compared to the era prior to Russia's invasion of Crimea. Chart 24Geopolitical Risk Is Falling Geopolitical Risk Is Falling Geopolitical Risk Is Falling The main question for investors is whether a substantial increase in geopolitical risk could befall Russia over the short and medium term. We doubt it for three reasons: Stalemate in Syria: Russia got what it wanted in Syria. Embattled President Bashar el-Assad has survived, locking in Moscow's influence and allowing Putin to declare victory in late 2017.7 The Kremlin has already recalled most of its ground troops to Russia and has shied away from conflict with the U.S. since then.8 For example, when nine Russian mercenaries died in an attack against a U.S.-controlled base in Syria, the Russian government did not so much as protest.9 Stalemate in Ukraine: We controversially suggested in 2015 that the primary reason for Russia's intervention in Syria was to distract Putin's fired-up domestic constituency from the failures of Moscow's policy in Ukraine.10 The battle to carve out a substantive portion of Eastern Ukraine, where Russian speakers live, failed miserably. Out of the 13% of Ukrainian territory encompassing the Oblasts of Kharkiv, Luhansk, and Donetsk, Moscow-backed rebels stalled after conquering approximately 20% -- or in other words only 3% of Ukrainian territory as a whole (Map 1).11 Map 1Ukraine Is A Stalemate Vladimir Putin, Act IV Vladimir Putin, Act IV What Else Is Left? Russia has shied away from directly confronting NATO member states. As such, Putin is unlikely to do anything in the Baltics and Scandinavia, two regions where NATO and Russia have recently arrayed forces against one another. There is always potential for Moscow to reignite conflict in the Caucasus, but it is unlikely that the market would care (they did not in 2008!). We therefore take a different view of Putin's latest aggressive military rhetoric. By stating that Russia no longer fears the U.S. ballistic missile defense system in Europe due to technological advancement, Putin is giving himself the maneuvering room to stand-down from a constant aggressive military posture. Three other factors suggest that Russia-West tensions have peaked for the current cycle: Energy: The EU is gradually diversifying its natural gas imports away from Russia (Chart 25), but the drop in the Russian share of European gas imports in 2017 is not firmly established. Europe as a whole still depends on Russia for 33% of its natural gas consumption. The threat from U.S. LNG shale imports is a decade-long theme that will only accelerate when Europeans commit to building more import terminals (like the new one in Lithuania). Moscow is not sitting still but has begun to counter this threat by becoming a far more compliant partner to the Europeans. It has even adopted the EU Commission's regulatory framework, which it had roundly rejected seven years ago. As the U.S. threat grows over the next decade, Russia will have to compete with Americans on more than just price. It will have to show Europe that it is a reliable geopolitical partner as well. As much as Europe relies on Russian natural gas exports, Moscow relies twice as much on European natural gas imports (Chart 26). Chart 25The EU Is Diversifying... The EU Is Diversifying... The EU Is Diversifying... Chart 26...But Both Sides Still Need Each Other Vladimir Putin, Act IV Vladimir Putin, Act IV Putin's confidence: President Putin remains popular, with popular approval at 81%. His government has begun to lose support, however, with the spread between his approval and his government's approval widening to 39%, one of its highest levels. Given that Russia's president is largely in charge of foreign policy, the spread suggests that the population is largely content with the current geopolitical situation, but that the risks to Putin and his regime are domestic in nature. Given that Putin is a student of Russian history, he will remember that foreign adventures have collapsed almost every Russian regime over the past two centuries!12 Oil Prices: As we have repeatedly shown, low oil prices are a limiting factor to oil producers' ability to wage war (Chart 27). Political science research shows that the relationship is not spurious. Chart 28 shows that oil states led by revolutionary leaders are much more likely to engage in militarized interstate disputes when oil prices are higher.13 While oil prices have recovered from their doldrums from two years ago, they are still a far cry from where they stood just before the invasions of Georgia and Ukraine. Chart 27Low Oil Prices Discourage Oil States From Waging War Vladimir Putin, Act IV Vladimir Putin, Act IV Chart 28More Oil Revenue = More Aggression Vladimir Putin, Act IV Vladimir Putin, Act IV Bottom Line: Over the past decade, we have argued that Russia is aggressive not because it is playing offense but because it is playing defense. The military actions that Russia has taken since 2008 - Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria - have all focused on preserving its sphere of influence. With this sphere now largely secure - and with both Europe and the U.S. begrudgingly accepting Moscow's sphere - the probability of renewed conflict is likely overstated. Putin, Act IV Broadly, there are three different paths that Putin could take over the next six years, his fourth term in office. We review them below and give our subjective probabilities for them occurring: Détente with the West and liberalization - probability 5%. The only reason we consider this scenario an option is that the EU is gradually moving toward easing sanctions and increasing investment, while the U.S. Trump administration at least has the intention of improving ties with Putin, albeit mostly blocked by Congress. The risk remains that if Democrats take over the U.S. House of Representatives, meaningful new sanctions could be imposed on Russia. A new overseas military adventure - probability 20%. Moscow has proven to be unpredictable in the past. But while there is every reason to expect that Russia will maintain its standoff with the West, nevertheless relations are already at an extremely low level.14 Yes, Western governments will be on guard against Russian meddling in internal affairs. But the Kremlin has little interest in undermining the Trump administration, or Germany's Social Democratic Party, or Italy's Forza Italia.15 Some domestic reform while maintaining Far East strategy - probability 75%. This scenario consists of Putin attempting to augment the status quo with some substantive reforms and fiscal spending at home. At the same time, Moscow would continue to court East Asian trade and investment.16 Some normalization with the West may occur incidentally, but not as a condition of this scenario. Why do we assign such high probability to the domestic reform outlook? Credible opinion polling shows a clear majority demanding reform, with 83% of Russians wanting "change." The share of this group who want "decisive" change is slightly greater than those who want merely "incremental" change (Chart 29). This will motivate political leaders to push forward a reform agenda that increases popular support. The pressure for change is also clear in the aforementioned quality of life issues affecting the middle class, and the fact that the share of the population spending more than $20 per day has stopped growing in Russia (Chart 30). The middle class will increasingly have its ambitions frustrated if living standards are not improved. Recent elections already show worrisome trends for the regime, even within the rigged electoral system.17 Chart 29Russians Want Change Vladimir Putin, Act IV Vladimir Putin, Act IV Chart 30A Ceiling On Middle-Class Ambitions Vladimir Putin, Act IV Vladimir Putin, Act IV What kind of change do the Russian people want? Primarily, more social spending. When asked what kind of change voters would like to see, living standards and social protections come first, and "great power status" comes dead last (Chart 31).18 Specifically, Russians want improved medical services, lower inflation, and better education, agriculture, and housing and utilities - not better relations with the West, fairer elections, free markets, or democratic rights (Chart 32). Russians do not want painful cuts in entitlements, partial privatization of public services, or a higher retirement age (Chart 33). And there is no fiscal need for these. Chart 31Russians Want Social Spending... Vladimir Putin, Act IV Vladimir Putin, Act IV Chart 32...And Better Quality Of Life Vladimir Putin, Act IV Vladimir Putin, Act IV Chart 33Russians Oppose Any Cuts In Benefits Vladimir Putin, Act IV Vladimir Putin, Act IV The Kremlin is already responding to the demand for more spending. The most intriguing part of Putin's State of the Nation speech was his emphasis on the need to reduce poverty, improve social wellbeing, and speed up economic development (Table 1). Table 1Putin's State Of The Nation Address Vladimir Putin, Act IV Vladimir Putin, Act IV Putin also claimed in the State of Nation address that the upcoming reforms would require "hard decisions" to be made. It seems he is willing to impose painful economic changes.19 Bottom Line: If we are right that Putin's conquests are largely finished, then he must decide whether to focus narrowly on preserving his regime, or on broadening its support for the future. Since Putin can easily rule for longer than his upcoming six-year term,20 it is too soon to expect him to pursue a retirement strategy that sidesteps the need for significant social improvement. Instead he will try to improve regime support through economic reforms. Investment Implications First, a short word on OPEC 2.0 production cuts.21 Russia is less leveraged to oil than in the past (due to its aforementioned ability to devalue the ruble and its tight budget controls). Hence it is less committed to the cartel than Saudi Arabia, and more concerned that this year's buoyant oil price outlook could challenge the new fiscal rule (which mediates oil pass-through to the ruble) and encourage U.S. shale production. So Russia's OPEC 2.0 compliance in 2019 and beyond is murky. Lower oil prices incentivize Russia's economic rebalance and further constrain its military adventurism, but too low will reduce the fiscal resources for its reforms. What about the implications for Russian financial assets? On the tactical level, Russian stocks should see some volatility. Looking at recent Russian history, the events that caused the biggest sell-offs in the succeeding 90 days were presidential elections and the devaluation of the ruble in 1998. Yet the biggest rallies occurred when Putin consolidated power over political enemies and when events suggested substantial reforms were on the way. While we cannot rule out another post-election correction if oil and EM risk assets sell off, we would expect the market to rally eventually as Putin's new policy trajectory becomes clear. On the strategic level, Russian stocks are making a major bottom formation relative to the EM benchmark and will outperform the EM equity benchmark in the coming years (Chart 34). Both BCA's Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy recommend an overweight position. Chart 34Russian And U.S. Energy ##br##Stocks Are Bottoming Russian And U.S. Energy Stocks Are Bottoming Russian And U.S. Energy Stocks Are Bottoming While the Russian bourse has historically tended to outperform the EM index during risk-on phases and underperformed in risk-off episodes, this has changed as a result of prudent macroeconomic policymaking. Namely, the decreased macroeconomic linkage between fluctuations in oil prices with the ruble and domestic interest rates. Consequently, we expect Russia to outperform in an EM risk-off phase. Another point that increases our level of conviction on overweighting Russia is that U.S. energy stocks relative to the S&P are currently at the bottom of a 60 year trend, perhaps marking an end to the structural underperformance of energy stocks (Chart 34, bottom panel). Emerging Markets Strategy recommends investors continue overweighting Russian sovereign and corporate credit within the EM credit universe, and maintain the following trades: Long Russian stocks and ruble / short Malaysian stocks an ringgit trades Long ruble / Short oil Within EM domestic bonds portfolios, Emerging Markets Strategy also recommends continuing to overweight Russian local currency bonds. Both Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy recommend the following new trade: Long Russian / short Brazilian local currency government bonds. The public debt-to-GDP ratio in Brazil is 80% while it is only 16% in Russia. The fiscal deficit in Brazil stands at a large 8% of GDP, and interest payments on public debt are equal to 6 % of GDP. Meaning that without major fiscal reforms, Brazil's public debt will continue to surge and will likely reach almost 100% of GDP by the end of 2020. And public opinion is not favoring pro-market reformers. Adjusted for their respective cyclical, macro policies, currency and interest rate trends, Russian bonds offer better value than Brazilian ones and the best within the EM universe. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 See Sergey Aleksashenko, "The Russian Economy in 2050: Heading for Labor-Based Stagnation," Brookings, April 12, 2015, available at www.brookings.edu. 2 For instance, it is well known that corruption in the construction industry results in embezzlement and poor results in public infrastructure. If this is the case for roads, then it is all the more likely to be a problem with public administration and the judiciary, as more spending certainly does not mean more fairness and justice! 3 Federal Anti-Monopoly Service. Please see David Szakonyi, "Governing Business: The State and Business in Russia," Russian Political Economy Project, Foreign Policy Research Institute, January 2018, available at www.fpri.org. 4 Sarah Wilson Sokhey, "Buying Support? Putin's Popularity and the Russian Welfare State," Russian Political Economy Project, Foreign Policy Research Institute, February 2018, available at www.fpri.org. 5 Please see Geesen, Misha, The New Yorker, "Vladimir Putin Is Campaigning On The Threat Of Nuclear War," dated March 2, 2018, available at www.newyorker.com. 6 We rarely put much stock in quantitative measures of geopolitical risk. However, the parsimony and track record of our Russian geopolitical risk indicator makes it a valuable tool. The Geopolitical Risk Premium is calculated based on USD/NOK exchange rate, Russia's CPI relative to the U.S.'s CPI, and a time trend. We chose Norway because it is a "riskless" oil producer. The USD/RUB exchange rate was adjusted according to the relative inflation in the U.S. and Russia. The deviation from the fair value after taking into account these factors is the risk premium. 7 Please see Nathan Hodge, "Putin Declares Victory In Surprise Stopover In Syria," dated December 11, 2017, available at www.wsj.com. 8 The most recent deployment of Russia's stealth air superiority fighter - the Sukhoi Su-57 - appears designed to give the newly built jet some time in combat zone and is not an escalation. 9 Although Russian media is replete with rumors that several hundreds of Russians died in the attack, the Kremlin's official line is that only nine Russian nationals died in the attack. Please see, Christoph Reuter, "The Truth About The Russian Deaths In Syria," Der Spiegel, dated March 2, 2018, available at www.spiegel.de. 10 Please see, BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: A Tale Of Red Herrings And Black Swans," dated October 14, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 A quick note on our map: we include Kharkiv in our definition of Donbass. Most international observers do not, as there was no pro-Russian revolt in the Oblast. However, this is a heuristic error given that the majority Russian speaking population of Kharkiv made it a prime region for revolt against Kiev. That it did not revolt illustrates the limits of Russian capabilities and the paucity of its strategic effort in East Ukraine. Our estimate of 3% of Ukrainian territory is consistent with other estimates, for instance the 2.5% cited in Carl Bildt, "Is Peace In Donbas Possible?" European Council On Foreign Relations, dated October 12, 2017, available at www.ecfr.eu. 12 The idea that the Russian populace gives its leaders a blank check to pursue aggressive foreign policy is not rooted in historical evidence. In fact, Russia has a very spotty history when it comes to the popular backing of failed military campaigns: the Crimean War in the mid-nineteenth century, the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War, the First World War in 1917, Afghanistan in the 1980s, and the First Chechen War in the early 1990s. Each of these military losses and dragged-out campaigns led to popular backlash and domestic political crises (in some cases outright revolutions!), especially when complemented with economic pain. Putin is an astute reader of history and therefore we doubt he will commit himself to another lengthy military campaign. 13 Please see Cullen S. Hendrix, "Oil Prices and Interstate Conflict Behaviour," Peterson Institute for International Economics, dated July 2014, available at www.iie.com. 14 The United States has (for now) backed away from considering imposing sanctions on the purchase of Russian sovereign debt; U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin issued a report against this possibility. So far U.S. sanctions have focused on limiting U.S. financing for Russian state-owned enterprises and energy and financial sectors more broadly. 15 The German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, a top leader in the SDP, is leaning on the new Grand Coalition to discuss an easing of Russian sanctions contingent on a UN peacekeeping role in Ukraine. 16 China's economy is a key support, but Xi wants to change that economy in a way that is broadly negative for Russia. And the Belt and Road Initiative is not enough for Russia's needs. Russia will thus look not only to China but to all of East Asia for markets and investment. Thus China's reform intensity, and Russo-Japanese peace negotiations, are our bellwethers for Russia's Far East and broader export success. 17 The ruling United Russia performed poorly in the 2012 elections, and fell from 83% to 79% of seats in regional elections last September. That same month, the Moscow municipal elections shocked the ruling elite due to extremely low voter turnout of 15%. Last year, anti-corruption activist and opposition leader Alexei Navalny ignited a surprising countrywide political network during his failed bid to become a presidential contender. And even Communist Party candidate Pavel Grudinin's presidential campaign reflects a yearning for change. We would not be surprised to see striking personnel reshuffles, such as the replacement of Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev with a new "fresh faced" reformer. 18 Given this sentiment at home, Russian policymakers are unlikely to have missed the significance of the recent events in Iran, in which such sentiments helped mobilize significant anti-regime protests. 19 Examples of difficult policies in Putin's speech include: improving tax enforcement and increasing income tax rate; cutting spending to afford investments in human capital, cutting law enforcement spending and the audit office (no cuts to defense spending were on the menu); reducing the size of the state sector; selling off assets and privatizing the banking sector; keeping inflation in check (this is popular, but requires persistently hawkish monetary policy). 20 Article 81.3 of the Russian constitution can be amended fairly easily to allow Putin additional terms in office beyond 2024. 21 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices," dated February 22, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The direct impact of recently proposed U.S. import tariffs on steel and aluminum is likely to be small, both for China and the world. In isolation, this development is not very relevant for investment strategy. However, the lessons learned from studying the game of Prisoner's Dilemma suggest that investors should be legitimately concerned about an iterative "tit-for-tat" exchange of retaliation between the U.S. and its major trade partners if the Trump administration continues to pursue aggressively protectionist trade policies. Recent data releases show that the ongoing economic slowdown continues. While the Caixin manufacturing PMI is a bright spot, it is not likely heralding a major turning point for the Chinese economy. Investors should closely watch three bellwethers to judge the likelihood of a full-blown global trade war. Barring a major deterioration on this front, or a sharp further slowdown in Chinese economic growth, investors should stay overweight Chinese ex-tech stocks vs global. Feature The looming threat of U.S. protectionism came into full force over the past week, as President Trump stated that sweeping tariffs on all U.S. imports of steel and aluminum would soon be formalized. The tariff situation continues to evolve as we go to press, but the facts as they currently stand are the following: The proposed tariffs would be 25% on steel, and 10% on aluminum imports No exceptions are planned for any country, although statements from U.S. leadership on Monday suggested that Canada and Mexico may be exempt if NAFTA is renegotiated in the U.S.' favor Key European Union leaders threatened to retaliate against the U.S.' proposed tariffs, and the U.S. threatened to counter-retaliate China has taken a more cautious stance on the issue of retaliation, and is strongly seeking to negotiate with the Trump administration Minimal Direct Impact The developments over the past week raise two questions about China's economy that matter for investment strategy: What is the direct impact of the tariffs on China's exports likely to be? What is the implication for global growth? On the first question, the answer is fairly clear that the direct impact is likely to be small. The proposed tariffs do not disproportionately target China, and Chinese exports of steel and aluminum to the U.S. account for less than 0.2% of total exports (Chart 1). Exports of these products to all countries as a share of total exports is still quite small (panel 2). The second question is much more difficult to answer, and it has wide implications for both the Chinese economy and for investment strategy. When approaching the question, it is first important to note that the threat to the global economy from the imposition of the proposed tariffs comes from the potential for a series of retaliations from major trading partners, not the tariffs themselves. U.S. imports of steel and aluminum make up less than 1% of global goods exports, and Chart 2 presents a long-term history of average U.S. tariff rates along with our estimate of the impact of the U.S.' proposal. While the imposition of the announced tariffs would certainly change the trend that has been in place for some time, the rise is not very significant. Critically, even after the tariffs are imposed, U.S. tariffs rates will still be fractional when compared with those that prevailed during the early-1930s, when the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act materially exacerbated the Great Depression. Chart 1Chinese Steel And Aluminum Exports##br## Are Not Significant Chinese Steel And Aluminum Exports Are Not Significant Chinese Steel And Aluminum Exports Are Not Significant Chart 2We're A Long, Long Way Away##br## From Smoot-Hawley We're A Long, Long Way Away From Smoot-Hawley We're A Long, Long Way Away From Smoot-Hawley China's cautious stance towards retaliation is, at first blush, an encouraging development, but it may not be as hopeful of a sign as it seems. First, despite a general feeling among investors that China was the intended target of the U.S.' proposed tariffs, a global tariff on steel and aluminum is likely to disproportionately affect developed countries rather than China. It is therefore not surprising that China has signaled a somewhat conciliatory stance. In our view, the likelihood of Chinese retaliation is considerably higher if further tariffs are announced on goods that make up a larger share of their exports. In addition, as we noted above, the European Union has already highlighted some U.S. goods that may be subject to higher retaliatory tariffs in response to the news (which already elicited a threat of counter-retaliation from the U.S.), and both Canada and Mexico have also threatened retaliation if they are not granted an exemption from the proposed tariffs. In our view, these threats should be treated seriously, especially after revisiting the lessons of one of the most famous experiments in game theory. Bottom Line: The direct impact of proposed U.S. import tariffs on steel and aluminum is likely to be small, both for China and the world. Retaliation Risk And The Prisoner's Dilemma The dynamics of trade renegotiations can be examined, at least conceptually, through the lens of game theory. It is difficult to model these dynamics precisely because of the complexity of the relationship between trade and potential growth, but it is worth revisiting the lessons learned by the repeated playing of Prisoner's Dilemma, one of the most well-known examples of the application of game theory. To summarize, the Prisoner's Dilemma scenario describes two criminals who have been arrested, and whose statement to the authorities affects the manner in which punishment (if any) is distributed between the two of them. The standard payoff structure of the game is set up such that one prisoner is able to largely avoid punishment if (s)he accuses the other of the crime and the other prisoner remains silent, but that both prisoners receive a punishment if they both accuse each other that is greater than the punishment received if they both remain silent (Table 1). Given that tariffs and other forms of trade protectionism can only durably succeed at improving net domestic economic outcomes if they do not result in retaliation, from the perspective of trade renegotiation, accusing the other player in the game of Prisoner's Dilemma is tantamount to restricting trade, and remaining silent is equivalent to allowing existing trade relationships to persist. Table1In The Prisoner's Dilemma, It's Better To Return Defection With Defection China And The Risk Of Escalation China And The Risk Of Escalation The success of strategies employed in repeated games of Prisoner's Dilemma was studied most famously by Robert Axelrod in 1980.1 The winning strategy (in both of Axelrod's tournaments) was "Tit for Tat", which follows two very simple rules: cooperate initially, and thereafter copy the other player's decision in the previous round. This strategy has three attributes that Axelrod showed to be highly successful when playing repeated games of Prisoner's Dilemma: niceness (not being the first player to accuse/defect/renege), being provocable (responding to defections with in-kind retaliation), and forgiveness (not allowing one-time defections to impact future choices beyond a one-time retaliation). Chart 3 illustrates the performance of the "Tit for Tat" strategy in the first Axelrod tournament, along with the average scores of several other strategies. The most important lesson from both tournaments is summarized nicely in the chart: the average score of a series of "nice" strategies was considerably higher than those that were not nice. But Chart 4 also highlights that niceness is only a relatively successful strategy because of its ability to produce an optimal outcome with other nice strategies: all strategies, nice or not, tend to generate poor outcomes when played against strategies that are not nice. This is because the payoff structure of Prisoner's Dilemma is such that, compared with defection, co-operation makes a player worse off if their opponent defects. Chart 3In Repeated Games Of Prisoner's Dilemma,##br## "Nice" Strategies Pay Off... China And The Risk Of Escalation China And The Risk Of Escalation Chart 4...But Only Because They Do Well Against ##br##Other "Nice" Strategies China And The Risk Of Escalation China And The Risk Of Escalation In the context of global trade, this can be seen as the likelihood of outsized job losses (or the lack of job gains in a protected industry) from a failure to retaliate. The key point for investors is that the most basic lesson of the Prisoner's Dilemma suggests that market participants should be legitimately concerned about retaliation from the U.S.' trade partners (and subsequent counter-retaliation) if it continues to pursue a protectionist agenda, because it can be a rational response for an individual country even if it leads to poor outcomes for everyone involved. In addition, three assumptions of the Prisoner's Dilemma game are not valid in the real world (or the current environment), which in two of these cases further increases the risk of an iterative exchange of retaliation: Chart 5The U.S. Has A Trade Deficit ##br##With Many Trading Partners The U.S. Has A Trade Deficit With Many Trading Partners The U.S. Has A Trade Deficit With Many Trading Partners In terms of the payoffs associated with the game, Prisoner's Dilemma assumes an equal starting position (of zero "points") on both sides, which is not the case in the current environment. The U.S. has a sizeable trade deficit with the world (Chart 5), and several important trading partners with the U.S. (especially China) maintain significant non-tariffs barriers to trade. Regardless of whether this inequity has been caused by an unfair trading relationship, in the parlance of Axelrod's tournaments, this implies that the U.S. strategy is likely to be not nice due to the perception on the part of the Trump administration of an unequal starting position. The implication is that the odds of an escalation of the imposition of relatively small tariffs into a full-blown trade war are higher than would normally be the case. Prisoner's Dilemma has clear and symmetric payoffs, which is also not the case in the current environment. The Trump administration apparently feels that the payoff to the U.S. of certain trade restrictions is a net positive even assuming retaliation, which raises the possibility of a negative outcome for the global economy. Worryingly, in our view the chances are high that calculations of the net benefit of any trade restriction are being done on a political basis, rather than an economic one. Prisoner's Dilemma assumes that the participants are unable to communicate, which is a limitation that does not exist in a real-world trade negotiation scenario. This lowers the probability that the U.S. and its major trading partners will engage in a spiraling tit-for-tat trade war relative to what the game of Prisoner's Dilemma would imply, even if the recently announced tariffs on steel and aluminum stand and major partners do retaliate. Bottom Line: The lessons learned from studying the game of Prisoner's Dilemma suggest that investors should be legitimately concerned about an iterative "tit-for-tat" exchange of retaliation between the U.S. and its major trade partners if the Trump administration continues to pursue aggressively protectionist trade policies. No Help From The Domestic Economy A protectionist agenda from the U.S. is also coming at an inconvenient time for Chinese policymakers, even if they were not blindsided by the move. Policymakers already have to contend with managing the impact of renewed reforms on economy's financial and industrial sectors, and the potential addition of the external sector to this list of problems needing attention is unwelcome. While a cooling of the economy was an inevitable result from the government's deleveraging campaign and shadow banking crackdown, Table 2 highlights how broadly leading economic indicators have decelerated. The table presents recent data points for several series that we identified in November Special Report as having leading properties for the Chinese business cycle,2 as well as the most recent month-over-month change, an indication of whether the series is currently above its 12-month moving average, how long this has been the case. Table 2No Convincing Signs Of An Impending Upturn In China's Economy China And The Risk Of Escalation China And The Risk Of Escalation Among the components of the BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator (an index designed to lead turning points in the Li Keqiang index), all six series are in a downtrend and 5 out of these 6 fell in January (the growth in M2 was the exception). A similar story is borne out in the housing price data, with a variety of diffusion indexes having also fallen in January.3 The Caixin Manufacturing PMI remains the one bright spot, having recently risen above its 12-month moving average and having risen in January, in stark contrast to the official PMI (which fell a full point). But as Chart 6 highlights, following the last four episodes when the Caixin PMI exceeded the official PMI by this magnitude, the subsequent trend in the average of the two was down in every case. The implication is that the outlier nature of the current Caixin PMI shown in Table 2 is just that, and not a heralding a major upturn in China's economy. Chart 6The Caixin PMI Is Probably The Noise, Not The Signal The Caixin PMI Is Probably The Noise, Not The Signal The Caixin PMI Is Probably The Noise, Not The Signal Bottom Line: Recent data releases show that the ongoing economic slowdown continues. While the Caixin manufacturing PMI is a bright spot, it is not likely heralding a major turning point for the Chinese economy. Conclusions For Investment Strategy Chart 7 illustrates the decision tree for Chinese stocks that we presented in our first report of the year. While there has been a modest further deterioration in the industrial sector, the pace of the decline is still consistent with the controlled slowdown scenario that we outlined in an October Weekly Report.4 As such, the recent softness in the data is not significant enough to cause us to change our recommended investment strategy. The key change over the past week has been the threat posed by U.S. protectionism to the global economy, which is the very first question to answer in our decision tree. The now high-beta nature of the Chinese stock market underscores that U.S. protectionism can significantly (negatively) impact the relative performance of Chinese equities if it destabilizes the global stock market, even if Chinese exports were to emerge from the exchange relatively unscathed. For now, we judge the likelihood of a full-blown tit-for-tat trade war to be a risk, and thus not a probable event. For now, market participants seem to agree: U.S. and global equities rebounded earlier this week in response to a feeling that the negative repercussions for global growth are likely to be minimal. Nonetheless, this is a risk that needs to be monitored closely, and to facilitate this our Geopolitical Strategy service has highlighted the following three bellwethers that they will be watching in order to judge the likelihood of a major escalation:5 Chart 7The Chinese Equity "Decision Tree" China And The Risk Of Escalation China And The Risk Of Escalation Tariff exceptions for allies: Given the national security basis for the steel and aluminum tariffs, it is likely that exceptions will be made for allies such as Canada and Europe. If yes, then the measure is unlikely to be part of a truly "America First" mercantilist strategy and is instead a veiled swipe at China to satisfy Trump's base ahead of the midterm elections NAFTA: Our geopolitical team has argued that the probability of NAFTA abrogation is around 50%.6 If the administration continues the negotiations in light of tariff announcements, however, it suggests that the revealed preference of the White House is less protectionist than it appears. Chinese intellectual property (IP) theft: The Trump administration is investigating Chinese technology transfer and IP theft under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. If China is found to have acted unfairly, penalties would likely include a combination of tariffs and restrictions on Chinese investment in the U.S. This might include an indemnity for cumulative losses from past violations, which would be rare, if not unprecedented, and which China would reject outright. This could produce across-the-board tariffs of a sort that the U.S. has not imposed since the Nixon shock. Chart 8China Is Outperforming Global In Ex-Tech Terms China Is Outperforming Global In Ex-Tech Terms China Is Outperforming Global In Ex-Tech Terms In the meantime, Chart 8 highlights that investable Chinese ex-technology stocks (proxied by the MSCI China Index ex-technology) remain in an uptrend versus their global peers, which underscores that investors should have a high threshold for reducing exposure to China. This underscores that investors should have a high threshold for reducing exposure to China. While the ongoing slowdown in China's economy is likely to cause earnings growth to decelerate over the coming year, the continued likelihood of decently positive earnings growth coupled with a sizeable valuation discount relative to global signals that Chinese ex-tech stocks are remain attractive on a risk/reward basis. Investors should stay overweight. Bottom Line: Investors should closely watch three bellwethers to judge the likelihood of a full-blown global trade war. Barring a major deterioration on this front, or a sharp further slowdown in Chinese economic growth, investors should stay overweight Chinese ex-tech stocks vs global. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 "Effective Choice in the Prisoner's Dilemma" and "More Effective Choice in the Prisoner's Dilemma" by Robert Axelrod, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 24 Nos.1 and 3, March and September 1980. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of The Chinese Business Cycle", dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 However, as discussed in our February 8 Weekly Report, we are keeping an eye on residential floor space sold given its history of leading China's housing market cycles. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Tracking The End Of China's Mini-Cycle", dated October 12, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War", dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto Populism", dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Policymakers & Volatility: The major developed market central banks (Fed, ECB, BoJ), facing low unemployment rates and slowly rising inflation, are less able to respond to volatility spikes with more dovish monetary policies compared to past years. Investors should get used to a structurally higher level of volatility, likely for the remainder of the current business cycle upturn. Higher Volatilty & Spread Product: The relative risk-adjusted attractiveness of global spread product looks different when using a higher level of yield volatility, particularly when hedged into U.S. dollars. Continue to favor U.S. investment grade and high yield corporate debt over euro area and emerging market equivalents, even with the more elevated volatility backdrop. Feature If there is one lesson to be learned from recent events, it is that global policymakers can no longer be trusted to always make the most market-friendly decisions. Central bankers in most countries have shifted from solely supporting growth to fighting inflation pressures. The White House is now willing to risk a disruptive trade war to try and "correct" the large U.S. trade deficit, rather than focusing on stimulating growth solely through fiscal policy. Even geopolitical headlines have become more worrisome for investors, with Russia announcing new nuclear capabilities, China appointing a "president for life", the U.K. government remaining vague on the details of its Brexit negotiating stance and Italy's elections producing a hung parliament with anti-establishment parties outperforming expectations. The idea that central bankers have been explicitly putting a floor under risk assets, by focusing so much on financial conditions as a critical input into their economic and inflation forecasts, has become very entrenched among investors. The implication is that if risky assets sell off, central banks will shift to a more dovish stance, thus causing interest rate expectations to shift lower which eventually causes risk assets to rebound and financial conditions to ease. This has been most evident in the U.S., where a belief in the "Fed Put" - the idea that the Fed has implicitly sold investors a put option on equities by responding dovishly to market selloffs - goes all the way back to the Greenspan era. In the U.S., however, there is now greater uncertainty that a "Powell Put" even exists - or at least one as valuable as the "Yellen Put" and "Bernanke Put" before it. In other words, it may now take a much larger decline in risk assets to cause the Fed to question its economic forecasts enough to change them. New Fed Chairman Jay Powell said as much in his first appearance before the U.S. Congress last week, where he noted that the recent equity market turbulence was not "weighing heavily" on the Fed's outlook. In fact, Powell talked up a very bullish view on the U.S. economy, which markets took as a sign that the Fed could hike rates four times in 2018 - more than the three hikes currently embedded in the Fed's projections. A similar dynamic is playing out in Europe and Japan, where the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ) have been more vocal about the potential end of their respective asset purchase programs given the underlying strength of the euro area and Japanese economies. The belief in a "Draghi Put" or "Kuroda Put" is also strong, but is starting to wane. Central Bankers As Options Traders Chart 1A Smaller Response To Higher Volatility A Smaller Response To Higher Volatility A Smaller Response To Higher Volatility One way to see this changing backdrop is to look at the response of monetary policy expectations to increases in market volatility. During 2017, there were a few small flare-ups of equity market volatility in the U.S., euro area and Japan. In each of those episodes, interest rate markets were quick to price in easier monetary policy through a lower projected level of the funds rate in the U.S. or by pushing out the timing of the eventual first rate hike in Europe and Japan (Chart 1). The story is much different in 2018, where volatility has soared higher but there has been little change to the expected path of interest rates. Markets now understand that inflation-fighting central banks, who strongly believe in the Phillips Curve, now have to focus more on inflation than asset prices with unemployment rates at or below full employment levels. Using the language of options markets, the "strike price" on the put options allegedly sold by central bankers is now much lower. The implication is that bouts of market turbulence cannot generate lasting decreases in government bond yields that can eventually restore calm to financial assets. In other words, policymakers are now implicitly, but not intentionally, putting a floor under volatility rather than asset prices. This has made the investment backdrop much more challenging in 2018, as both absolute market returns and, especially, risk-adjusted returns will be far lower than investors have enjoyed over the past couple of years. This is one of the key themes that we outlined in our 2018 Outlook.1 It will take signs that more volatile markets are damaging economic growth and inflation expectations for this new dynamic to change. Yet there is little sign of that happening, at least among the "Big 3" central banks. The Federal Reserve In the U.S., economic data continues to print strongly. The February ISM manufacturing Index hit a 13-year high (Chart 2, top panel), with the export index hitting the highest level since 1988! The Conference Board index of consumer confidence hit the highest level since 2000 (2nd panel), while the Board's index of leading indicators continues to accelerate (3rd panel). The ISM new orders index remains at elevated levels that suggest that the latest upturn in capital spending should continue (bottom panel). Meanwhile, U.S. inflation gauges continue to grind slowly higher. The 3-month annualized growth rate of the core PCE deflator rose to 2.1% in January - above the Fed's 2% target - while the ISM Manufacturing Prices Paid index is now at a 6-year high (Chart 3). Inflation expectations from the TIPS market have recently stalled below levels that we deem consistent with the Fed's inflation objective (between 2.3% and 2.5% on both the 10-year TIPS breakeven and the 5-year TIPS breakeven, 5-years forward), but they continue to trend in the direction of the Fed's target. If the wage numbers in this Friday's February Payrolls report build on the breakout seen in the January data, then breakevens should begin to climb higher once again and would all but ensure that another Fed rate hike will occur later this month. Chart 2Fed Chair Powell Is Right##BR##To Be Optimistic On U.S. Growth Fed Chair Powell Is Right To Be Optimistic On U.S. Growth Fed Chair Powell Is Right To Be Optimistic On U.S. Growth Chart 3U.S. Inflation Now Moving##BR##Towards The Fed Target U.S. Inflation Now Moving Towards The Fed Target U.S. Inflation Now Moving Towards The Fed Target The ECB Chart 4Will The ECB Pull Forward Its Projections? Will The ECB Pull Forward Its Projections? Will The ECB Pull Forward Its Projections? Turning to the euro area, economic data has begun to dip lower in recent readings for cyclical indicators like the manufacturing PMI, which complicates the story for the ECB heading into this Thursday's policy meeting. We continue to expect any decision on a tapering of the ECB's asset purchase program to not take place until the summer. However, some minor changes to its forward guidance, like removing language suggesting that asset purchases could be increased if necessary, could happen this week. The more meaningful signal will come from the new set of ECB economic forecasts. Core euro area HICP inflation is not projected to return close to the ECB's 2% target until 2020, and if that timetable is pulled forward in the new forecasts, that would give the ECB a credible reason to begin signaling a taper later this year. With full euro area unemployment hitting an 8-year low of 8.6% in January - dipping below the OECD full employment NAIRU estimate of 8.7% - the ECB could raise its projections for both wage growth and core inflation (Chart 4). With our own core HICP diffusion index showing a sharp increase in January, the risk of future upside surprises in euro area realized inflation has increased. Yet core inflation is still only 1.0% - a long way from the ECB's 2% target. This is already reflected in measures of inflation expectations like CPI swap forwards, which remain between 50-75bps below the levels that prevailed the last time euro area core inflation was around 2% (bottom two panels). This suggest further upside for euro area bond yields if core inflation does start to print higher later this year. For now, the ECB is unlikely to make any earth-shattering changes to its monetary policy this week, but should signal another small incremental step towards a full-blown taper later in 2018. The BoJ BoJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda threw a bit of a surprise at the markets last week in his testimony before the Japanese parliament following his reappointment as the head of the central bank. In response to a question on when the BoJ could consider beginning to exit its current Yield Curve Control (YCC) program, Kuroda stated that it could happen in fiscal year 2019 if the BoJ's inflation projections are realized. The media headlines took that as a sign that the BoJ was starting to change its forward guidance about its monetary policy, but that is an overreaction, in our view. Chart 5The Yen Leads The BoJ, Not Vice Versa The Yen Leads The BoJ, Not Vice Versa The Yen Leads The BoJ, Not Vice Versa Realized inflation remains well below the BoJ's target, with headline CPI inflation hitting 1.3% and 0.4%, respectively, in January (Chart 5). Even given the continued strength of the Japanese economy, with the unemployment rate now sitting at a 29-year low of 2.4%, inflation will have no realistic shot of reaching the BoJ 2% target without a weaker Japanese yen. The markets understand that dynamic, as our Japan months-to-hike measure - measuring the time until the first 25bps rate hike is priced into the Overnight Index Swap curve - has recently drifted up from 38 months to 47 months alongside the current appreciation of the yen (bottom panel). The BoJ remains the one major central bank that can still talk dovishly because inflation remains so low. Yet investors are aware that the BoJ is having greater difficulty operationally executing its asset purchase program, given its huge ownership share of Japanese government bonds and equity ETFs. So, like the Fed and the ECB, the BoJ's ability to credible respond in a dovish fashion to rising market turbulence - manifested through a rising yen - is severely hamstrung. Bottom Line: The major developed market central banks (Fed, ECB, BoJ), facing low unemployment rates and slowly rising inflation, are less able to respond to volatility spikes with more dovish monetary policies compared to past years. Investors should get used to a structurally higher level of volatility, likely for the remainder of the current business cycle upturn. What A Higher Volatility Regime Means For Global Spread Product If policymakers are now unable to take actions that can restore the low volatility regime seen last year, then this has implications for the relative attractiveness of global fixed income spread product. One way to see is this is to look at the ranking of volatility-adjusted yields for various global spread sectors. We present that in Table 1, where we take the currency-hedged yields for spread sectors and rank them according to two metrics: a) the outright hedged yield and b) the hedged yield relative to its trailing yield volatility.2 The sector yields are then re-ranked using the average ranking of those two metrics. We present the table with yields hedged into the four major developed market currencies (U.S. dollar, euro, yen and British pound). The level of those yields, shown against credit ratings, are graphically presented in the Appendix on pages 11 and 12. Table 1Ranking Currency-Hedged Global Spread Product Yields Policymakers Are Now Selling Put Options On Volatility, Not Asset Prices Policymakers Are Now Selling Put Options On Volatility, Not Asset Prices We also show two versions of the yield rankings - one using trailing volatility over the past year in the denominator of the risk-adjusted yield, and the other using trailing volatility over three years in the denominator. This is important, as bond volatility over the past year has been historically depressed and is much lower than the three-year volatility measure for almost every spread sector. The conclusion is that many sectors that look most attractive using the more recent low volatility look less appealing with a more "normal" volatility level. For example, U.S. high-yield corporates are the top ranked sector in USD terms using a trailing one-year volatility, but that ranking falls to #10 using a higher three year volatility. Euro area high yield falls from #6 to #11 when applying the different volatility measures, while emerging market USD-denominated sovereign debt falls from #3 to #6. While the differences in the yield rankings are not as meaningful for higher-quality sectors, and for other base currencies besides the U.S. dollar, the main takeaway is that a higher volatility environment can alter the relative attractiveness of spread sectors given the current low level of yields. Thus, if central banks now have reduced ability to respond to volatility shocks by signaling a more dovish stance - given strong growth, tight labor markets and slowly rising inflation - then investors should judge spread product, and risk assets in general, using a higher level of volatility than seen last year. The conclusion is that we should be using the upper left column of Table 1, using the more "normal" level of yield volatility, when assessing the attractiveness of spread sectors within our recommended investment universe that uses the U.S. dollar as the base currency. With regards to corporate bonds in our model bond portfolio, that means favoring U.S. investment grade over euro area and emerging market equivalents and favoring U.S. high yield over euro area high yield. We are happy to report that we already have those recommendations implemented in our portfolio. While the absolute valuations of U.S. investment grade corporates, from a perspective of breakeven spreads, do look historically tight (Chart 6, middle panel), the same can be said for euro area investment grade corporates (Chart 7, middle panel). We are willing to take that trans-Atlantic spread risk favoring the U.S., however, given that currency hedging costs continue to favor U.S. dollar investments over euro-denominated equivalents. Chart 6Favor U.S. Corporate Bonds... Favor U.S. Corporate Bonds... Favor U.S. Corporate Bonds... Chart 7...Especially Versus Euro Area Corporates ...Especially Versus Euro Area Corporates ...Especially Versus Euro Area Corporates The story is cleaner for U.S. high yield over euro are high yield, as the default-adjusted spreads in the former (Chart 6, bottom panel) look far more attractive than in the latter (Chart 7, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The relative risk-adjusted attractiveness of global spread product looks different when using a higher level of yield volatility, particularly when hedged into U.S. dollars. Continue to favor U.S. investment grade and high yield corporate debt over euro area and emerging market equivalents, even with the more elevated volatility backdrop. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Appendix Appendix Chart 1Global Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into U.S. Dollars Policymakers Are Now Selling Put Options On Volatility, Not Asset Prices Policymakers Are Now Selling Put Options On Volatility, Not Asset Prices Appendix Chart 2Global Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into Euros Policymakers Are Now Selling Put Options On Volatility, Not Asset Prices Policymakers Are Now Selling Put Options On Volatility, Not Asset Prices Appendix Chart 3Global Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into British Pounds Policymakers Are Now Selling Put Options On Volatility, Not Asset Prices Policymakers Are Now Selling Put Options On Volatility, Not Asset Prices Appendix Chart 4Global Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into Japanese Yen Policymakers Are Now Selling Put Options On Volatility, Not Asset Prices Policymakers Are Now Selling Put Options On Volatility, Not Asset Prices 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "2018 Key Views: BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets", dated December 5th 2017, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. 2 Using rolling averages of 60-day realized hedged yield volatility. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Policymakers Are Now Selling Put Options On Volatility, Not Asset Prices Policymakers Are Now Selling Put Options On Volatility, Not Asset Prices Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Trump faces few constraints to further protectionism. His tariff announcement confirms our constraints-based methodology. Previous examples of U.S. protectionism show that the end game was not trade war, but USD depreciation. Key bellwethers for further protectionism are: waivers for allies, NAFTA, and China. The USD's global reserve currency status is at risk over the long run due to geopolitical multipolarity. Stay long defense stocks; short China-exposed S&P500 versus domestic-oriented companies; short EM assets. Feature "The import duty delights me..." - President Richard Nixon, August 2, 1971 (Oval Office Tapes) "Trade wars are good and easy to win." - President Donald Trump, March 2, 2018 The market has proven to be a terrible geopolitical analyst. It lost faith in Trump's overtly stated populism quickly into his presidency: What did the market do when Congress failed to pass repeal/replace of Obamacare? It immediately reduced the odds that the Republican-held Congress would get tax cuts or anything else done. What did the market do when Trump presented an austere "skinny budget," a budget that is normally ignored when any other president announces it? It immediately faded the odds of more deficit spending. What did the market do when Trump had a pleasant first meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Mar-a-Lago resort?1 It faded the odds of a trade war. It is becoming increasingly clear that the market has no framework for analyzing politics. It got the profligate tax cuts, extraordinary fiscal stimulus, and now Trump's protectionism wrong. In this Client Note, we explain how we got the odds of a trade war right, why market repricing is instructive, and how investors should position themselves for the coming volatility. Constraints Versus Preferences The mantra of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy is that preferences are optional and subject to constraints, whereas constraints are neither optional nor subject to preferences. When making our forecasts, we focus on the constraints that bind policymakers and we ignore their preferences. President Trump did not announce that he would impose a 25% tariff on all imported steel and a 10% tariff on all imported aluminum because he was "unglued" or "angry" any more than World War One started because a Serb nationalist shot an Austrian archduke! He did so because he can. President Trump faces scant political, constitutional, and economic constraints when it comes to pursuing protectionist policies. Hence we have warned our clients to prepare for higher odds of trade wars and protectionism since the moment he was elected.2 There are three broad reasons why we have expected trade protectionism to re-emerge as a headline risk in 2018:3 Chart 1America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War Overstated political constraints: President Trump's base is anti-trade. We would argue that all Americans are far more protectionist than our clients wish to admit (Chart 1). Higher prices of Chinese made T-shirts and aluminum beer cans will not deter his supporters, nor will economic and market effects (short of a recession) change his voters' minds before the 2020 election. After all, President Trump was fully transparent during his presidential campaign when he promised a 45%-across-the-board tariff on Chinese imports and condemned NAFTA as a "disaster." It was this rhetoric that allowed him to outperform his opinion polls in the Midwest (Chart 2). Overstated constitutional constraints: The U.S. Congress has punted its responsibility for trade to the executive branch via several legislative acts over the decades. Most relevant at this juncture are: The Trade Expansion Act Of 1962: Allows the president to impose tariffs or quotas to offset any adverse impact of trade on national security;4 The Trade Act Of 1974: Allows the president to impose tariffs or quotas in order to deal with a serious U.S. balance of payments deficit or the unjust trade practices of another state; The International Emergency Economic Powers Act Of 1977: Allows the president to regulate all commerce and freeze all foreign assets in the case of a National Emergency.5 Overstated geopolitical constraints: Investors have continuously discounted the probability of Sino-American tensions, or even open conflict. Our clients know that we have been alarmists on this issue since 2012.6 In fact, it has been a key theme of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy that geopolitical risk is rotating to East Asia and that the constraints to U.S.-China conflict are falling as the symbiosis between the two economies fades (Chart 3). Chart 2Protectionism Boosted Trump In The Rust Belt Protectionism Boosted Trump In The Rust Belt Protectionism Boosted Trump In The Rust Belt Chart 3U.S.-China Symbiosis Has Died U.S.-China Symbiosis Has Died U.S.-China Symbiosis Has Died Bottom Line: If constraints to trade protectionism were considerable, Trump would not have the ability to surprise the markets with bellicose rhetoric on a whim. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy cannot predict individual triggers for events. But our framework allows us to elucidate the constraint context in which policymakers operate. On protectionism, Trump operates in a poorly constrained context. This is why we have been alarmist on trade since day one. Another Reason To Worry: Trump Is Not Unique The U.S. has a relatively recent tradition of bellicose protectionist rhetoric - under Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and even at times George W. Bush and Barack Obama - perhaps due to the fact that it is the least globally exposed advanced economy (Chart 4). It is difficult to retaliate against the "consumer of last resort," which gives Washington D.C. considerable leeway in bullying global trade partners. Chart 4The U.S. Is Least Exposed To Trade The U.S. Is Least Exposed To Trade The U.S. Is Least Exposed To Trade President Nixon famously closed the gold window on August 15, 1971 in what came to be known as the "Nixon shock."7 Less understood, but very much part of the "shock," was a 10% surcharge on all imported goods, the purpose of which was to force U.S. trade partners to appreciate their currencies against the USD. Much like Trump, Nixon had campaigned on a mercantilist platform in 1968, promising southern voters that he would limit imports of Japanese textiles. Also like Trump, he staffed his cabinet with trade hawks. Most notable amongst these was the Treasury Secretary John Connally, who wanted not only to close America's trade deficit but also to reduce U.S. military presence in Europe and Japan.8 Again, just like today, the economists in Nixon's cabinet opposed the surcharge, fearing retaliation from trade partners, while the politicians favored brinkmanship.9 We know from taped conversations of the Nixon White House that he and his advisors worried that the import surcharge could strengthen the dollar. But they decided to impose it anyway because of political expediency - Connally stressed that "it's more understandable to the American people to put on a border tax." They also saw it as a negotiating tactic. The eventual surcharge was said to be "temporary," but there was no explicit end date. The U.S. ultimately forced other currencies to appreciate, mostly the deutschmark and yen. This is unsurprising given Germany's and Japan's total subservience to the U.S. in the early 1970s. Critics in the administration - particularly the powerful National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger - feared that brinkmanship would hurt transatlantic relations and thus impede Cold War coordination between allies. As such, the U.S. removed the surcharge by December without meeting most of its other objectives, which included increasing allied defense-spending and reducing trade barriers to U.S. exports. Even the exchange-rate outcomes of the deal dissipated within two years. Summing up the episode, then Undersecretary of the Treasury, Paul Volcker, remarked that: The conclusion reached by some that the United States shrugged off responsibilities for the dollar and for leadership in preserving an open world order does seem to me a misinterpretation of the facts ... The devaluation itself was the strongest argument we had to repel protectionism. The operating premise throughout was that a necessary realignment of exchange rates and other measures consistent with more open trade and open capital markets could accomplish the necessary balance-of-payments adjustment.10 Volcker's point was that the devaluation of the USD ultimately staved off protectionism. But he also reveals that the U.S. was close to abandoning its role as global defender and consumer of last resort due to domestic economic pressures. What does the 1971 "Nixon shock" teach us? FX depreciation obviates the need for protectionism: In both the case of the "Nixon shocks" and Reagan's 1985 "Plaza Accords," the rest of the world accommodated the U.S. and avoided a global trade war by allowing the USD to depreciate; Politics trumps economics: President Nixon ignored the advice about the economic effects of protectionism and used the import surcharge as a negotiating strategy - a successful negotiating strategy, we should add; Americans are not globalists: Not only is the U.S. economy largely insulated from the rest of the world, but Americans are not unequivocally pro-trade. Nixon was never hurt politically by the surcharge, and it even proved widely popular with the public. President Trump has come under withering criticism for using tariffs in 2018. However, his predecessors did so successfully as part of wider negotiations without ending global trade, all the while remaining popular with the public. The only question the history leaves unanswered is why Trump hasn't used tariffs sooner! What if the rest of the world does not play ball this time around? Two keystone themes of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy suggest that this time may be different: Apex of Globalization: The U.S. could negotiate the 1971 and 1985 currency agreements in part because the promise of increased trade remained intact. Europe and Japan agreed to a tactical retreat to get a strategic victory: ongoing trade liberalization and deeper access to U.S. markets. In 2018, however, this promise has been muted, with global trade as percent of GDP having peaked (Chart 5) and trade growth continuing to trail global GDP growth (Chart 6). America's trade partners may be far less willing to give in to U.S. protectionist threats in a world where the global trade pie is growing at a much slower pace. Multipolarity: During the Cold War, the U.S. had far greater leverage over Europe and Japan than it does today over Europe and China. While the U.S. still guarantees European defense, and thus could see some concessions from its ally, its geopolitical relationship with China is practically hostile. And, at the end of the day, it is Chinese trade policies that have had an adverse effect on U.S. manufacturing, not European. Chart 5Globalization Has Reached Its Apex Globalization Has Reached Its Apex Globalization Has Reached Its Apex Chart 6Trade Growth Trails Output Growth Trade Growth Trails Output Growth Trade Growth Trails Output Growth If this time is different, American policymakers will be left with only one lever: FX devaluation. Our current view that the USD will rally amidst domestic fiscal stimulus is predicated on the Fed hiking rates faster as inflation picks up. But what if Jay Powell, untested and facing political pressure from the White House, decides to respond to higher nominal GDP growth by hiking rates more slowly? Bottom Line: History teaches us that Trump's bellicose rhetoric is not unique to recent American presidents, let alone to world leaders. Previous times that the U.S. has threatened serious protectionism against trade partners the effect was USD depreciation, not trade wars. In addition, global trade boomed after each U.S. threat of protectionism, it was not derailed. What Matters (And What Does Not)? According to our calculation, Trump's suggested steel and aluminum tariffs would, in the most liberal estimate, impact just 0.3%-0.8% of global trade.11 As such, the proposed tariffs are insignificant from a macro perspective. They would also ostensibly have a much greater impact on U.S. allies, with China and Russia impacted only on aluminum (Chart 7). That said, the market is looking beyond the announced measures as it quickly reprices the greater risk of a global trade war that it ignored for the past 18 months. This, however, does not mean that the probability of a global trade war is high, just that the market was caught unaware due to complacency. We suggest three bellwethers for investors. If all three of these lean towards mercantilism, then the probability of global trade war is indeed high. Exceptions for allies: Given the national security basis for the steel and aluminum tariffs, it is likely that exceptions will be made for U.S. allies Canada and Europe. If yes, then the measure is unlikely to be part of a truly "America First" mercantilist strategy and is instead a veiled swipe at China and a political one-off to satisfy Trump's base ahead of the midterm elections; NAFTA: We have argued that the probability of NAFTA abrogation is around 50%, much higher than what the market is currently pricing in, for similar reasons as those outlined in this report.12 In short, we do not see any constraints - neither legal-constitutional nor political nor economic - preventing President Trump from ending the deal. If the administration continues the negotiations in light of tariff announcements, however, it suggests that the revealed preference of the White House is far less protectionist. It would also suggest that any Trump tariffs are really about China (Chart 8). China intellectual property (IP) theft: The Trump administration is investigating Chinese technology transfer and IP theft under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. If China is found to have acted unfairly, penalties would likely include a combination of tariffs and restrictions on Chinese investment in the U.S.13 This might include an indemnity for cumulative losses from past violations, which would be rare, if not unprecedented, and which China would reject outright. Trump's rhetoric - and China's verifiably severe violations on IP - could produce across-the-board tariffs of a sort that the U.S. has not imposed since the Nixon shock. That would be a game changer in Sino-American tensions. Such a tariff could come to be remembered as the moment the Second Cold War began. Chart 7U.S. Allies Are Most Exposed Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War Chart 8China, Not NAFTA, In Trump's Crosshairs China, Not NAFTA, In Trump's Crosshairs China, Not NAFTA, In Trump's Crosshairs Bottom Line: We would largely discount individual cases of tariffs that target specific goods, depending on the magnitude. These are largely within the realm of the expected and accepted. Trump's proposal would at most affect 0.8% of total global trade and that is assuming that no exemptions are made for allies. The real game changers would be if the U.S. began to think of "national security" in a narrow sense, no longer exempting geopolitical allies from an aggressive trade policy. A combination of both mercantilism and isolationism would imperil the transatlantic alliance and thus the American anchor in Eurasia. The loss of that alliance and that anchor, if pursued to its logical conclusion, would usher in the collapse of America's global hegemony.14 We would watch carefully whether the U.S. goes after China with broad, across-the-board tariffs. An all-out trade assault on China by the U.S. would avoid a global trade war, but would likely usher in a new Cold War, as China's internal stability would be threatened. Investment Implications Our forecast that Trump's protectionism would become investment-relevant in 2018 has come true. Now comes the hard part of forecasting how it plays out. It is tempting to simply replay the 1971 and 1985 episodes. After all, the U.S. is as closed of an economy today as it was then, largely immune to protectionist retaliation from the rest of the world. However, the U.S. economy is a third smaller as a percentage of global GDP than in both those episodes (Chart 9). And its geopolitical relevance to Europe is waning, whereas China remains a potent rival that may not "play ball." In fact, Chinese policymakers may be forced to accept a trade war in order to blame the painful effects of structural reforms on the Trump administration.15 Chart 9The U.S. Is Not As Dominant As It Was The U.S. Is Not As Dominant As It Was The U.S. Is Not As Dominant As It Was Before we assign high probability to any particular investment recommendation based on a higher probability of trade wars, we want to see how the NAFTA negotiations play out, whether the U.S. hits geopolitical allies with tariffs, and how the China IP case plays out. Nonetheless, the following three trades appear cogent even without such evidence: Long defense stocks: Our highest conviction investment call on the theme of "Apex of Globalization" is to go long defense stocks.16 We have recommended a vanilla trade to articulate this view, long S&P 500 aerospace and defense / short MSCI ACW, up 14.56% since initiation in December 2016. For a higher risk, higher reward strategy, we would suggest investors go long a basket of U.K., German, French, Italian, and Japanese major defense companies. In a world where the U.S. ceases to be a defender of last resort, countries will look to diversify their security portfolio away from America, and that will mean demand for non-U.S. military exports. Short U.S.-China plays: Investors should go long the most domestically-focused U.S. sectors - financials and telecoms17 - and go short our index of China-exposed S&P 500 companies. We were stopped out of this trade in March 2017 and again in September 2017, as we bet too early that the market would reprice the probability of a trade war. Short EM: Emerging markets have the most to lose in a potential trade war, especially amid higher U.S. bond yields. However, not all emerging markets are equally exposed. For example, India is largely insulated. A long India / short Brazil equity market position should reap returns in a de-globalized world (and BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy would endorse this trade based on macroeconomic factors). What about the U.S. dollar? Import tariffs ought to be bullish for the greenback, given that they lead to higher domestic policy rates as inflationary pressures rise (and not just passing ones). However, as the previous two examples of U.S. protectionism teach us, the U.S. uses threats of tariffs so that it can get a cheaper USD. From Washington's perspective, both accomplish the same thing. Intriguingly, the U.S. dollar has sold off on the most recent news of protectionism. Or are they already pricing in the likely conclusion of the current impasse (dollar falls) based on historical precedent? Or could it be a more ominous sign that the greenback's days as the global reserve currency are numbered? If the U.S. abandons its twin roles as the world's defender and consumer of last resort, then foreigners may decide that they should no longer reflexively store their wealth in U.S. assets. Think this is all merely geopolitical hogwash? Think again. Chart 10, courtesy of our colleague Mathieu Savary (BCA's chief FX strategist), is probably the best geopolitical chart we have ever published. It illustrates how the U.S. can manage to have a positive net international income despite a deeply negative net international investment position (NIIP). How is this possible? Because foreigners are willing to hold onto U.S. assets (U.S. Treasuries) for largely geopolitical reasons. It is too early to tell if this paradigm shift in global finance is underway. In the short term, Trump's rhetoric is likely to face the same constraints as Nixon's surcharge: geopolitical alliances will force him to carve out exemptions and focus on China. And if a trade war envelopes U.S. and China - rather than the world - we would bet that the U.S. dollar would rally, given that it would remain the safe-haven currency. Remain long DXY for now. Chart 10Exorbitant Privilege Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War Chart 11Multipolarity Undermined The Pound Sterling Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War But our view is that - over the long term - a multipolar world entails a multipolar currency regime. Such a development may come faster than most of us think. For example, the U.K. pound lost nearly a quarter of demand as the global reserve currency between just 1899 and 1913 (Chart 11).18 Financial markets move faster today. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 And served him chocolate cake that was this big. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com, and "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Reports, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, and "Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017. 4 The Supreme Court is unlikely to counter U.S. executive action undertaken on the grounds of national security. 5 Such as perhaps the ongoing "American carnage"? 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, and "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Thank You Think," dated October 4, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Douglas A. Irwin, "The Nixon shock after forty years: the import surcharge revisited," World Trade Review 12:01 (January 2013), pp. 29-56, available at www.nber.org, and Berry Eichengreen, "Before the Plaza: The Exchange Rate Stabilization Attempts of 1925, 1933, 1936 and 1971," Behl Working Paper Series 11 (2015). 8 Treasury Secretary John Connally makes Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross look like a "globalist." Connally was famous for quipping that "foreigners are out to screw us, our job is to screw them first," and "the dollar may be our currency, but it is your problem." 9 Paul Volcker, then Undersecretary of the Treasury, provided some color on this divide: "As I remember it, the discussion largely was a matter of the economists against the politicians, and the outcome wasn't really close." In fact, the decision to impose the surcharge was made at a secret Camp David meeting on August 13, 1971 at a meeting to which officials from the State Department and the National Security Council were not even invited. 10 Paul A. Volcker, "The Political Economy of the Dollar," Federal Reserve Bank of New York Quarterly Review 1-12 (1978-79), quoted in Irwin (2013) (see footnote 7). 11 The sum of U.S. nominal imports by end-use category with steel and aluminum as part of the description was about US$56 billion in 2017, or roughly 0.32% of global goods exports according to the IMF's Direction of Trade statistics. An alternative and more liberal estimate using UNCTAD data and including a broader range of U.S. metals imports ("iron and steel," all "nonferrous metals," and all "manufactures of metal") yields 0.77%, or about $127 billion out of $16.5 trillion worth of total global imports. The former is more likely than the latter. The executive order raising the tariffs has not yet been issued so details are not known. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto Populism," dated November 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 President Trump, when commenting on the potential U.S. action, has described the coming punishment as "We're talking about big damages. We're talking about numbers that you haven't even thought about." 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trump Doctrine," dated February 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "How To Profit From De-Globalization," dated December 9, 2016, and "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Top 10 Reasons We Still Like Banks," dated March 5, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see Barry Eichengreen, et al, "Mars or Mercury? The Geopolitics of International Currency Choice," dated December 2017, available at nber.org.

Highlights We re-examine our Yield and Protector portfolios to find out which assets will hold up best if there is a material correction. Our tactical view on gold is neutral, but the risk in gold prices will remain skewed to the upside this year. Are tariffs on aluminum and steel the start of a trade spat or a trade war? Feature Fears of a trade war and a hawkish tone from Fed Chair Jay Powell at his first Humphrey Hawkins testimony to Congress pushed the U.S. equity market lower last week. The ten-year Treasury yield barely budged however, buffeted by a more hawkish Fed on one side and a trade-induced slowdown in global growth on the other. The dollar was modestly higher last week, but oil and gold prices moved lower. The S&P 500's 4% loss in February was the worst single month since October 2016 and worst February since 2009. Both investment-grade and high-yield credit spreads widened last week, and have yet to return to their late January lows. Moreover, at 22, the VIX remained elevated relative to start of the year, consistent with our view that markets have entered a more volatile, late-cycle phase. With the 2.8% run-up in the S&P 500 since the February 8 low, investors are less concerned that the early February pullback in risk assets was a signal that the equity bull market is over and a recession is right around the corner. Nonetheless, some clients with a more strategic outlook are considering paring back risk now. Others want to know how to protect gains while still participating in the bullish tone for the market BCA expects in the next 12 months. Our Yield and Protector portfolios might provide a way for investors to protect against the downside while still participating in the S&P 500. Preparing For A Pullback BCA recommends investors stay overweight on equities and U.S. spread product, but expects that positions should be moved to neutral later this year and then to underweight sometime in 2019.1 Long-term investors should already consider paring back their exposures to both asset classes given that valuations are stretched. We have periodically recommended that a variety of investments be added as portfolio "insurance" to help guard against a material correction in equities. We recently highlighted two forms of insurance: our Yield and Protector Portfolios. We introduced the Yield Portfolio in October 20142 and first discussed the Protector Portfolio in October 2015.3 This week, we revisit the issue by comparing both portfolios with a more common form of insurance: shifting from cyclical to defensive stocks within an equity allocation. The Yield Portfolio (YP) emphasizes "high quality carry", along with some protection via TIPS (25% of the Portfolio), if inflation begins to surprise on the upside after investors are conditioned to expect only deflation shocks. The YP performs well in an environment of slow nominal growth, no recession and gradual interest-rate hikes. On the other hand, the Protector Portfolio (PP) is designed to provide insulation against both deflationary (gold and trade-weighted dollar) and inflationary (TIPS) tail risks. Therefore, the PP may underperform risk assets for a time if tail risks keep receding. Still, it has done well during the equity rally and conservative investors should consider adopting it. As discussed in the section below, our tactical view on gold is neutral, but the BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy notes that the risk in gold prices will remain skewed to the upside this year. Charts 1, 2, and 3 show a breakdown of the relative performance of S&P 500 defensives along with our Yield and Protector Portfolios. Panels 2 and 3 of Charts 1, 2 and 3 present the rolling one-year beta and alpha of each strategy versus the S&P 500. Alpha is presented as the difference between the actual year-over-year excess return of the portfolio (versus short-term Treasury bills) and what would have been expected given the portfolio's beta. This measure is also referred to as "Jensen's alpha." Chart 1S&P 500 Defensives##BR##A Modestly Low Beta Option S&P 500 Defensives A Modestly Low Beta Option S&P 500 Defensives A Modestly Low Beta Option Chart 2A Lower Beta##BR##Than Defensives A Lower Beta Than Defensives A Lower Beta Than Defensives Chart 3A Beta Near Zero,##BR##And Positive Alpha A Beta Near Zero, And Positive Alpha A Beta Near Zero, And Positive Alpha Based on the historical beta of the three portfolios versus the S&P 500, defensive stocks are the most correlated with the overall equity market. Our PP had a negative correlation to the broad market until earlier this year, when it turned slightly positive. BCA's YP is somewhere in between, with a positive but relatively low beta. This is consistent with the equity composition of the three portfolios (shown in Table 1). Note that our protector portfolio is composed entirely of non-equity assets. Table 1A Breakdown Of Three##BR##Portfolio Insurance Options A Golden Opportunity? A Golden Opportunity? After accounting for their lower betas, all three portfolios have outperformed the S&P in risk-adjusted terms since the onset of the global economic recovery. However, the three portfolios have experienced a relative decline versus the S&P 500 since Trump's election. This has occurred due to passive rather than active underperformance. In other words, they have underperformed because they failed to keep up with the S&P 500 rather than because of losses in absolute terms. We draw two important conclusions from Charts 1, 2 and 3 for U.S. multi-asset investors. First, the lower beta of our YP and PP compared with S&P defensives means that the former represent a better insurance against a sell-off in the equity market rather than the latter. Secondly, the persistently positive volatility-adjusted returns for our insurance portfolios highlights an investor preference for these assets in the past few years. However, since late 2017 when investors began to significantly upgrade the prospects for global growth and U.S. corporate profits, all three portfolios struggled to outperform the S&P 500 on a risk-adjusted basis. BCA's forecast implies that these portfolios may continue to struggle in the next year or so. For now, our investment bias towards equities over government bonds makes us less inclined to favor a low beta position within a balanced portfolio. Our analysis suggests that clients who anticipate the need for portfolio insurance in the coming year should back our YP and PP over a defensive-sector allocation. We would likely extend this recommendation to all clients if there is any material progression towards the sell-off triggers identified in the Bank Credit Analyst's February 2018 publication.4 Bottom Line: Investors seeking protection against a potential equity market sell-off should look to our Yield and Protector Portfolios over defensive-sector positioning. We do not currently recommend these portfolios for all clients, but we may do so if our key sell-off triggers are breached. Gold Bugged Our tactical view on gold is neutral, but the BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy notes that the risk in gold prices will remain skewed to the upside this year. The yellow metal is supported by increasing inflation and inflation expectations, heightened geopolitical risks and greater volatility in equity markets.5 However, the higher inflation and inflation expectations will be countered by Fed rate hikes, which will boost the U.S. dollar and lift real rates in our base case. Strategically, we expect that gold will provide a good hedge against any downturn in equities when the bull market turns bear in 2H19. Chart 4 shows that the price of gold in real terms is still very expensive. On a nominal basis, gold is at the top end of a trading channel initiated in early 2012 (Chart 5). There has been a significant gap between the model value and the actual price of gold for the past four years. The real price of gold remains elevated, although inflation has been well contained. Chart 4Model Suggests Gold Is Overvalued Model Suggests Gold Is Overvalued Model Suggests Gold Is Overvalued Chart 5Testing Top End Of A Downward Channel Testing Top End Of A Downward Channel Testing Top End Of A Downward Channel However, the macro environment BCA envisions for 2018 is also supportive for gold (Table 2). Gold tends to perform well when oil prices rise and as the 2/10 Treasury curve steepens. Moreover, gold prices tend to go up when the U.S. economy benefits from fiscal thrust and tax cuts. Furthermore, the soundings on the February ISM manufacturing index support higher gold prices. When the headline index is above 60 as it was in February (60.8), gold climbs by an average of 31%. Even 12 months after ISM is above 60, gold returns are over 20%. The elevated level of ISM new orders (64.2) and price (74.2) indices in February also suggest solid increases for gold. Finally, gold prices climb in the late stages of an economic expansion, such as the current one that began in 2009.6 Even so, our 6 to 12-month view on gold is that it will take its cues from Fed policy and policy expectations. The Fed is not behind the curve on inflation, and inflation expectations and measured inflation remain low. Our CPI and PCE models (Chart 6) show only a modest acceleration in inflation by year-end, which will be sufficient to keep the Fed on track this year as it continues to shrink its balance sheet and boost rates four times. Thus, there is no pressing need to hold gold as a hedge against inflation in the next year. Nonetheless, for those investors too concerned about a pullback that turns into a correction or a bear market, we note that gold has a 33% weight in our Protector Portfolio. Table 2Favorable Macro Backdrop For Gold A Golden Opportunity? A Golden Opportunity? Chart 6BCA's Inflation Models Show Only##BR##Modest Acceleration Through Year-End BCA's Inflation Models Show Only Modest Acceleration Through Year-End BCA's Inflation Models Show Only Modest Acceleration Through Year-End Bottom Line: Gold is expensive in real terms relative to a set of fundamentals that have explained its real price since 1970. However, it may have a better value on a strategic basis or as part of a portfolio designed to protect against falling equity prices. Moreover, our macro backdrop forecast for the next 12 months supports higher gold prices. Keep gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. Trade Off BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team has long argued that two sources of geopolitical risk this year are China's trade surplus and Trump's position on trade relations with China, Canada and Mexico. Specifically, the view is that weak poll numbers may lead Trump to trigger trade disputes with important trading partners such as China, Mexico and Canada. However, our geopolitical analysts also point out that investors should not confuse a trade spat with a trade war. There are very few legal or constitutional constraints on Trump over trade issues (Table 3). It will be his decision whether to adopt sweeping tariffs (trade war) as opposed to a more targeted approach (trade spat). Clearly, the former is more disruptive and raises more uncertainty, so this is the key distinction to keep in mind. Presidents Nixon, Reagan, Bush (II) and Obama all imposed temporary tariffs on items (including steel and aluminum, and including by citing national security concerns) without triggering a trade war. Late last week, Trump indicated that he would announce tariffs on steel and aluminum this week. He implied that he would go for a broad-based approach of penalizing all steel and aluminum imports, which points toward the more aggressive approach. But the details (whether he exempts U.S. allies and partners or narrows the scope of goods) will not be certain until he issues his official proclamation. Table 3Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade A Golden Opportunity? A Golden Opportunity? Steel and aluminum get the headlines, but account for only a small share of U.S. trade and GDP7 (Chart 7). BCA is more concerned about the Administration's stance on more deeper issues, like the WTO, NAFTA, or (in China's case) intellectual property and state-owned enterprises.8 The issues here are harder to quantify, have few precedents, and have more structural and ideological issues which are at stake. The U.S. has a massive trade surplus in services and in intellectual property,9 so a prolonged disruption would pose a serious threat to the U.S. economy, at least in the short term. Trump's decision on intellectual property trade with China is due on August 12, but could occur earlier. BCA's stance on U.S.-China relations is bearish in the long run.10 We place high odds on an eventual trade war, but the timing is a tougher call. Investors should not view China's proportional retaliation on an item-by-item basis as the start of a trade war. BCA's view is that China's leadership will try to offer reforms and investment opportunities to pacify Trump. However, there is a risk either that China offers no reforms (in which case Xi Jinping's rampant Communism exacerbates trade conflicts) or that Trump may introduce broad sweeping measures that give China no choice but to respond in kind, leading to a trade war. Our Geopolitical Strategy service notes that the probability of Trump abrogating NAFTA is as high as 50%. The seventh round of NAFTA talks concludes this week; an eighth round is scheduled for late March. Negotiations could drag on right to the Mexican election on July 1, but if they are not looking more optimistic by this spring then the risk of the U.S. (or Mexico) walking away will rise. The U.S. economy has been largely unaffected by NAFTA and would likely experience no disruption if Trump abrogated the deal and began negotiations on bilateral trade agreements with Canada and Mexico (Chart 8). Chart 7Steel And Aluminum In Perspective Steel And Aluminum In Perspective Steel And Aluminum In Perspective Chart 8U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA Bottom Line: Elevated trade tensions with China,11 Canada and Mexico are near-term risks to global growth. From now through April could be a decisive time for the Trump Administration with China and NAFTA. We are bearish on U.S.-China relations in the long term. If Trump abandons NAFTA, the implications for the U.S. economy would be muted, although U.S. inflation may push higher. Such a decision would also send a clear signal to other key U.S. allies. However, if Trump stands by NAFTA, then it signals that he has sided with the establishment on trade. This would be bullish for risk assets and would lower geopolitical risk premia. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Next Recession: Later But Deeper," published February 23, 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Ice Storm", published October 20, 2014. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Tenuous Relief Rally", published on October 12, 2015. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, February 2018. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Gold Still Shines Despite Threat Of Higher Inflation", published February 1, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Late Cycle View", published October 16, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Aluminum Deficit Set To Ease", published March 1, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "America Is Roaring Back", published January 31, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Can The Service Sector Save The Day?", published June 5, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin", published January 18, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China", published February 28, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Easier fiscal policy will cause U.S. inflation to rise or force the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than the market is discounting. Either outcome is likely to lead to a real appreciation in the dollar. Policy developments are starting to work in the greenback's favor. The Fed's leadership is turning somewhat more hawkish. Trade protectionism is also on the rise. Contrary to yesterday's market reaction, this will end up being dollar-bullish. The only plausible scenario where the dollar weakens in the face of bountiful fiscal stimulus is one where U.S. rates rise a lot but foreign rate expectations rise even more. Such an outcome is not particularly likely, considering that the U.S. is going from laggard to leader in the global growth horserace and most central banks are tightening monetary policy much more gingerly than the Fed. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded, which is why investors should consider going long 30-year U.S. Treasurys versus German bunds in currency-unhedged terms. This position would pay off if EUR/USD weakens, while also providing downside protection in the case where the greenback comes under pressure due to a narrowing in the long-term interest rate spread between Germany and the U.S. Held to maturity, investors stand to gain 40% on this position. Feature Beware Of "Arguments By Accounting Identity" One of the biggest mistakes economic commentators make is that they engage in "arguments by accounting identity." These arguments almost always fall flat. This is because there are plenty of ways for accounting identities to hold true, only a small number of which are consistent with how people actually respond to economic incentives. Consider the often-cited identity which says that the difference between what a country saves and what it invests is equal to its current account balance or, in algebraic terms, S-I=CA. The U.S. is currently operating at close to full employment. It is sometimes asserted, using this formula, that a large dollop of fiscal stimulus will drain national savings, thereby increasing America's current account deficit. A bigger current account deficit is normally associated with a weaker currency. Ergo, fiscal stimulus must be dollar-bearish. It is a plausible sounding argument, but it makes no sense because it confuses cause and effect.1 It is analogous to saying that an increase in the number of apples coming to market means that the price of apples will fall even when it is apparent that farmers are planting more apple trees because the demand for apples is rising. If the government cuts taxes and boosts outlays, aggregate spending will increase. Should the value of the dollar simultaneously fall, the composition of that spending will shift towards domestically produced goods and services. Not only will people want to spend more, but they will also want to devote a larger share of their spending on U.S.-made goods. But how exactly is the economy supposed to generate all this additional output? It is already running at full capacity! The only story that makes sense is one where the value of the dollar rises. That would allow aggregate spending to go up, while ensuring that spending on American-made goods and services remains the same. Table 1 illustrates this point using a stylized example of a hypothetical economy. Table 1A Stronger Currency Can Be A Counterweight To Fiscal Stimulus The Dollar Deserves Some Real Appreciation The Dollar Deserves Some Real Appreciation U.S. imports account for about 15% of GDP (Chart 1). Assuming no change in the exchange rate, spending on domestically produced goods and services will rise by about 85 cents in response to every $1 increase in aggregate demand. If the economy cannot produce this additional output due to a lack of available workers, one of two things will happen: Either inflation will go up or the Fed will be forced to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would. Chart 1U.S. Trade As A Share Of The Economy U.S. Trade As A Share Of The Economy U.S. Trade As A Share Of The Economy Both outcomes imply a "real appreciation" in the dollar exchange rate, which can be thought of as the value of foreign goods and services that can be acquired by selling a basket of U.S. goods and services.2 In the former case, the real dollar exchange rate will appreciate because the U.S. price level will rise relative to prices abroad. In the latter case, the real dollar exchange rate will appreciate because higher interest rates will put upward pressure on the nominal value of the currency. Two Paths To A Real Dollar Appreciation The catch is that it is impossible to know how much of the real appreciation will occur through higher inflation and how much of it will occur through a stronger nominal dollar. In theory, one could envision a scenario where the real value of the dollar rises even as the nominal value declines. This would happen if the Fed fell so far behind the curve that inflation rocketed higher. Alternatively, one could contemplate a scenario where the Fed raises rates too aggressively, driving the dollar up so much that the economy falters and inflation declines. Our baseline scenario lies somewhere between these two extremes. We expect U.S. fiscal stimulus to push up inflation, while also pushing up the nominal trade-weighted dollar. It rarely happens that real and nominal exchange rates move in opposite directions (Chart 2). Thus, if the real dollar exchange rate appreciates, the nominal exchange rate is bound to appreciate as well. Chart 2Nominal And Real Exchange Rates Tend To Move In The Same Direction Nominal And Real Exchange Rates Tend To Move In The Same Direction Nominal And Real Exchange Rates Tend To Move In The Same Direction Global Growth: Back To The USA So why, then, has the dollar been on the back foot over the past year? The answer is better economic prospects at home were more than matched by stronger growth abroad. Keep in mind that the discussion above does not need to be confined to fiscal stimulus. Anything that causes domestic demand to accelerate is apt to trigger a real appreciation of the currency. After a sluggish recovery following the sovereign debt crisis, euro area growth accelerated last year as credit markets thawed and pent-up demand was unleashed. Sensing better economic times ahead, investors bid up the euro. The global growth revival was assisted by a rebound in global manufacturing activity. The manufacturing sector tends to be highly procyclical; when global growth accelerates, manufacturing production usually accelerates even more. The U.S. manufacturing sector accounts for only 12% of GDP, compared to 18% in the euro area, 21% in Japan, and 30% in China (Chart 3). As such, an improving manufacturing outlook disproportionately helped the rest of the world. Meanwhile, a rebound in commodity prices aided emerging markets and other economies with large natural resource sectors. Looking out, the picture for global growth is murkier. Global manufacturing PMIs have likely peaked. Korean exports, a leading indicator for the global business cycle, have softened (Chart 4). China is decelerating, with this week's weaker-than-expected official PMI print being the latest example. This could weigh on metals prices (Chart 5). As we discussed last week, slower global growth tends to benefit the dollar.3 Meanwhile, the composition of global demand growth should shift back toward the U.S. thanks to the lagged effects from the relative easing in financial conditions that the U.S. enjoyed last year, as well as all the fiscal stimulus coming down the pike (Chart 6). Chart 3Global Manufacturing Revival ##br##Not Benefiting The U.S. Much Global Manufacturing Revival Not Benefiting The U.S. Much Global Manufacturing Revival Not Benefiting The U.S. Much Chart 4Global Growth Seems To Be Peaking Global Growth Seems To Be Peaking Global Growth Seems To Be Peaking Chart 5Chinese Slowdown Will Weigh On Metal Prices Chinese Slowdown Will Weigh On Metal Prices Chinese Slowdown Will Weigh On Metal Prices Chart 6Lagged Easing In Financial Conditions ##br##And Fiscal Stimulus Bode Well For Growth Lagged Easing In Financial Conditions And Fiscal Stimulus Bode Well For Growth Lagged Easing In Financial Conditions And Fiscal Stimulus Bode Well For Growth A More Dollar-Friendly Policy Backdrop Policy developments are starting to work in the dollar's favor. Jerome Powell tried not to rock the boat during his Humphrey-Hawkins testimony this week. However, he did stress that the economic outlook did improve since the Fed last met in December, seemingly opening the door to four rate hikes this year. That was enough to lift the DXY by 0.4%. Powell is not a doctrinaire hard-money type, but he is no Yellen clone either. Remember this was the guy who said back in 2012 that "We look like we are blowing a fixed-income duration bubble right across the credit spectrum that will result in big losses when rates come up down the road. You can almost say that is our strategy."4 Critically, there are still four vacancies on the Fed's Board of Governors. If the nomination of Martin Goodfriend - who is definitely no good friend of easy money - is part of a broader trend, the composition of the board will shift in a somewhat more hawkish direction. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has introduced tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. While we do not expect this decision to trigger an all-out trade war, it will almost certainly prompt retaliatory actions. There are three reasons why an escalation in trade protectionism would help the dollar. First, a decrease in global trade would likely reduce trade surpluses and deficits alike. This would shift demand back towards economies such as the U.S., which run trade deficits, at the expense of surplus economies such as Japan, China, and the euro area. Second, a slowdown in trade flows would curb global growth. As noted above, slower global growth tends to be dollar-bullish. Third, the specter of trade wars would exacerbate geopolitical risks. A more uncertain political landscape, even when instigated by the U.S., tends to prop up the dollar. It is true that foreign powers could retaliate against the U.S. by buying fewer Treasurys. But why would they? This would only drive down the dollar, giving U.S. exporters an even greater advantage. The smart strategic response would be to intervene in currency markets with the aim of bidding up the dollar. All this suggests that the dollar may be ripe for a rebound. Positioning has gotten fairly short the dollar (Chart 7). This raises the odds of a short-covering rally. Momentum measures have also improved over the past few weeks, an important consideration given that the dollar is one of the most momentum-driven currencies out there (Chart 8). Chart 7Speculative Positioning Has Gotten Increasingly Dollar-Bearish The Dollar Deserves Some Real Appreciation The Dollar Deserves Some Real Appreciation Chart 8Momentum Matters, And It May Be Starting To Move Back In The Dollar's Favor Momentum Matters, And It May Be Starting To Move Back In The Dollar's Favor Momentum Matters, And It May Be Starting To Move Back In The Dollar's Favor A Safer Way To Go Long The Dollar: Buy 30-Year Treasurys/Short 30-Year German Bunds, Currency-Unhedged The only scenario where the dollar weakens in the face of bountiful fiscal stimulus is one where U.S. rates rise a lot but foreign rate expectations rise even more. Sharply higher U.S. interest rates would offset the stimulative effects of a weaker dollar, thus preventing the economy from overheating. Such an outcome is not particularly likely, given that the U.S. is going from laggard to leader in the global growth horserace, and most central banks are tightening monetary policy much more gingerly than the Fed. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded. As such, investors should consider going long 30-year U.S. Treasurys versus German bunds in currency-unhedged terms. This position would pay off if EUR/USD weakens, while also providing downside protection in the case where the greenback comes under pressure due to a narrowing in the long-term interest rate spread between Germany and the U.S. The trade is effectively a bet that the interest rate differential between bunds and Treasurys - which has widened sharply this year, even as the dollar has weakened - will revert to its former self (Chart 9). Over the long haul, it is hard to see how one could lose money on this trade. As we go to press, 30-year Treasurys are yielding 3.11% while 30-year bunds yield only 1.29%. The euro would have to strengthen to 2.10 against the dollar over the next 30 years to cancel out the 182 bps in additional carry that U.S. bonds are offering. Even if one assumes that the fair value for the euro climbs by 0.4% annually due to lower inflation in the common-currency bloc, this would still leave the euro 40% overvalued.5 To maintain consistency with our other trade recommendations, we are closing our short 30-year Treasury trade for a gain of 3.8% and opening a new trade going long 30-year TIPS breakevens. Chart 10 shows that long-term inflation expectations as gauged by 30-year breakevens are still 27 basis points below where they were on average between 2010 and 2013. Chart 9EUR/USD And Long-Term Spreads Will Recouple EUR/USD And Long-Term Spreads Will Recouple EUR/USD And Long-Term Spreads Will Recouple Chart 10More Upside To Long-Term TIPS Breakevens More Upside To Long-Term TIPS Breakevens More Upside To Long-Term TIPS Breakevens Investment Conclusions We expect the dollar to strengthen over the coming months. EUR/USD should ultimately bottom at around 1.15. EM currencies will also struggle on the back of slower Chinese growth and higher financing costs for dollar-denominated loans. Among commodity producers, we favor "oily" currencies such as the Canadian dollar and Norwegian krone over metal exporters such as the Australian dollar. Our commodity strategists expect Brent and WTI to average $74 and $70/bbl this year, above current market expectations of $66 and $62, respectively. They note that Saudi Arabia has a strong incentive to boost oil prices by curtailing production in the lead up to Aramco's initial public offering. The yen is better positioned to hold its ground, considering that it is still very cheap and positioning remains heavily short (Chart 11). My colleague, Mathieu Savary, discussed the yen's prospects two weeks ago.6 A rebound in the dollar and creeping protectionism will pose headwinds for global equities. Nevertheless, with corporate earnings continuing to surprise on the upside, this is unlikely to derail the cyclical bull market in stocks. However, investors should prepare for a lot more volatility, as we flagged in several reports earlier this year.7 At the regional level, U.S. equities have underperformed their global peers in common-currency terms since the start of 2017, but outperformed in local-currency terms (Chart 12). We could see a reversal of that pattern over the coming months as the dollar begins to firm. Chart 11The Yen Is Cheap And ##br##Positioning Is Short The Yen Is Cheap And Positioning Is Short The Yen Is Cheap And Positioning Is Short Chart 12A Stronger Dollar Could Reverse ##br##U.S. Equity Relative Performance A Stronger Dollar Could Reverse U.S. Equity Relative Performance A Stronger Dollar Could Reverse U.S. Equity Relative Performance Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Paul Krugman made a similar point more than 20 years ago. 2 The real exchange rate between two currencies is the product of the nominal exchange rate and the ratio of prices between the countries. A real appreciation tends to make a country less competitive, either through a nominal increase in its currency or through an increase in prices in that country relative to those of its trading partners. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Next Recession: Later But Deeper," dated February 23, 2018. 4 Please see FOMC Meeting Transcript, "Meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee on October 23-24, 2012," Federal Reserve. 5 For this calculation, we assume that the fair value for EUR/USD is 1.32, which is close to the IMF's Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimate. The inflation differential of 0.4% is based on 30-year CPI swaps. This implies that the fair value for EUR/USD will rise to 1.49 after 30 years. If the euro needs to strengthen to 2.10 over 30 years to cover the cost of carry, this would leave it 41% (2.10/1.49) overvalued. Our assessment would not change much if we used Germany rather than the euro area as the basis for the analysis. We estimate that the fair value exchange rate for Germany is 1.45, which is higher than the fair value exchange rate for the euro area as a whole. However, the differential in 30-year CPI swaps between Germany and the U.S. is only 16 basis points. Thus, if the fair value German exchange rate evolves in line with inflation differentials, it would rise to only 1.52. This would still leave Germany 38% (2.10/1.52) overvalued against the U.S. after 30 years. 6 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy, "The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues...For Now," dated February 16, 2018. 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Return Of Vol," dated February 6, 2018; and Weekly Report, "Take Out Some Insurance," dated February 2, 2018. Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Fiscal Stimulus To Prolong The Expansion The market swoon in early February should not induce investors to lower risk. The stock market correction (the first for almost two years) was triggered by a couple of inflation and wage readings that came in slightly above expectations, and was exacerbated by some technical factors such as automated trading by volatility-target funds. But, significantly, it was not accompanied by the usual signals of rising risk aversion: for example, credit spreads barely widened and the gold price was stable (Chart 1). Volatility is likely to remain high but, as our U.S. Investment Strategy service recently found, the VIX has not been a useful indicator of recessions and bear markets: many times over the past 30 years it has spiked higher without risk assets producing negative returns over the subsequent 12 months (Chart 2).1 Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Chart 1Sell-Off Didn't Trigger Risk Signals Sell-Off Didn't Trigger Risk Signals Sell-Off Didn't Trigger Risk Signals Chart 2Spike In Vix Is Not A Sell Signal Spike In Vix Is Not A Sell Signal Spike In Vix Is Not A Sell Signal Fiscal policy moves in the U.S. make us believe, rather, that the current economic expansion will last longer than we previously forecast. A combination of tax cuts plus recent spending proposals (including $165 billion on the military and $45 billion on disaster relief) will boost GDP by about 0.8% of GDP this year and 1.3% next, compared to the IMF's earlier forecast of a fiscal contraction this year (Chart 3).2 Add to that the boost from the 8% trade-weighted depreciation of the U.S. dollar over the past 12 months (which should add 0.3% to growth over two years), and it is difficult to imagine U.S. GDP growth turning down any time soon. Accordingly, BCA has shifted its recession call from the second half of 2019 to sometime in 2020. Of course, this is not all good news. The U.S. budget deficit is likely to increase to 5½% of GDP in 2019, which will put upward pressure on interest rates. The fiscal impulse will hit an economy already at full capacity, and so will be inflationary. The scenario we envisage is boom-and-bust, leading to a nastier recession than we had previously expected. Nonetheless, the boost to growth should be positive for risk assets over the next 12 months. Our model of earnings growth now suggests that U.S. EPS should continue to grow at close to a 20% rate for the rest of this year (Chart 4). Chart 3Fiscal Boost To U.S. Growth Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Chart 4Earnings Growth Gets A Boost Too Earnings Growth Gets A Boost Too Earnings Growth Gets A Boost Too How quickly will the Fed push back against the potentially inflationary implications of this higher growth? We have found a remarkable turnaround in investors' perceptions of inflation over the past few weeks. Whereas last year most argued that structural forces (online shopping, the gig economy etc.) meant that inflation would stay depressed, now many worry that it will quickly shoot above 2% and force the Fed to tighten policy aggressively. This has caused them to over-react, for example, to the (rather obvious) statement from the last FOMC minutes that "participants noted that a stronger outlook for economic growth raised the likelihood that further gradual policy firming would be appropriate." Our view remains that core PCE inflation - the Fed's favorite measure - is likely to move back gradually to 2% (from 1.5% currently), but not accelerate dramatically. Unit labor costs remain subdued (Chart 5), the continued rise in the participation rate means there is more slack in the labor market than implied by headline unemployment (Chart 6), and inflation expectations remain low. This should allow new Fed chair Jerome Powell to continue to withdraw accommodation at a measured pace. The market has already priced in that the Fed will tighten this year at least in line with its dots (Chart 7). We expect four, rather than the Fed's projected three, hikes this year, but this should not be too hard for the market to absorb. Chart 5Unit Labor Costs Don't Point To Jump In Inflation Unit Labor Costs Don't Point To Jump In Inflation Unit Labor Costs Don't Point To Jump In Inflation Chart 6 Still Some Slack In Labor Market Still Some Slack In Labor Market Still Some Slack In Labor Market Chart 7Market Has Caught Up To The Fed Market Has Caught Up To The Fed Market Has Caught Up To The Fed We have for some months now advised long-term, more risk-averse investors to consider dialing back risk, and the volatility in February was a good example of why. We would expect further such bouts of volatility. However, with a recession still probably two years away, and a combination of stronger-than-expected growth and a Fed reluctant to accelerate tightening, the next 12 months should remain positive for equities and other risk assets. Fixed Income: We now expect the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield to rise to 3.3-3.5%. This will come from a further 40 BP increase in inflation expectations (taking them back to a level compatible with the Fed achieving its inflation target) plus a rise in the real yield, as markets start to price in the end of secular stagnation (Chart 8). The rise in global yields will be exacerbated by increasing net supply, as fiscal deficits rise and central banks wind down QE (Chart 9). We are, accordingly, underweight duration, and prefer inflation-linked bonds to nominal ones. We will likely reduce our exposure to credit before we turn defensive on equities. But, for now, strong economic growth and higher oil prices mean spread product is likely to outperform government bonds. Chart 8Inflation Expectations And Real Yields To Rise Inflation Expectations And Real Yields To Rise Inflation Expectations And Real Yields To Rise Chart 9Net Government Bond Supply To Increase Net Government Bond Supply To Increase Net Government Bond Supply To Increase Currencies: Rising interest rate differentials have failed to cause the dollar to rally (Chart 10). FX markets are trading, rather, on valuations (the euro and yen are, indeed, undervalued), on current account positions (the euro zone and Japan have large surpluses), and on the narrative that U.S. twin deficits historically caused the dollar to weaken. Our FX strategists find this is true only when, as in 2001-3, U.S. real rates were falling; after the Reagan tax cuts in 1981, real rates rose, pushing up the dollar (Chart 11). The key, therefore, is how quickly the Fed reacts this time. The dollar currently has strong downward momentum (especially against the yen) and this could continue. But as global growth slows relative to the U.S., relative interest rates are likely to reassert themselves as a factor, causing the dollar to strengthen again. Chart 10Rising Rate Differentials Fails To Boost Dollar Rising Rate Differentials Fails To Boost Dollar Rising Rate Differentials Fails To Boost Dollar Chart 11Do Twin Deficits Matter For Dollar? Do Twin Deficits Matter For Dollar? Do Twin Deficits Matter For Dollar? Equities: Given the macro environment, we continue to recommend pro-cyclical equity tilts, with overweights in higher beta markets such as the euro zone and Japan, and cyclical sectors such as financials, energy, and industrials. Our underweight on EM equities is based on the risk of a slowdown in China (where tighter financial conditions point to a slowing of the industrial sector, Chart 12), the possibility of a U.S. dollar rebound, and the vulnerability of highly leveraged foreign-currency EM borrowers to a rise in U.S. interest rates. Commodities: Our energy team has further revised up their oil price forecast, on expectations that the OPEC agreement will be extended, which will cause a greater draw-down in oil inventories (Chart 13).3 They see Brent crude averaging $74 a barrel this year, with spikes above $80. However, the response of the U.S. shale industry will begin to kick in, pushing the price down to below $60 by end-2019. We are neutral on industrial commodities, which will benefit from stronger global growth but are at risk in the event of dollar appreciation and slowdown in China. Chart 12Tighter Monetary Conditions In China Tighter Monetary Conditions in China Tighter Monetary Conditions in China Chart 13Oil Inventories To Draw Down Further Oil Inventories To Draw Down Further Oil Inventories To Draw Down Further Please note that, due to the Easter holidays in some countries, the GAA Quarterly Portfolio will be published one day later than usual, on April 3. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Late Innings," dated 26 February 2018, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 2 For details, please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "March 2018," available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0: Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices," dated 22 February 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights The political path of least resistance leads to fiscal profligacy - in the U.S. and beyond. The response to populism is underway. The U.S. midterm election is market-relevant. Gridlock between the White House and Congress does, in fact, weigh on equity returns, after controlling for macro variables. The Democratic Party's chances of taking over Congress have fallen, but remain 50% in the House of Representatives. A divided House and Senate is the worst combination for equities, but macro factors matter most. China is clearly rebooting its "reform" agenda as Xi Jinping becomes an irresistible force. We remain long H-shares relative to EM, for now. Emerging markets - including an improved South Africa - will suffer as politics become a tailwind for U.S. growth and a headwind for Chinese growth. Feature The bond market has been shocked into action this month by the twin realizations that the Republican-held Congress is not as incompetent as believed and that the Republican Party is not as fiscally conservative as professed. When combined with steady U.S. wage growth and rising inflation expectations (Chart 1), our core 2018 theme - that U.S. politics would act as an accelerant to growth - has been priced in by the bond market with impressive urgency.1 The tax cuts alone were not enough to wake the bond market. First, the realization that a tax cut would pass Congress struck markets in late October, when it became increasingly clear that the $1.5 trillion Tax Cuts And Jobs Act would indeed pass the Senate. Second, the bill's passage along strict party lines - including the slimmest of margins in the Senate thanks to reconciliation rules - convinced investors that there would be no further compromises down the pipeline. The real game changer was the realization that the political path of least resistance leads towards profligacy. This happened with the signing into law of the February 9 two-year budget compromise (the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018) that will see fiscal spending raised by around $380 billion.2 The deal failed to gain the support of a majority of Republicans in the House, despite House Speaker Paul Ryan's support, but 73 Democrats crossed the aisle to ensure its passage. They did so despite a lack of formal assurances that the House would consider an immigration bill. The three-day shutdown in late January has forced Democrats, who largely took the blame, to assess whether they care more about preserving their liberal credentials on fiscal policy or immigration policy. The two-year budget agreement is a testament to their concern for the former. The deal will see the budget deficit most likely rise to about 5.5% of GDP in FY2019, up from 3.3% in last year's CBO baseline forecast (Chart 2). Chart 1Rising U.S. Inflation Expectations Rising U.S. Inflation Expectations Rising U.S. Inflation Expectations Chart 2Fiscal Policy Gets Expansive Fiscal Policy Gets Expansive Fiscal Policy Gets Expansive Adding to the newly authorized fiscal spending could be a congressional rule-change that reintroduces earmarks - leading to a potential $20 billion additional spending per year. There is also a 10-year infrastructure plan that could see spending increase by another ~$200 billion over the next decade. The new budget compromise, combined with last year's tax cuts, will massively increase U.S. fiscal thrust beyond the IMF's baseline (Chart 3). The IMF's forecast, done before the tax cuts were passed, suggested that fiscal thrust would contract by about 0.5% of GDP this year, and would only slightly expand in 2019. Now we estimate that fiscal thrust will be a positive 0.8% of GDP in 2018 and 1.3% in 2019. These figures are tentative because it is not clear exactly how much of the spending will take place this year versus 2019 and 2020. Our colleague Mark McClellan, author of BCA's flagship The Bank Credit Analyst, has stressed that the impact on GDP growth will be less than these figures suggest because the economic multipliers related to tax cuts are less than those for spending.3 Our theme that the political path of least resistance will lead to profligacy is not exclusive to the U.S. After all, populism is not exclusive to the U.S, with non-centrist parties consistently capturing around 16% of the electoral vote in Europe (Chart 4). Chart 3The Budget Deal And Tax Cuts##br## Will Expand U.S. Fiscal Thrust Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Chart 4Populism Will Fuel Fiscal##br##Spending Beyond The U.S. Populism Will Fuel Fiscal Spending Beyond The U.S. Populism Will Fuel Fiscal Spending Beyond The U.S. Policymakers are not price-setters in the political marketplace, but price-takers. The price-setter is the median voter, who we believe has swung to the left when it comes to economic policy in developed markets after a multi-year, low-growth, economic recovery.4 Broadly speaking, investors should prepare for higher fiscal spending globally on the back of this dynamic. Aside from the U.S., the populist dynamic is evident in the world's third (Japan), fourth (Germany), and sixth (the U.K.) largest economies. Japan may have started it all, as a political paradigm shift in 2011-12 spurred a historic reflationary effort.5 Geopolitical pressure from China and domestic political pressures on the back of an extraordinary rise in income inequality, and natural and national disasters, combined to create the political context that made Abenomics possible. While the fiscal arrow has somewhat disappointed - particularly when PM Shinzo Abe authorized the 2014 increase in the consumption tax - Japan has still surprised to the upside on fiscal thrust (Chart 5). On average, the IMF has underestimated Japan's fiscal impulse by 0.84% since the beginning of 2012. Investors often understate the ability of centrist, establishment policymakers to rebrand anti-establishment policies - whether on fiscal spending or immigration - as their own. In January 2015, we asked whether "Abenomics Is The Future?"6 We concluded that rising populism in Europe would require a policy response not unlike the policy mix favored by Tokyo. Today, the details of the latest German coalition deal between the formally fiscally conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SDP) means that even Germany has now succumbed to the political pressure to reflate. The CDU has agreed to fork over the influential ministry of finance to the profligate SPD and apparently spend an additional 46 billion euros, over the duration of the Grand Coalition, on public investment and tax cuts. Finally, in the U.K., the end of austerity came quickly on the heels of the Brexit referendum, the ultimate populist shot-across-the-bow. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, announced a shift away from austerity almost immediately, scrapping targets for balancing the budget by the end of the decade. The change in rhetoric has carried over to the new government, especially after the Labour Party pummeled the Tories on austerity in the lead up to the June 2017 election. The bond market action over the past several weeks suggests that investors have not fully appreciated the political shifts underway over the past several years. Bond yields had to "catch up" to the political reality essentially over the course of February. However, the structural upward trajectory is now in place. The end of stimulative monetary policy will accelerate the rise in bond yields. Quantitative easing programs have soaked up more than the net government issuance of the major economies. Chart 6 shows that the flow of the major economies' government bonds available for the private sector to purchase was negative from 2015-2017. This flow will now swing to the positive side as fiscal spending necessitates greater issuance and as central banks withdraw demand. Real interest rates may therefore be higher to the extent that government bonds will have to compete with private-sector issuance for available savings. Chart 5Japan's Abenomics Leads The Way To More Spending Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Chart 6Lots Of Bonds Hitting The Private Market Lots Of Bonds Hitting The Private Market Lots Of Bonds Hitting The Private Market Bottom Line: The U.S. electorate chose the populist, anti-establishment Donald Trump as president with unemployment at a multi-decade low of 4.6%. The message from the U.S. election, and the rise of anti-establishment parties in Europe, is that the electorate is restless, even with the post-Great Financial Crisis recovery now in its ninth year. Policymakers have heard the message, loud and clear, and are adjusting fiscal policy accordingly. Over the course of the next quarter, BCA's Global Investment Strategy expects the rapid rise in bond yields to peter out, but investors should use any bond rallies as an opportunity to reduce duration risk. BCA's House View calls for the 10-year Treasury yield to finish the year at about 3.25%.7 Our U.S. bond strategists expect the end-of-cycle level of the nominal 10-year Treasury yield to be between 3.3% and 3.5%.8 Does The U.S. Midterm Election Matter? The three-day government shutdown that ended on January 22 has hurt the chances of the Democratic Party in the upcoming midterm election. The Democrats' lead in the generic congressional ballot has gone from a high of 13% at the end of 2017 to just 9% today (Chart 7). As Chart 8 illustrates, this generic ballot has some predictive quality. However, it also suggests that for Democrats, the lead needs to be considerably larger than for Republicans to generate the type of seat-swing needed to win a majority in the House of Representatives in 2018. Chart 7Democrats Have Lost Some Steam Democrats Have Lost Some Steam Democrats Have Lost Some Steam Chart 8Democrats Need Big Polling Lead To Win Majority Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China There are three reasons for this built-in advantage for the Republican Party in recent midterm elections. First, the Republicans dominate the rural vote, which tends to be overrepresented in any electoral system that draws electoral districts geographically. Second, redistricting - or gerrymandering - has tended to favor the Republican Party in the past several elections. While the Supreme Court has recently struck down some of the most egregiously drawn electoral districts, the overall impact of gerrymandering since 2010 overwhelmingly favors the GOP. Third, midterm elections tend to have a lot lower voter turnout than general elections, which hurts the Democrats who rely on the youth and minority vote. Both constituencies tend to shy away from participation in the midterm election. Does the market care who wins the House and Senate? On the margin, yes. If the current GOP control of the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate were to be broken, markets might react negatively. It is often stated that gridlock has a positive effect on stock prices, as it reduces the probability of harmful government involvement in the economy and financial markets. However, research by our colleague Jonathan LaBerge, which we have recently updated, suggests otherwise. After controlling for the macro environment, gridlock between the White House and Congress is actually associated with modestly lower equity market returns.9 This conclusion is based on the past century of data. For most of that period, polarization has steadily risen to today's record-setting levels (Chart 9). As such, the negative impact of gridlock could be higher today. Table 1 illustrates the impact of four factors on monthly S&P 500 price returns. The first two columns demonstrate the effect on returns of recessions and tightening monetary policy, respectively, whereas the last two columns measure the effects of executive/legislative disunity and reduced uncertainty in the 12-months following presidential and midterm elections.10 The table presents the beta of a simple regression based on dummy variables for each of the four components (t-statistics are shown in parentheses). Chart 9U.S. Polarization Has Risen For 60 Years U.S. Polarization Has Risen For 60 Years U.S. Polarization Has Risen For 60 Years Table 1Divided Government Is, In Fact, Bad For Stocks Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China As expected, the macro context has a much larger impact on stock returns than politically driven effects. The impact of political gridlock is shown to be negative regardless of timeframe. The takeaway for equity investors is that, contrary to popular belief, political gridlock is not positive for stock prices after controlling for important macro factors. Absolute results are similarly negative, with the average monthly S&P 500 returns considerably larger during periods of unified executive and legislative branches (Chart 10). Intriguingly, the less negative constellation of forces is when the president faces a unified Congress ruled by the opposing party. We would reason that such periods force the president to compromise with the legislature, which constitutionally has a lot of authority over domestic policy. The worst outcome for equity markets, by far, is when the president faces a split legislature. In these cases, we suspect that uncertainty rises as neither party has to take responsibility for negative policy outcomes, making them more likely. Chart 10A Unified Congress Is A Boon For Stocks Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China In the current context, gridlock could lead to greater political volatility. For example, a Democratic House of Representatives would begin several investigations into the Trump White House and could potentially initiate impeachment proceedings against the president. But as we pointed out last year, impeachment alone is no reason to sell stocks.11 The Democrats would not have the ability to alter President Trump's deregulatory trajectory - which remains under the purview of the executive - nor would they be likely to gain enough seats to repeal the tax cut legislation. Yet given President Trump's populist bias, center-left Democrats could find much in common with the president on spending. This would only reinforce our adage that the political path of least resistance will tend towards profligacy. The only thing that President Trump and the Democrats in Congress will find in common, in other words, will be to blow out the U.S. budget deficit. Bottom Line: The chances of a Democratic takeover following the midterm elections have fallen, but remain at 50% for the House of Representatives. A gridlocked Congress is mildly negative for equity markets, taking into consideration that macro variables still dominate. Nonetheless, investors should ignore the likely higher political volatility and focus on the fact that President Trump and the Democrats are not that far apart when it comes to spending. China: The Reform Reboot Is Here And It Is Still Winter He told us not to believe the people who say it's spring in China again. It's still winter. - Anonymous Chinese government official referring to Liu He, the top economic adviser.12 The one risk to the BCA House View of a structural bond bear market - at least in the near term - is a peaking of global growth and a slowdown in emerging markets. The EM economies, which normally magnify booms in advanced economies, particularly in latter stages of the economic cycle, are currently experiencing a relative contraction in their PMIs (Chart 11). BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy's "carry canary" indicator - which shows that EM/JPY carry trades tend to lead global industrial activity - is similarly flashing warning signs (Chart 12).13 Chart 11EM Economies Underperforming EM Economies Underperforming EM Economies Underperforming Chart 12Yen Carry Trades Signal Distress Yen Carry Trades Signal Distress Yen Carry Trades Signal Distress At the heart of the divergence in growth between EM and DM is China. Beijing has been tightening monetary conditions as part of overall structural reform efforts, causing a sharp deceleration in the Li Keqiang index (Chart 13). In addition, the orders-to-inventories ratio has begun to contract, import volumes are weak, and export price growth is slowing sharply (Chart 14). Chart 13Li Keqiang Index Surprises Downward Li Keqiang Index Surprises Downward Li Keqiang Index Surprises Downward Chart 14China's Economy Weakens... China's Economy Weakens... China's Economy Weakens... The Chinese slowdown is fundamentally driven by politics. Last April we introduced a checklist for determining whether Chinese President Xi Jinping would "reboot" his reform agenda during his second term in office. We define "reform" as policies that accelerate the transition of China's growth model away from investment-driven, resource-intensive growth. Since then, political and economic events have supported our thesis. Most recently, interbank lending rates have spiked due to China's new macro-prudential regulations and monetary policy (Chart 15), and January's total credit growth clocked in at an uninspiring 11.2% (Chart 16). Tight credit control in the first calendar month typically implies that credit expansion will be limited for the rest of the year (Chart 17). A strong grip on money and credit growth is entirely in keeping with the three-year "battle" that Xi Jinping has declared against systemic financial risk.14 Chart 15...While Policy Drives Up Interbank Rates ...While Policy Drives Up Interbank Rates ...While Policy Drives Up Interbank Rates Chart 16January Credit Growth Disappoints... January Credit Growth Disappoints... January Credit Growth Disappoints... Chart 17... And January Credit Is The Biggest Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China In short, we have just crossed the 50% threshold on our checklist, confirming that China is indeed rebooting its reform agenda (Table 2). Going forward, what matters is the intensity and duration of the reform push. Three events at the start of the Chinese New Year suggest that the market will be surprised by both. Table 2How Do We Know China Is Reforming? Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China First, the National People's Congress (NPC), which convenes March 5, is reportedly planning to remove term limits for the president and vice-president, thus enabling Xi Jinping to remain as president well beyond March 2023. Xi was already set up to be the most powerful man in China's politics through the 2020s,15 so we do not consider this a material change in circumstances: the material change occurred last October when "Xi Thought" received the status of "Mao Zedong Thought" in the Communist Party's constitution and reshaped the Politburo to his liking. The point is that Xi's position is irresistible which means that his policies will have greater, not lesser, effectiveness as party and state bureaucrats scramble to enact them faithfully.16 Chart 18Crackdown On Shadow Lending Has Teeth Crackdown On Shadow Lending Has Teeth Crackdown On Shadow Lending Has Teeth Second, the Communist Party is reportedly convening its "Third Plenum" half a year early this year - that is, in late February and early March, just before the annual legislative meeting that begins March 5. This is a symbolic move. The third plenum is known as the "reform plenum," and this year is the fortieth anniversary of the 1978 third plenum that launched China's market reform and opening up to the global economy under Deng Xiaoping. However, the last time China convened a third plenum - in 2013 when Xi first announced his agenda - the excitement fizzled as implementation proved to be slow.17 As we have repeatedly warned clients, China's political environment has changed dramatically since 2013: the constraints to painful structural reforms have fallen.18 If the third plenum is indeed held early, some key decisions on reform initiatives will be made as we go to press, and any that require legislative approval will receive it instantly when the National People's Congress convenes on March 5.19 This will be a "double punch" that will supercharge the reform agenda this year. It is precisely the kind of ambition that we have been expecting. Third, one of the most important administrative vehicles of this new reform push, the Financial Stability and Development Commission (FSDC), has just made its first serious move.20 On February 23, China's top insurance regulator announced that it is taking control of Anbang Insurance Group for one year, possibly two, in order to restructure it amid insolvency and systemic risks. Anbang's troubles are idiosyncratic and have received ample media attention since June 2017.21 Nevertheless, China's government has just seized a company with assets over $300bn. Clearly the crackdown on the shadow financial sector has teeth (Chart 18). Anbang's case will reverberate beyond the handful of private companies involved in shadow banking and highly leveraged foreign acquisitions abroad. Beijing's focus is systemic risk, not merely innovative insurance products. The central government is scrutinizing state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and local governments as well as a range of financial companies and products. We provide a list of reform initiatives in Table 3. Table 3China Is Rebooting Economic Reforms Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China What is the cumulative effect of these three developments? Basically, they raise the stakes for Xi's policies dramatically this year. If Xi makes himself president for life, and yet this year's third plenum is as over-hyped and under-delivered as in 2013, then we would expect China's economic future to darken rapidly. China will lose any pretext of reform just as the United States goes on the offensive against Beijing's mercantilism. It would be time to short China on a long-term time line. However, it would also spell doom for our positive U.S. dollar outlook and bearish EM view. If, on the other hand, Xi Jinping couples his power grab with renewed efforts to restructure China's economy and improve market access for foreigners, then he has a chance of deleveraging, improving China's productivity, and managing tensions with the U.S. This is the best outcome for investors, although it would still be negative for Chinese growth and imports, and hence EM assets, this year. The next political indicator to watch is the March 5 NPC session. This legislative meeting will be critical in determining what precise reforms the Xi administration will prioritize this year. The NPC occurs annually but is more important this year than usual because it installs a new government for the 2018-23 period and will kick off the new agenda. In terms of personnel, there is much speculation (Table 4).22 Investors should stay focused on the big picture: four months ago, the news media focused on Xi Jinping's Maoist thirst for power and declared that all reform efforts were dead in the water. Now the press is filled with speculation about which key reformer will get which key economic/financial position. The big picture is that Xi is using his Mao-like authority in the Communist Party to rein in the country's economic and financial imbalances. His new economic team will have to establish their credibility this year by remaining firm when the market and vested interests push back, which means more policy-induced volatility should be expected. Table 4China's New Government Takes Shape At National People's Congress Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China The risk is that Beijing overcorrects, not that reforms languish like they did in 2015-16. Our subjective probability of a policy mistake remains at 30%, but we expect that the market will start to price in this higher probability of risk as the March political events unfold. As Liu He declared at Davos, China's reforms this year will "exceed the international community's expectations."23 The anti-corruption campaign is another important factor to monitor. In addition to any major economic legislation, the most important law that the NPC may pass is one that would create a new nationwide National Supervisory Commission, which will expand the Communist Party's anti-corruption campaign into every level of the state bureaucracy. In other words, an anti-corruption component is sharpening the policy effectiveness of the economic and financial agenda. In the aforementioned Anbang case, for instance, corporate chief Wu Xiaohui was stung by a corruption probe in June 2017 and is being tried for "economic crimes" - now his company and its counterparty risks are being restructured. The combination of anti-corruption campaign and regulatory crackdown has the potential to cause significant risk aversion among financial institutions, SOEs, and local governments. Add in the ongoing pollution curbs, and any significant SOE restructuring, and Chinese policy becomes a clear source of volatility and economic policy uncertainty this year that the market is not, as yet, pricing (Chart 19). On cue, perhaps in anticipation of rising domestic volatility, China has stopped updating its home-grown version of the VIX (Chart 20). Chart 19Market Expects No Political Volatility Yet Market Expects No Political Volatility Yet Market Expects No Political Volatility Yet Chart 20Has China Halted Its Version Of The VIX? Has China Halted Its Version Of The VIX? Has China Halted Its Version Of The VIX? We would not expect anything more than a whiff, at best, of policy easing at the NPC this March. For instance, poverty alleviation efforts will require some fiscal spending. But even then, the point of fiscal spending will be to offset credit tightness, not to stimulate the economy in any remarkable way. Monetary policy may not get much tighter from here, as inflation is rolling over amid the slowdown (Chart 21),24 but anything suggesting a substantial shift back to easy policy would be contrary to our view. More accommodative policy at this point in time would suggest that Xi has no real intention of fighting systemic risk and - further - that global growth faces no significant impediment from China this year. In such a scenario, the dollar could fall further and EM would outperform. We expect the contrary. We are long DXY and short EUR/JPY. We remain overweight Chinese H-shares within emerging markets, but we will close this trade if we suspect either that reform is a fig leaf or that authorities have moved into overcorrection territory. Otherwise, reform is a good thing for Chinese firms relative to EM counterparts that have come to rely on China's longstanding commodity- and capital-intensive growth model (Chart 22). Chart 21Monetary Policy May Not Tighten From Here Monetary Policy May Not Tighten From Here Monetary Policy May Not Tighten From Here Chart 22Tighter-Fisted China Will Hit EM Tighter-Fisted China Will Hit EM Tighter-Fisted China Will Hit EM Bottom Line: Xi Jinping has rebooted China's economic reforms. The new government being assembled is likely to intensify the crackdown on systemic financial risk. Reforms will surprise to the upside, which means that Chinese growth is likely to surprise to the downside amidst the current slowdown, thus weighing on global growth at a time when populism provides a tailwind to U.S. growth. What It All Means For South Africa And Emerging Markets We spent a full week in South Africa last June and came back with these thoughts about the country's economy and the markets:25 The main driving force behind EM risk assets, year-to-date, has been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart 23). Weak inflation data and policy disappointments as the pro-growth, populist, economic policy of the Trump Administration stalled have supported the ongoing EM carry trade. The actual emerging market growth fundamentals and politics are therefore unimportant. Chart 23Weak Inflation And Dollar Drove EM Assets Weak Inflation And Dollar Drove EM Assets Weak Inflation And Dollar Drove EM Assets Chart 24Market Likes Ramaphosa, Unlike Zuma Market Likes Ramaphosa, Unlike Zuma Market Likes Ramaphosa, Unlike Zuma In the near term, South African politics obviously do matter. Markets have cheered the election of Cyril Ramaphosa to the presidency of the African National Congress (ANC), a stark contrast to the market reaction following his predecessor's ascendancy to the same position (Chart 24). However, the now President Ramaphosa's defeat of ex-President Jacob Zuma's former cabinet minister and ex-wife, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma was narrow and has split the ANC down the middle. On one side is Ramaphosa's pragmatic wing, on the other is Dlamini-Zuma's side, focused on racial inequality and social justice. Chart 25Chronic Youth Unemployment Chronic Youth Unemployment Chronic Youth Unemployment Chart 26Few Gains In Middle Class Population Few Gains In Middle Class Population Few Gains In Middle Class Population For now, the ANC bureaucracy has served as an important circuit-breaker that will limit electoral choices in the 2019 election to the pro-market Ramaphosa, centrist Democratic Alliance, and radical Economic Freedom Fighters. From investors' perspective, this is a good thing. After all, it is clear that if the South African median voter had her way, she would probably not vote for Ramaphosa, given that the country is facing chronic unemployment (Chart 25), endemic corruption, poor healthcare infrastructure, and a desire for aggressive, and targeted, redistributive economic policies. South Africa stands alone amongst its EM peers when it comes to its tepid rise in the middle class as a percent of the population (Chart 26) and persistently high income inequality (Chart 27). We see no evidence that the electorate will welcome pro-market structural reforms. Chart 27Inequality Remains Very High Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China Nonetheless, Ramaphosa's presidency is a positive given the recent deterioration of South Africa's governance, which should improve as the new regime focuses on fighting corruption and restructuring SOEs. Whether Ramaphosa will similarly have the maneuvering room to correct the country's endemically low productivity (Chart 28) and still large twin deficits (Chart 29) is another question altogether. Chart 28A Distant Laggard In Productivity A Distant Laggard In Productivity A Distant Laggard In Productivity Chart 29Twin Deficits A Structural Weakness Twin Deficits A Structural Weakness Twin Deficits A Structural Weakness Will investors have time to find out the answer to those latter questions? Not if our core thesis for this year - that politics is a tailwind to U.S. growth and a headwind to Chinese growth - is right. In an environment where the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield is rising, DXY stabilizes, and Chinese economy slows down, commodities and thus South African assets will come under pressure. As our colleague Arthur Budaghyan, BCA's chief EM strategist, recently put it: positive political developments are magnified amid a benign external backdrop. Conversely, in a negative external environment, positive political transformations can have limited impact on the direction of financial markets. Bottom Line: Markets are cheering Ramaphosa's ascendancy to the South African presidency. We agree that the development is, all other things being equal, bullish for South Africa's economy and assets. However, the structural challenges are vast and we do not see enough political unity in the ANC to resolve them. Furthermore, we are not sure that the global macro environment will remain sanguine for long enough to give policymakers the time for preemptive structural reforms. To reflect the potential for a positive political change and forthcoming orthodox macro policies, we are closing our recommendation to bet on yield curve steepening in South Africa, which has been flat since initiation on June 28, 2017. However, we will maintain our recommendation to buy South African 5-year CDS protection and sell Russian, even though it has returned a loss of 17.08 bps thus far. We expect that Russia will prove to be a low-beta EM play in the next downturn, whereas South Africa will not be so lucky. On a different note, we are booking gains of 2525bps on our short Venezeulan vs. EM 10-yr sovereign bonds, as our commodity team upgrades its oil-price forecast for this year. 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 Special Report, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the Congressional Budget Office, "Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018," February 8, 2018, available at www.cbo.gov. 3 Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, "March 2018," dated February 22, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan's Political Paradigm Shift: Investment Implications," dated December 21, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Is Abenomics The Future?" dated February 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Structural Bear Market In Bonds," dated February 16, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds," dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Party On The QE2," dated November 8, 2010, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 We include the last factor in the regression because it could be that the market responds positively in the post-election period, irrespective of the election outcome, simply because political uncertainty is diminished. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see Tom Mitchell, "Xi's China: The Rise Of Party Politics," Financial Times, July 25, 2016, available at ft.com. See also BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, available at www.bcaresearch.com. 13 "Carry Canary" indicator tracks the performance of EM/JPY carry trades. These trades short the Japanese Yen and long an emerging market currency with a high interest rate (Brazilian real, Russian ruble, or South African rand), and as such they are highly geared to a positive global growth back-drop. Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues ... For Now," dated February 16, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 14 The other two battles are against pollution and poverty. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Xi Jinping: Chairman Of Everything," dated October 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," in "The Great Risk Rotation - December 2013," dated December 11, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Consider that the standard political calendar would have called for Xi to make personnel adjustments at the second plenum (which was held in January), then to formalize those personnel changes at the legislature in March, and then to announce reform initiatives at the third plenum in the fall, leaving implementation until late in the year or even March 2019. Instead, all of this will be done by March of this year, leaving the rest of the year for implementation. 20 The Financial Stability and Development Commission was created last July at an important financial gathering that occurs once every five years. We dubbed it a "Preemptive Dodd Frank" at the time because of China's avowed intention to use it to tackle systemic financial risk. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. The FSDC's purpose is to coordinate the People's Bank of China with the chief financial regulators - the banking, insurance, and securities regulatory commissions (CBRC, CIRC, and CSRC) and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE). There is even a possibility under discussion (we think very low probability of happening) that the FSDC will preside above the central bank - though the precise organizational structure will remain unclear until it is formalized, probably during the March legislative session. 21 Anbang is part of a group of companies, including Foresea, Fosun, HNA, Ping An, and Dalian Wanda, that have been targeted over the past year for shady financial doings, corruption, excessive debt, and capital flight. In particular, Anbang was integral to the development of universal life products, which have been highly restricted since last year. These were not standard insurance products but risky short-term, high-yield shadow investment products. Investors could redeem them easily so there was a risk that purchasers could swamp insurance companies with demands for paybacks if investment returns fell short. This would leave insurance companies squeezed for cash, which in turn could shake other financial institutions. The systemic risk not only threatened legitimate insurance customers but also threatened to leave insurance companies unable to make debt payments on huge leveraged buyouts that they had done abroad. Anbang and others had used these and other shadow products to lever up and then go on a global acquisition spree, buying assets like insurance subsidiaries, hotels, and media/entertainment companies. The targeted firms are also in trouble with the central government for trying to divest themselves of China's currency at the height of the RMB depreciation and capital flight of 2015. They were using China's shadow leverage to springboard into Western assets that would be safe from RMB devaluation and Chinese political risk. The government wants outward investment to go into China's strategic goals (such as the Belt and Road Initiative) instead of into high-profile, marquee Western assets and brands. 22 Particularly over whether Xi Jinping's right-hand man, Liu He, will be appointed as the new central bank governor, to replace long-serving Governor Zhou Xiaochuan, and/or whether he will replace Vice Premier Ma Kai as chairman of the FSDC. It is important whether Liu He takes the place of central banker or chief reformer because those roles are so different. Making him PBoC chief would keep a reformer at the helm of a key institution at an important point in its evolution, but will raise questions about who, if anyone, will take charge of structural reform. Giving him the broader and more ad hoc role of Reformer-in-Chief would be reminiscent of Zhu Rongji at the historic NPC session in March 1998, i.e. very optimistic for reforms. Of course, Liu He is not the only person to watch. It is also important to see what role former anti-corruption czar Wang Qishan gets (for instance, leading U.S. negotiations) and whether rising stars like bank regulator Guo Shuqing are given more authority (he is a hawkish reformer). 23 Please see Xie Yu and Frank Tang, "Xi picks team of problem solvers to head China's economic portfolios," South China Morning Post, dated February 21, 2018, available at www.scmp.com. 24 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy," dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 25 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Federal Reserve: Is the U.S. neutral rate now higher? ECB: How much has the euro rally damaged European growth? Bank of Japan: Will a stronger yen tip Japan back into deflation? Bank of England: Will higher real wages offset Brexit uncertainties? Bank of Canada & Reserve Bank Of Australia: How much spare capacity truly exists? Feature We have not published a regular Weekly Report in Global Fixed Income Strategy since February 6th. We instead published necessary Special Reports on two countries of immediate relevance: Japan, because of the recent surprising strength in the yen, and Italy, because of the upcoming election. The pause in our regular commentary on the state of the markets, however, was useful. It has given us more time to reflect on the potential for a continuation of the global bond bear market after the volatility spike earlier in the month. What we find interesting is that, despite the common narrative that the back-up in global bond yields seen in 2018 has been about rising inflation fears, market pricing suggests the big shift has instead been in real bond yields and central bank policy expectations. In Table 1, we present the year-to-date change in the 10-year government bond yield for the major developed markets. We also show the changes in various other interest rate measures, including: Table 12018 Year-To-Date Changes In Government Bond Yield Components The Biggest Question Facing Each Central Bank The Biggest Question Facing Each Central Bank Our 12-month Policy Rate Discounters, which show the change in short-term interest rates priced into money market curves Our proxy measure of the market pricing of the real neutral ("terminal") interest rate - the 5-year Overnight Index Swap (OIS) rate, 5-years forward minus the 5-year CPI swap rate, 5-years forward Our estimate of the term premium on the 10-year government bond yield. What stands out in the table is that markets have moved to price in both a higher amount of expected rate hikes over the next year (Chart 1) and a higher neutral real interest rate, even with very little change in expected inflation. This can also been seen by looking at recent declines in the correlations between inflation expectations and nominal bond yields in the major economies, which are off from the peaks seen late in 2017 (Chart 2). Chart 1Rising Rate Expectations Have##BR##Been Pushing Yields Higher Of Late... Rising Rate Expectations Have Been Pushing Yields Higher Of Late... Rising Rate Expectations Have Been Pushing Yields Higher Of Late... Chart 2...Rather Than Higher##BR##Inflation Expectations ...Rather Than Higher Inflation Expectations ...Rather Than Higher Inflation Expectations The obvious conclusion is that the bulk of the rise in global bond yields seen year-to-date has been driven by increases in the real yield component, which itself has been heavily influenced by expected changes to central bank policy rates. Keeping that in mind, in this Weekly Report, we take a look at the most important question faced by each major central bank, and what that means for future decisions on policy interest rates - and by extension, for government bond yields. The Federal Reserve: "Is The U.S. Neutral Rate Now Higher?" With the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield having taken several runs at the critical 3% level in recent weeks, the debate has raged among investors as to whether that should be considered a breakout point or a buying opportunity. Comparing the U.S. economy now to what it looked like the last time the 10-year yield was at 3% at the end of 2013 suggests that yields could have more upside: Real GDP growth: 1.7% then, 2.3% now1 The unemployment rate: 6.7% then, 4.1% now Headline CPI inflation: 1.4% then, 2.1% now Core CPI inflation: 1.7% then, 1.8% now Average Hourly Earnings growth: 1.9% then, 2.9% now Growth is faster, there is less spare capacity, and inflation is higher now than it was just over four years ago. Yet when looking at the decomposition of the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield into its real and inflation expectations component (Chart 3, 2nd panel), we find that the mix is only slightly more skewed to real yields today: Chart 3Treasury Yields Still Have More Upside,##BR##Based On 2013 Comparisons Treasury Yields Still Have More Upside, Based On 2013 Comparisons Treasury Yields Still Have More Upside, Based On 2013 Comparisons Nominal 10-year Treasury yield: 3.03% then (December 31st, 2013), 2.87% now (February 26th, 2018) Inflation expectations (10-year CPI swap): 2.54% then, 2.30% now Real yields (nominal 10-year yield minus 10-year CPI swap): 0.49% then, 0.57% now In other words, the real yield today is 20% of the total nominal 10-year yield compared to 16% back at the end of 2013. Not a major difference. Yet there are much bigger discrepancies between the elements that go into our real neutral rate proxy for the U.S. (bottom two panels): 5-year OIS rate, 5-years forward: 4.1% then, 2.6% now 5-year CPI swap rate, 5-years forward: 2.9% then, 2.3% now Real neutral rate proxy: 1.2% then, 0.3% now The market is now pricing in a real neutral funds rate that is nearly one full percentage point below the level that prevailed the last time the 10-year Treasury yield reached 3% prior to 2018. Even though the U.S. economy is now growing faster, with far less spare capacity and higher inflation, than it did at the end of 2013. This does suggest that the level of the neutral real fed funds rate has likely gone up, which the 43bps increase in our market-implied real neutral rate proxy so far in 2018 is likely reflecting. But does the Fed actually believe that the neutral funds rate should be higher? The minutes from the January FOMC meeting, released last week, noted that there was discussion on the neutral funds rate, but one that was different than during previous FOMC meetings in 2017 - the actual appropriate level of the neutral funds rate was a topic of debate: "Some participants also commented on the likely evolution of the neutral federal funds rate. [...] the outlook for the neutral rate was uncertain and would depend on the interplay of a number of forces. For example, the neutral rate, which appeared to have fallen sharply during the Global Financial Crisis when financial headwinds had restrained demand, might move up more than anticipated as the global economy strengthened. Alternatively, the longer-run level of the neutral rate might remain low in the absence of fundamental shifts in trends in productivity, demographics, or the demand for safe assets."2 Any change in the Fed's estimation of the long-run neutral funds rate is critical for the future path of Treasury yields, given where market pricing is at the moment. The U.S. OIS curve has now fully converged to the FOMC interest rate projections (the "dots") for this year and next year. More importantly, the market-implied terminal rate (the nominal 5-year OIS rate, 5-years forward) has now caught up to the FOMC terminal rate dot (Chart 4). The implication is that any further meaningful increase in Treasury yields can only come from higher inflation expectations - unless the Fed signals that a higher neutral rate is required. Our colleagues at our sister publication, U.S. Bond Strategy, recently noted that the Fed has historically been much more reluctant to raise its terminal rate projection in response to rising inflation than it was in cutting the projection when inflation falls.3 The conclusion is that inflation expectations will likely need to return to levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target - 2.3-2.5% on both the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate and the 5-year breakeven rate, 5-years forward - before the Fed would make any significant upward revisions to its terminal rate projection. In the meantime, Treasury yields are more likely to see a near-term consolidation, as U.S. data surprises have rolled over, market positioning has become very short, momentum is oversold and market pricing has fully converged with Fed expectations (Chart 5). In terms of data, the release of the next U.S. Employment report on March 9th is critical for the Treasury market in the near term, given that the January uptick in wage growth was the trigger for the spike in bond yields, and subsequent equity market correction, at the beginning of February (bottom panel). Chart 4Could The Fed Move##BR##The Interest Rate 'Goalposts'? Could The Fed Move The Interest Rate 'Goalposts'? Could The Fed Move The Interest Rate 'Goalposts'? Chart 5Treasury Selloff May Be##BR##Due For A Pause Treasury Selloff May Be Due For A Pause Treasury Selloff May Be Due For A Pause The ECB: "How Much Has The Euro Rally Damaged European Growth?" The European Central Bank (ECB) has been slowly preparing markets for an eventual withdrawal of its extraordinary monetary policy stimulus since last summer. Specifically, the ECB has begun a discussion of what it would take to end its bond buying program. Already, the central bank cut the monthly pace of its asset purchases in half at the beginning of 2018, and the topic of "tapering" has come up in many speeches from ECB officials. The ECB has been trying to not present an overly hawkish message when discussing an eventual end to its hyper-easy monetary stance. The overall level of government bond yields - both in the core and Periphery of the Euro Area - has been drifting higher, but by less than the increases seen in the U.S. Inflation expectations have been rising since the middle of 2017, although most of the 23bps increase in the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield seen so far in 2018 can be attributed to rising real yields (Chart 6). The market-implied real neutral rate has also been increasing, but still remains below zero (-0.2%). Yet despite only the modest increase in European interest rate expectations, there has been a substantially larger move in the euro. The trade-weighted euro has bond up by 8% over the past year, bringing the currency back to levels last seen in 2014 (Chart 7, top panel). The appreciating euro has become a subject of focus by the ECB, although it is not yet a cause for worry according to the minutes of the January ECB meeting released last week: Chart 6Only A Modest Rise In European Yields, So Far Only A Modest Rise In European Yields, So Far Only A Modest Rise In European Yields, So Far Chart 7A Potential ECB Dilemma A Potential ECB Dilemma A Potential ECB Dilemma "[...] although the past appreciation of the euro had so far had no significant impact on euro area external demand, volatility in foreign exchange markets represented a further increase that need monitoring."4 Chart 8No Damage Yet To European##BR##Exports From The Euro Rally No Damage Yet To European Exports From The Euro Rally No Damage Yet To European Exports From The Euro Rally The ECB is correct that the rising euro has not yet impacted Euro Area exports, the growth rate of which remains solid at 8% (bottom panel). This contrasts sharply with the performance the last time the trade-weighted euro was at current levels in 2014, when exports were barely growing at all. The difference is a much stronger global economy that is demanding far more European goods and services now compared to four years ago. For now, the ECB can look to the stability of export demand as a sign that the euro has not become a drag on the economy, but some warning signals may be flashing. Euro Area economic data surprises have plunged sharply, and the manufacturing PMI data has been softer in the past couple of months (Chart 8). While the absolute levels of the PMIs suggest an economy that is still growing at an above-trend pace, a continuation of the recent drops could pose a problem for the ECB as it tries to communicate its next policy move to the markets. The surging euro has done very little to drag down overall Euro Area headline inflation, given the strength in global oil prices over the past year (3rd panel). Core inflation has struggled to stay much above 1% over the past year or so, but our core inflation diffusion index - which measures the number of core Euro Area HICP sectors with rising inflation rates versus those with falling inflation rates - has surged in the past couple of months, which typically leads to a faster rate of core inflation (bottom panel). As long as the Euro Area export growth data holds up, the ECB is likely to focus more on rising core inflation than a stronger euro and should begin signaling an end to the asset purchase program by year-end. The Bank Of England: "Will Faster Wage Growth Offset Brexit Uncertainty?" The Bank of England (BoE) has surprised markets with its more hawkish commentary of late, particularly given the reason for the change - faster wage growth. The BoE had previously been cautious on its outlook for the U.K. economy, which was suffering from two powerful drags. First, the uncertainty over the Brexit negotiations was dampening business confidence and restraining capital spending. Second, the surge in realized inflation following the post-Brexit collapse of the British Pound triggered a period of contracting real wages that would be a drag on consumer spending. Until these were resolved, the BoE would be cautious with its future policy moves. Next month's European Union (EU) summit can provide some news on Brexit, as the U.K. government will be seeking a transition agreement that would give U.K. businesses a firm timeline for the separation of the U.K. from the EU. The U.K. government is reported to be seeking a two-year period for the agreement, but it may take longer than that to hammer out all the deals involved with the contentious issues of trade, immigration, etc. The longer the Brexit transition period, the more likely that U.K. firms will hold back on long-term investment spending because of uncertainty. As for the wage side of the story, the annual growth rate of Average Weekly Earnings has increased from 1.7% to 2.6% since the April 2017 low, but this is still below the headline CPI inflation rate of 3% (Chart 9, bottom panel). With the U.K. unemployment rate at a cyclical low of 4.4% - far below the OECD's estimate of the full employment NAIRU rate of 5.1% - additional increases in wage growth are possible if hiring demand does not begin to slow. Yet with U.K. data surprises rolling over (top panel), and with the OECD's U.K. leading economic indicator decelerating (middle panel), there is a growing risk that economic growth will slow in the coming quarters, to the detriment of hiring activity and wages. The current market pricing shows that there remains a wide gap between U.K. inflation expectations and nominal Gilt yields (Chart 10). The real 10-year Gilt yield is -1.84% (deflated by CPI swaps), while the market-implied neutral real interest rate is -1.94%. While such a deeply negative interest rate is unlikely to be a permanent state of affairs in the U.K., such an accommodative policy setting is required to prevent the economy from falling into a deep slump. Chart 9Is The BoE More Worried About##BR##Wage Pressures Than Growth? Is The BoE More Worried About Wage Pressures Than Growth? Is The BoE More Worried About Wage Pressures Than Growth? Chart 10Real Gilt Yields Rising,##BR##But Still Very Low Real Gilt Yields Rising, But Still Very Low Real Gilt Yields Rising, But Still Very Low As we noted back in January, we do not see the BoE being able to raise rates much at all this year given the likelihood of prolonged sluggishness of the U.K. economy and some reversal of the currency-fueled surge in inflation seen in 2017.5 The BoE choosing to tackle rising wage inflation while growth was decelerating would be a huge policy error that would eventually benefit the performance of U.K. Gilts. The Bank Of Japan: "Will A Stronger Yen Tip Japan Back Into Deflation?" The extraordinary monetary policy accommodation provided by the Bank of Japan (BoJ) makes an analysis of Japanese Government Bond (JGB) yields far less interesting. After all, when the central bank is actively intervening in large quantities to hold the level of the 10-year JGB around 0%, do the signals sent from money market and bond yield curves have any meaning vis-à-vis the actual Japanese economy? Right now, the pricing of the real 10-year JGB yield (deflated by CPI swaps) is just below 0%, as is the real terminal rate proxy from the Japanese OIS curve (Chart 11). Keeping JGB yields at such low levels is part of the BoJ's attempt to raise Japanese inflation back towards the central bank's 2% yield target. The mechanism by which that should happen is through a weaker Japanese yen. Yet the yen has been showing surprising strength in recent weeks, most notably the USD/JPY exchange rate that has been falling in the face of rising U.S.-Japan interest rate differentials (Chart 12, top panel). Chart 11Negative Real Rates Still Necessary In Japan Negative Real Rates Still Necessary In Japan Negative Real Rates Still Necessary In Japan Chart 12An Unwelcome Rise In The Yen An Unwelcome Rise In The Yen An Unwelcome Rise In The Yen The risk going forward is that the strengthening yen will create a drag on headline Japanese inflation that has recently accelerated back to 1% (middle panel). Given that both core CPI and nominal wages barely growing at all (bottom panel), the odds are increasing that Japanese inflation could begin to move lower without getting anywhere close to the BoJ's 2% target. As we discussed in our recent Special Report, a much weaker yen (i.e. USD/JPY between 115 and 120) is the first necessary precondition before the BoJ would consider raising its yield target on the 10-year JGB.6 We had placed odds of no more than 20% that the BoJ would raise its yield target in 2018, but if the yen continues to hold firm or even strengthen further from current levels, those odds fall to zero. Bank Of Canada & Reserve Bank Of Australia: "How Much Spare Capacity Truly Exists?" We are lumping the Bank of Canada (BoC) and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) together in this report, as both are facing the same critical question. The BoC has already raised its policy rate three times since last summer, in response to accelerating growth and diminished spare capacity in Canada. Canadian bond yields have risen in response through higher inflation expectations, rising real yields and greater expected rate increases from the BoC (Chart 13). The real 10-year Canadian yield has risen back to the highs last seen in late 2013, while inflation expectations are not quite back to those levels - a similar story to that seen in the U.S. The BoC's own estimate of the Canadian output gap flipped into positive territory at the end of 2017, signifying that there was no longer any spare capacity in the Canadian economy (Chart 14, top panel). The signal from the Canadian labor market is similar, with the unemployment rate now at 5.9% - well below the OECD NAIRU estimate of 6.5% (middle panel). Yet Canadian inflation rates, both for headline and core CPI, are only at 1.7% and 1.5%, respectively - both not even at the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target band (bottom panel). At the same time, wages have been accelerating, with the annual growth rate of Average Hourly Earnings now up to a two-year high of 3.3%. Chart 13All Bond Yield Components Rising In Canada All Bond Yield Components Rising In Canada All Bond Yield Components Rising In Canada Chart 14Where's The Inflation? Where's The Inflation? Where's The Inflation? Such a wide gap between price inflation and wage growth does throw into the question if the BoC's own output gap estimate is correct. We expect Canadian price inflation to eventually begin to close the gap with wage inflation, which will keep the BoC on its current expected rate hiking path in 2018 as long as the economy does not begin to slow meaningfully. The CPI inflation reports will be the most important data to watch in Canada over the next few months to determine if our view will pan out. In Australia, the market pricing is nowhere near as hawkish as in Canada, with inflation expectations (10-year CPI swaps) having been stuck in a range between 2.2-2.4% for the past two years (Chart 15, 2nd panel). The market-implied neutral real interest rate is stuck at 0% and has not been sustainably above that level since 2014 (bottom panel). Yet, like Canada, there are questions about the true degree of slack in the economy. The Australian unemployment rate is currently at 5.5%, well below NAIRU (Chart 16, top panel). The last time that the Australian economy ran for so long beyond full employment was in 2010-11, when headline inflation breached the upper limit of the RBA's 1-3% target band (bottom panel). Yet the so-called "underemployment rate" - essentially, those working part-time that would like to work full-time - has been much higher in recent years and now sits at 8.3%. This also fits with the IMF's estimate of the Australian output gap, which is still a very large -1.8%. Chart 15Australian Yields Are Stuck In A Range Australian Yields Are Stuck In A Range Australian Yields Are Stuck In A Range Chart 16Very Different Than 2011-12 Very Different Than 2011-12 Very Different Than 2011-12 Given these signs of excess capacity in both the labor market and the overall economy, it is no surprise that Australian inflation has struggled to surpass even the 2% midpoint of the RBA target band. The implication is that the Australian NAIRU is much lower than the official OECD estimate, and that the RBA is under no pressure to contemplate any interest rate increases for at least the rest of 2018. Net-net, while both the BoC and RBA are facing questions over the true amount of spare capacity in their economies, the situation is much more bullish for Australian government bonds than Canadian equivalents given the greater slack Down Under. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 These are average quarterly growth rates of U.S. real GDP for the full calendar year of 2013 and 2017, respectively. 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20180131.pdf 3 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20th, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/accounts/2018/html/ecb.mg180222.en.html 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "A Melt Up In Equities AND Bond Yields?", dated January 23rd, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "What Would It Take For The Bank Of Japan To Raise Its Yield Target?", dated February 13th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Biggest Question Facing Each Central Bank The Biggest Question Facing Each Central Bank Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Fed: The Fed is getting more optimistic on growth and continues to forecast a rebound in inflation. Nevertheless, the March FOMC meeting is probably too soon to expect an upward revision to the Fed's rate hike expectations. Inflation: The headwinds working against inflation are set to fade this year. The core goods and medical care sectors will lead the way, but there are even tentative signs that the deceleration in shelter inflation might start to ease. Spread Product: A survey of investment grade bond sectors shows that municipal bonds, Foreign Agency bonds and Local Authority bonds are all attractively valued relative to corporates. In contrast, USD-denominated Sovereign bonds are expensive. At the upper-end of the credit spectrum, Consumer ABS offer good value but deteriorating credit fundamentals. Feature One byproduct of this year's increase in Treasury yields is that market expectations for the near-term path of Fed rate hikes have converged with the Fed's most recent median projection (Chart 1). At present, the overnight index swap curve is priced for a fed funds rate of 2.19% by the end of this year and 2.54% by the end of 2019. The Fed's most recent median projection calls for a fed funds rate between 2% and 2.25% by the end of 2018, and of 2.75% by the end of 2019.1 Chart 1Market Expectations Have Converged With The Fed Dots Market Expectations Have Converged With The Fed Dots Market Expectations Have Converged With The Fed Dots This convergence makes the next few Fed meetings particularly interesting. Will the Fed revise up its rate projections, giving the market permission to push short-dated yields even higher? Or will the Fed continue to signal three hikes this year and 2-3 more in 2019, restraining the bear market in short-dated bonds? Fortunately, last week we received a lot of information to help us answer these questions. Several FOMC members made noteworthy public remarks and the Fed released the minutes from the January FOMC meeting. What To Expect From The March FOMC Meeting The Fed's Rosy Growth Outlook The minutes from the January FOMC meeting showed a great deal of optimism about the U.S. recovery, from both the Fed staff and FOMC participants. Chart 2Substantial Stimulus In The Pipeline Monetary Restraints Monetary Restraints The minutes noted that the Fed staff submitted stronger economic projections at the January meeting than at previous meeting, noting that: [T]he forecast for real GDP growth was revised up, reflecting a reassessment of the recently enacted tax cuts, along with higher projected paths for equity prices and foreign economic growth and a lower assumed path for the foreign exchange value of the dollar. It's important to note that while these projections include the impact of recent changes to the tax code, they do not include the potential impact from the newly proposed two-year appropriations bill that is poised to pass through Congress in the next few weeks. This bill is significant with large outlays for disaster relief ($45 billion), the military ($165 billion) and non-defense discretionary items ($131 billion), spread over the next two years. Chart 2 demonstrates how much this spending bill and the recent tax cuts have altered the growth outlook. It shows two estimates of fiscal thrust, the initial economic impulse of changes in government tax and spending policies.2 One estimate is the IMF's baseline forecast that was made before the tax legislation was passed. That estimate showed that fiscal policy would have been contractionary this year, trimming about 0.5% from GDP, and only slightly expansionary in 2019. The second estimate, which incorporates both the tax legislation and the proposed spending bill, shows that the fiscal impulse will be +0.8% this year and +1.3% next year. A major turnaround, and the most stimulative fiscal policy since the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis. Staying The Course On Inflation At the January FOMC meeting the Fed saw a presentation on the performance of different inflation models, an exercise that is particularly important given that the Fed's traditional expectations-augmented Phillips curve model was not able to explain why prices decelerated last year. The staff concluded that while the prediction errors from Phillips curve-style models have been larger in recent years than during the 2001-07 period, they were not completely out of line with history. This synchs up with our own analysis. We re-created the Fed's expectations-augmented Phillips curve model using details from a speech given by Janet Yellen in 2015 (Chart 3).3 That model certainly shows a large prediction error in 2017, but one that is not inconsistent with past errors. The message is that 2017 was not an outlier in terms of the Fed's ability to forecast inflation, but rather that inflation is quite often difficult to forecast. The Fed staff did provide a couple reasons for why inflation lagged the model's predictions last year: [S]tructural changes in the price setting for some items, such as medical care, and the effects of idiosyncratic price shocks, such as the unusual drop in prices of wireless telephone services. And also forecast that inflation would reverse course in 2018: [C]ore PCE prices were forecast to rise notably faster in 2018, importantly reflecting both the expected waning of transitory factors that held down 12-month inflation measures in 2017 as well as the projected further tightening in resource utilization. We agree with this assessment. In fact, both CPI and PCE inflation measures have formed tentative troughs in the past few months and should see further near-term upside from both the core goods and medical care components (Chart 4). Core goods inflation has still not caught up with accelerating import prices (Chart 4, panel 2) and the PPI data show a recent large jump in health-care prices (Chart 4, panel 3). Chart 3The Fed's Inflation Model The Fed's Inflation Model The Fed's Inflation Model Chart 4Inflation Headwinds Will Fade Inflation Headwinds Will Fade Inflation Headwinds Will Fade On medical care, research from the San Francisco Fed has shown that a major reason for lower inflation in recent years has been the slower growth of Medicare payments to physicians and hospitals as mandated by the Affordable Care Act. But these payments are also forecast to grow 2% this year, much higher than the 0.6% growth seen last year and the 0.9% growth seen in 2016.4 It is even possible that the deceleration in shelter inflation could moderate in the months ahead, given the renewed decline in the rental vacancy rate (Chart 4, panel 4). Meanwhile, we continue to expect that stronger wage growth will eventually pressure core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) higher (Chart 4, bottom panel). But What Are They Saying? Even though the minutes conveyed a decidedly optimistic tone with regards to both growth and inflation, Fed speakers were much more cautious last week. Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker said that "based on the relatively strong economy, but the continued stubbornness of inflation, I've penciled in two hikes for 2018." Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic said he is "comfortable continuing with a slow removal of policy accommodation" but also that "that doesn't necessarily mean as many as three or four moves per year." St. Louis Fed President James Bullard also said that 100 basis points of rate hikes in 2018 "seems like a lot." At the very least it appears that upward revisions to GDP growth forecasts are not sufficient for these three members to revise their rate projections higher. But these three members also already projected shallower paths for rate hikes than the median FOMC member (Table 1). Table 1Composition Of The FOMC Monetary Restraints Monetary Restraints More important is whether FOMC members whose projections are consistent with the median - those with a "neutral" policy bias in Table 1 - are inclined to get more hawkish. One of those members is San Francisco Fed President John Williams who said last week that "it makes sense to think about three or four rate increases in 2018." Chart 5Still Not Back To Target Still Not Back To Target Still Not Back To Target At the moment, the median Fed projection calls for three rate hikes in 2018, and that median will only move higher in March if four out of the six members who currently forecast three hikes this year decide to increase their dots. Given the cautious tone struck by most Fed speakers last week, we think the odds of an upward revision to the Fed's 2018 rate hike forecasts at the March meeting are low. Bottom Line: The Fed is getting more optimistic on growth and continues to forecast a rebound in inflation. Nevertheless, the March FOMC meeting is probably too soon to expect an upward revision to the Fed's rate hike expectations. Our own assessment is that the headwinds working against inflation are set to fade this year and that 3-4 Fed rate hikes are likely. In either case, bond yields are still biased higher given that they are still not priced for an eventual return of inflation to the Fed's target (Chart 5). Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance. Searching For Late-Cycle Value In Spread Product As we have noted repeatedly in recent reports, we anticipate that we will start to de-risk the spread product side of our U.S. bond portfolio sometime in 2018, possibly quite soon depending on the future path of inflation.5 So this week we perform a survey of investment grade spread product sectors, with an eye towards identifying sectors that look attractively valued and also present a low risk of spread widening. Our primary tool for identifying value is the 12-month breakeven spread. The 12-month breakeven spread is the basis point spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for a sector to earn zero excess returns versus a duration-equivalent position in Treasury yields.6 Table 2 shows the 12-month breakeven spread for each sector split by credit rating. Table 212-Month Breakeven Spreads By Credit Rating Monetary Restraints Monetary Restraints The first thing we notice is the attractive spreads offered by municipal bonds after adjusting for the tax advantage. In fact, for investors exposed to the top marginal tax rate, the 12-month breakeven spread on a Aaa-rated municipal bond exceeds the spread offered by a Baa-rated corporate bond. We have previously noted that when the tax-adjusted spread on a 10-year Aaa-rated municipal bond exceeds the spread offered by the duration-matched investment grade corporate bond index, it has historically been a signal that the credit cycle is very late. We are not seeing this signal yet, but it is getting very close (Chart 6). The second observation that jumps out is that USD-denominated Sovereign debt is not attractive compared to U.S. corporate debt. This is true across the entire investment grade credit spectrum. Further, Chart 7 shows that Sovereign bonds typically exhibit greater excess return volatility than U.S. corporate bonds. Chart 6Positive Muni/Corporate Spreads##br## Are A Late-Cycle Indicator Positive Muni/Corporate Spreads Are A Late-Cycle Indicator Positive Muni/Corporate Spreads Are A Late-Cycle Indicator Chart 712-Month Breakeven Spread Versus ##br##Excess Return Volatility Monetary Restraints Monetary Restraints We anticipate getting an opportunity to shift out of corporate bonds and into Sovereign debt at some point during the next 12 months, but expect some poor performance from Sovereign bonds first. A quicker expected pace of Fed rate hikes has historically coincided with Sovereign bond underperformance (Chart 8), and if that plays out while growth outside the U.S. starts to moderate - a risk that has been flagged by both our leading indicators for the Chinese economy and the performance of EM/JPY currency carry trades - then this would further exacerbate the underperformance of Sovereign bonds by putting upward pressure on the U.S. dollar.7 A third observation from Table 2 is that Foreign Agency bonds look very attractive, and Chart 7 also shows that the sector has historically exhibited quite low volatility. Foreign state-owned energy companies make up a large portion of the Foreign Agency index, and this sector's performance closely tracks the price of oil (Chart 9). With our commodity strategists now calling for average 2018 crude oil prices of $74/bbl and $70/bbl for Brent and WTI respectively, the Foreign Agency sector should stay well supported.8 Local Authority bonds are also attractively valued, though to a lesser extent than Foreign Agencies, and also tend to exhibit relatively low excess return volatility. We continue to recommend an overweight position in this sector that is comprised principally of taxable municipal debt and USD-denominated Canadian provincial bonds. Chart 8Underweight Sovereigns Underweight Sovereigns Underweight Sovereigns Chart 9Overweight Foreign Agencies Overweight Foreign Agencies Overweight Foreign Agencies Finally, we notice that credit card and auto loan backed Consumer ABS offer very attractive spreads and relatively low volatility. While we retain a neutral allocation to Consumer ABS, we note that credit trends are starting to shift against the sector. Bank are now tightening lending standards on both credit cards and auto loans, and the delinquency rate has made a cyclical bottom (Chart 10). Aaa-rated non-Agency CMBS also offer an attractive breakeven spread, though this sector has historically been much more volatile. Here too we see that banks are tightening lending standards, but the tightening has moderated in recent quarters. If this continues then delinquencies could start to roll over and property prices could start to accelerate (Chart 11). We remain underweight non-agency CMBS for now, but note the tentative improvement in credit quality. Chart 10Neutral Consumer ABS Neutral Consumer ABS Neutral Consumer ABS Chart 11A Nascent Improvement In Credit Quality A Nascent Improvement In Credit Quality A Nascent Improvement In Credit Quality Bottom Line: A survey of investment grade bond sectors shows that municipal bonds, Foreign Agency bonds and Local Authority bonds are all attractively valued relative to corporates. In contrast, USD-denominated Sovereign bonds are expensive. At the upper-end of the credit spectrum, Consumer ABS offer good value but deteriorating credit fundamentals. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 We exclude the forecast provided by the St. Louis Fed President as an outlier and calculate the median from the remaining forecasts. 2 The fiscal thrust is defined as the change in the cyclically-adjusted budget balance, expressed as a percentage of GDP. 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm 4 https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2017/november/contribution-to-low-pce-inflation-from-healthcare/ 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "On The MOVE", dated February 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 We calculate the 12-month breakeven spread as the average index option-adjusted spread divided by the average index duration. We ignore the impact of convexity. 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices", dated February 22, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification