Financial Markets

Highlights Hong Kong property prices are frothy and will continue to face headwinds. Real estate currently offers a poor risk-return trade off from an investment perspective, and will likely lag other asset classes in the medium to long run. A replay of another spectacular housing bust is highly unlikely. Several critical differences between the current environment and that of 1997 prevent a meltdown. Favor Hong Kong property developers over property owners strategically. Aim to upgrade the property sector on further decline in prices. Feature Chart 1Hong Kong Property Prices Remain Red Hot This coming weekend marks the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong's handover from Great Britain to the People's Republic of China - as well as the onset of the spectacular bust of a massive housing bubble that saw home prices collapsing by 70%. Fast forward 20 years and Hong Kong home prices are once again standing at bubbly highs, with growing consensus that the market is on the verge of another major crash. Some analysts are predicting a 50% decline in the coming years, and officials are also issuing stern warnings. Financial Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po has cautioned that "the risk in the property market is very high." Norman Chan Tak-lam, chief executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has also noted that market conditions today are reminiscent of those in 1997, and has warned there are risks that the property bubble might burst again. We have been equally concerned about Hong Kong housing for a while,1 and have been surprised by its remarkable resilience (Chart 1). After a temporary dip between mid-2015 and early 2016, Hong Kong home prices bounced right back and have been touching records again, even though the authorities have significantly tightened regulations to cool off demand. Stamp duties for home sales have been raised to 15% for local households, except for first-time homebuyers, or as high as 30% for foreign buyers - both of which are draconian measures that immediately squeezed out speculative buyers. The fact that Hong Kong home prices have been able to withstand the aggressive policy crackdown suggests that fundamentals are probably stronger than commonly perceived. We maintain the view that the Hong Kong real estate market will likely continue to face downward pressure, but prevailing concerns in the marketplace appear overdone. The surprise could be that any decline in home prices will likely be smaller than many anticipate. The Anatomy Of Two Property Bubbles Chart 2Monetary Conditions Set The Broad Trend##br## In Property Prices At the onset, current housing market conditions in Hong Kong share some disturbing similarities with the real estate bubble 20 years ago. From a macro perspective, our fundamental concern is the tightening in monetary conditions, which have historically always boded poorly for Hong Kong asset prices in general and real estate prices in particular (Chart 2). Hong Kong's currency board system copies U.S. monetary policy in totality, and the Federal Reserve's current tightening cycle has led to a notable tightening in Hong Kong monetary conditions, especially through exchange rate appreciation. Moreover, tightening in monetary conditions often leads peaks in asset prices by a long interval. In the 1997 episode, monetary conditions began to tighten in 1993, four years ahead of the ultimate housing bubble peak. This time around, our monetary conditions index for Hong Kong has rolled over since 2012, casting a shadow on home prices from a macro standpoint. Specific to the housing market, there are also plenty of warning signs that home prices are unsustainable at current levels. Home prices have quadrupled in the past 15 years, outpacing nominal GDP as well as household income by a wide margin. In fact, the gap between home prices and household income levels has become much wider than in 1997 (Chart 3). On the surface, housing affordability does not appear as dire as during the peak of the previous bubble. A closer look, however, reveals it is almost entirely due to increasing maturities of mortgage loans over the past two decades (Chart 4). Indeed, the average contractual life of new mortgages has increased from 200 months in the early 2000s to about 320 months currently, leading to a smaller monthly payment for mortgage borrowers but an additional 10 years to pay back all the debt. If mortgage terms were held constant, our calculation shows that housing affordability would be as bad as during the 1997 bubble peak, even considering today's exceedingly low interest rates (bottom panel, Chart 4). Rental yields of Hong Kong residential properties are standing at close to record lows, only marginally higher than government bond yields. In comparison, rental yields dropped below the risk-free rate in the 1990s, but were still much higher even at the peak of the housing bubble than today's level (Chart 5). It is true that interest rates may be structurally lower than in the past, but the Hong Kong housing market is priced for "perfection," leaving no room for negative interest rate surprises. Chart 3Home Prices Massively Outpaced Income Chart 4Housing Affordability: Worse Than Appears Chart 5Hong Kong Property Yields: Priced For Perfection Taken together, investors should remain cautious on the Hong Kong housing sector. It offers a poor risk-return trade off from an investment perspective, and will likely lag other asset classes in the medium to long run. However, there are also some critical differences between the current environment and that of 1997 that make a replay of another spectacular housing bust highly unlikely. Five Key Differences First, there is currently much less speculative activity in the Hong Kong housing market than two decades ago, thanks to regulators' punitive measures against non-first time homebuyers and home "flippers." Overall housing transactions currently are a fraction of the overheated levels in the early 1990s. So-called "confirmor transactions," deals in which properties are re-sold before the original transaction is completed, were as high as 10% of total sales in the run-up to the 1997 housing bubble peak, while today they are practically non-existent (Chart 6). This has made home prices much less vulnerable to a self-feeding downward spiral, when speculators rush to exit when market conditions shift. Second, banks' lending practices, especially for new mortgages, are significantly tighter now than it was in the 1990s. Prior to the 1997 bust, commercial lenders were required to maintain a loan-to-value (LTV) ratio for mortgage loans at a minimum of 70%. The LTV ratio was only cut to 60% in January 1997 when home prices were already excessively high, which in hindsight may well have sown the seeds for the market collapse. This time around, the HKMA has been tightening mortgage and lending standards going as far back as 2009, and the macro-prudential supervision on housing related activity has continued to increase in recent years. Overall, banks' mortgage LTV ratio is currently hovering at 50%, underscoring a massive buffer between banks' asset quality and home prices (Chart 7). Anecdotally, some developers have been offering mortgage loans with higher LTVs for newly built projects. However, new projects account for less than a quarter of total housing transactions, and therefore such practices, even if they were widespread, would not change the situation in a meaningful way. Overall, mortgage lending in Hong Kong is fairly conservative and closely monitored by regulators. In fact, even in the previous dramatic housing downturn, Hong Kong banks' mortgage delinquency ratio peaked out at 1.5%, an extremely low number by any standard. Tightened lending regulations have made the banking sector even less vulnerable to home price declines than 20 years ago. Chart 6Much Less Speculative Housing Demand ##br##Than 20 Years Ago Chart 7Banks Have Significantly Tightened##br## Mortgage Lending Standards Third, it is important to note that another critical reason for the housing crash home prices after 1997 was a dramatic increase in new housing supply. To ease the housing shortage and rampant upward pressure on prices, then-Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa came to office in 1997 with a promise to build 85,000 units annually for the next 10 years - 35,000 by private developers and 50,000 by the public sector. Mr. Tung was not able to reach these targets, and the housing plan was quickly suspended as home prices collapsed, but his policy still led to a sharp increase in land supply and housing starts, which in turn led to rising housing completions in the following years at a time when demand had vanished - compounding downward pressure on prices (Chart 8). In recent years, even though the Hong Kong government has acknowledged the acute housing shortage, there has been no ambitious plan to increase housing supply. The government expects a total of 96,000 new housing units in the coming three to four years, barely higher than current levels and less than a third of the early 2000s. Without oversupply, any downside in home prices will prove self-limiting. Chart 8Housing Supply: This Time Is Different Chart 9No Longer Hong Konger's Hong Kong Fourth, a major difference between now and 20 years ago is the dramatic wealth creation among mainland households, which will offer critical support for the Hong Kong housing market if prices drop precipitously. Chart 9 shows total value of Hong Kong residential properties as a share of local GDP has already surpassed that during the 1997 housing bubble peak, according to our estimate, but as a share of Chinese GDP it is currently standing at a record low. The point is that Hong Kong property has become a store of wealth for rich mainland investors and households. The Hong Kong authorities have been working hard to squeeze out mainland demand for local properties with punitively high taxes - homes purchased by non-Hong Kong permanent residents, mostly mainland Chinese, currently account for less than 1% of total home sales, compared with about 6% in 2012 (Chart 10). These discriminative taxes against mainland buyers can be reversed, should Hong Kong home price drop beyond the Hong Kong authorities' comfort zone. We doubt the Hong Kong government would allow home prices to drop by more than 30% from current levels. Finally, currently Hong Kong property developers' stock prices have priced in a sharp decline in home prices, while the market in general is a lot more complacent than in the previous episode. A simple regression between Hong Kong developers' stocks and property prices suggests that developers' stock prices are about 30% below some intrinsic "fair value" - roughly in line with the developers' current price-to-book ratio (Chart 11, top panel). In 1997, Hong Kong developers' PB ratio was 1.7, roughly comparable to their global peers, despite the obvious froth in underlying property prices (Chart 11, middle and bottom panel). This time around, developers' PB ratio is currently 0.7, on par with the 2003 levels, when home prices had already crashed by 70%. Hong Kong property stocks are trading at over 50% discount to their DM and EM counterparts, based on PB ratios. Chart 10Mainland Chinese Buyers ##br## Have Been Pushed Out Chart 11Hong Kong Property Stocks: ##br##Priced In A Sharp Housing Downturn Looking forward, our base-case scenario is that Hong Kong developers' stocks will likely remain under downward pressure along with softening home prices. Stock markets are an emotional discounting mechanism, and the Hong Kong bourse has been notoriously volatile. Therefore, periods of undershoots cannot be ruled out. However, it is noteworthy that developers' stock prices may have priced in at least a 30% decline in home prices. Strategically, we still prefer property developers over property owners and aim to upgrade the property sector on further decline in prices. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed "Lift Off", Hong Kong And The RMB," dated August 12, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Expanding trade volumes - led by EM growth - will continue to support commodity demand, particularly for base metals. In the first four months of this year, EM import growth averaged 8.4% year-on-year (yoy), led by an expansion of almost 13% in EM Asia. This compares with yoy growth averaging just 0.3% in the DM imports over the January - April period. EM exports grew 5.1% yoy in this interval vs. 2.7% for DM outbound trade. Overall, EM growth led world trade volumes 4% higher yoy, versus 0.8% growth over the January - April interval last year. We expect trade volumes to continue to grow as long as the Fed doesn't tighten monetary conditions too much in the U.S. Energy: Overweight. Benchmark crude oil prices continue their lackluster performance, as high-frequency inventory data in the U.S. fail to convince markets OPEC 2.0 cuts are succeeding in draining global inventories. We expect this to reverse, and remain long Dec/17 $50 vs. $55/bbl call spreads in WTI and Brent. Base Metals: Neutral. Expanded global trade, led by EM Asia, will be supportive of base metals prices. However, we do not expect higher trade volumes to prompt a surge in base metals. We remain neutral base metals generally. Precious Metals: Neutral. Palladium has consistently outperformed platinum in post-GFC markets, as has gold (see below). We remain neutral the precious-metals complex, but are keeping our long gold portfolio hedge in place. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's crop report will be released Friday. Weather-related crop distress in the grains could start showing up in the data. We remain bearish, but recommend staying on the sidelines. Feature Chart of the WeekStrong Growth In Global Trade Volumes##BR##Will Be Supportive Of Base Metals Growth in EM imports and exports continues to lead the expansion of global trade volumes. This is important, as the growth in trade supports EM income growth, which, in turn, supports commodity demand. EM growth is the principal source of commodity demand growth globally, particularly for oil and base metals. Global trade volumes expanded yoy in April, with imports up 3.7% and exports up 3.2%, down slightly from the pace in 1Q17, according to the CPB World Trade Monitor (Chart of the Week). The notional value of trade for the year ended in April was $16.3 trillion. The uptrend in global trade begun in 4Q16 continues, however, which we noted earlier this month. As was the case with oil, this expansion of global trade volumes, particularly out of the EM economies, will be supportive of base metals demand generally.1 Similar to EM oil demand, we find EM exports and imports are highly correlated with world base metals demand post-GFC (Chart 2). This is not unexpected, given the prominence of Chinese base metals demand, which accounts for roughly half of base metals demand globally. Given the low level of growth in DM imports and exports, we conclude that the bulk of the increase in global trading volumes is increasingly accounted for by trade within the EM economies with each other. This can be seen in Chart 3, which shows growth of EM imports and exports surpasses DM trade performance, shown in Chart 4. Chart 2World Base Metals Demand,##BR##Highly Correlated With EM Trade Volumes Chart 3Increased Trade Within##BR##EM Economies Powers Global Trade Growth Chart 4DM Growth Not##BR##Keeping Up With EM Growth Going Through The Trade Numbers For the year ended in April 2017, yoy world import levels grew 2.5% on average each month. DM imports averaged 1.8% yoy growth, while EM imports grew at twice that level. The notional value of DM imports was $9.6 trillion for the year ended in April. EM notional imports were $6.7 trillion, with EM Asia accounting for $4.7 trillion of this. For exports, world trade volumes grew at an average rate of 2.3% yoy each month for the 12 months ending in April, with DM growth coming in at 1.6%, and EM growth clocking in at 3.1% on average, just shy of double the rate of DM growth. The notional value of DM exports was $8.8 trillion for the year ended in April. EM notional exports were $7.4 trillion, with EM Asia responsible for $4.9 trillion of this. For April alone, DM imports were up 1.8% yoy, while EM imports were up 6.5%, down from a 9.1% average rate in 1Q17. DM exports in April were up 1.7% yoy, down from a 3% average rate in 1Q17, while EM exports rose 5%, equal to the 1Q17 average rate. Import volumes for EM Asia led global growth by a wide margin vs. other EM markets, particularly in Latin America and the Middle East (Chart 5). Average yoy import growth for the year ended in April was 6.6% for EM Asia, with yoy growth for April alone registering 10.4%. EM Asia also leads export volume growth (Chart 6), with average yoy outbound trade up 7.1% yoy. Chart 5EM Asia Dominates Import Growth YoY... Chart 6...And EM Export Growth As always, the evolution of China's economy will have an outsized influence on trade and EM growth. We continue to expect China's growth to moderate but not slow sharply, in line with our colleagues at our sister publication China Investment Strategy. The recent credit tightening likely will abate, given the central bank has reversed its credit contraction and injected liquidity into the interbank system in recent weeks, according to BCA's China Investment Strategy service.2 We agree with China Investment Strategy's assessment that, "The Chinese economy will likely continue to moderate, but the downside risk appears low at the moment and overall business activity will remain buoyant."3 Update On Global Inflation Vs. EM Trade Volumes World base metals demand is highly correlated with global consumer price inflation. In fact, these variables are cointegrated, meaning they share a common long-term trend. A 1% increase in world base metals demand can be expected to produce a 0.32% increase in U.S. CPI, a 0.25% increase in the Euro Area Harmonized CPI, and a 0.43% increase in China's CPI. Like the relationships between EM oil demand and EM trade volumes, which we presented earlier this month, the relationships between world base metal demand and EM trade volumes also allows us to track EM income levels. This is because the income elasticity of base metals demand also is ~ 1.0 for EM economies, according to the OECD, meaning a 1% increase in EM income can be expected to produce an increase in base metals demand of ~ 1%.4 Likewise, consumer inflation worldwide also is highly correlated with EM trade volumes post-GFC.5 In the regressions we ran for U.S., Euro Area and China CPI as a function of EM trade volumes, we find a 1% increase in EM imports can be expected to produce a 0.51% increase in the U.S. CPI, a 0.41% increase in the Euro Area harmonized CPI, and a 0.67% increase in the China CPI. A 1% increase in EM exports produces increases of 0.47%, 0.35% and 0.65%, respectively. These relationships can be seen in Charts 7, 8, and 9. Chart 7U.S. CPI Highly Correlated##BR##With EM Trade Volumes... Chart 8...Along With The Euro Area##BR##Harmonized CPI... Chart 9...And##BR##China's CPI Bottom Line: World base metals demand will continue to be supported by continued growth in EM trade volumes this year. While these volumes are up nicely, the rate of growth is moderating somewhat, suggesting global base metals demand will hold up this year, but won't surge ahead. We certainly do not see base metals prices falling precipitously this year, given the growth in EM imports and exports, which started to revive toward the end of last year. We remain neutral base metals, but will be watching the interplay between base metals demand and EM trade volumes for any sign global demand is being re-ignited. Inflation appears to be quiescent globally, but we would expect it to start ticking up if we see an uptick in base metals demand and EM trade volumes. Precious Metals Update PGM Notes Price relationships within the precious-metals complex, particularly vis-à-vis Platinum Group Metals (PGMs), have undergone profound transformations since the end of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). These changes have been bolstered by technology shifts in the automotive sector as well. Two trading relationships - palladium's relationship to platinum, and platinum's relationship to gold - best illustrate these changing fundamentals. Unlike gold and platinum prices, palladium is heavily influenced by automotive sales, in this case, gasoline-powered automobile sales. Gasoline-powered cars use palladium in their pollution-control catalysts. Such usage was up 5% last year to 7.4mm oz, according to Thomson Reuters GMFS data.6 Autocatalyst demand accounts for slightly more than three-quarters of palladium demand, according to GFMS data.7 Importantly, the two largest car markets in the world - the U.S. and China - are predominantly gasoline-powered, and sales in both have been strong, although the rate of growth has slowed (Chart 10). This is supportive of palladium prices, particularly as the metal registered a 1.2mm physical deficit last year. There is an increase in Chinese platinum-based auto catalyst demand for diesel cars, due to tightening regulation on emissions, but still is a small share of the total demand for platinum. Post-GFC, the value of palladium relative to platinum has consistently strengthened (Chart 11). Chart 10U.S. Sales Growth Down,##BR##But China Remains Strong Chart 11Platinum Eclipsed By##BR##Palladium And Gold Platinum's Discount To Gold Endures Platinum traded premium to gold until the GFC (Chart 11). Since then, gold has behaved more like a currency, with its price mostly dependent on financial variables (USD, real U.S. interest rates, and equity risk premium). Importantly, the yellow metal has traded premium to platinum since the GFC ended. While platinum prices are somewhat sensitive to the same financial factors as gold, and also can be modeled as a function of these financial variables, the metal also has a real-demand driver: diesel-powered car sales. These vehicles use platinum in their pollution-control catalysts. Autocatalysts accounted for 3.3mm oz of platinum sales last year, or 42% of demand, according to Thomson Reuters GFMS. Most of this goes to diesel catalysts, which are mainly sold in Europe. Diesel-powered car sales have been trending lower (Chart 12) in Europe, where they are the dominant type of car sold. The second largest demand segment for platinum is jewelry sales, which fell 12% last year to 2.2mm oz, following a 3.6% decline the prior year. Both gold and platinum will be responsive to the same set of financial variables, meaning a stronger USD along with higher real rates will be bearish for both, and vice versa. However, given platinum is also sensitive to the diesel-powered auto market, its price evolution has a component strongly influenced by physical platinum demand and supply. Supply comes from mines and recycling, which increases when steel prices rise. Sales of diesel-powered cars are falling in Europe partly due to the Volkswagen emissions-testing scandal and a longer-lasting trend of cities attempting to lower pollution by restricting where diesel-powered vehicles can drive (e.g., Athens, Madrid, Paris and Mexico City are eliminating diesel traffic by 2025).8 In addition, high steel prices will increase platinum recycling volumes this year (people scrap their cars more when steel prices are high). High steel prices also incentivize the scraping of gasoline-powered vehicles, which use palladium in their pollution-control catalysts. Platinum competes at the margin in the pollution-control catalyst market with palladium. The ratio between palladium and platinum is at its highest level since 2002 (Chart 11). The premium of platinum against palladium (platinum minus palladium) went from $1200/oz. in 2010 to close to parity recently (Chart 13). Chart 12EU Sales Still Growing,##BR##But Diesel Loses Share Chart 13Platinum's Premium To##BR##Palladium Disappears Continue To Favor Palladium We are more favorably disposed toward palladium than platinum. Given palladium's price is dominated by sales of gasoline-powered cars, which should, all else equal, do well relative to diesel-powered auto sales, even with a globally synchronized economic upturn. With the U.S. Fed expected to continue tightening, gold and platinum will face financial headwinds that will restrain price appreciation. Palladium, on the other hand, will be less sensitive to these headwinds, although higher interest rates in the U.S. relative to the rest of the world will restrain demand for goods purchased on credit like autos. While we remain neutral the precious metals complex generally, we recently recommended a long spot-gold position as a portfolio hedge against rising inflation and inflation expectations.9 Even though inflation has remained quiescent, and markets are trading as if the odds of a return of inflation are extremely low, BCA's Global Investment Strategy argues "the combination of faster growth and dwindling spare capacity will cause inflation to rise. This is particularly the case for the U.S., where the economy has already reached full employment."10 We believe the strengthening of household incomes resulting from the tight U.S. labor market likely will keep the Fed on track to continue with its rates-normalization policy, vs. market expectations of a mere 21 basis points in cumulative Fed rate hikes over the next 12 months. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Strong EM Trade Volumes Will Support Oil," published June 8, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. The CPB World Trade Monitor is published monthly by the CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis. Please see https://www.cpb.nl/en/worldtrademonitor for data and documentation. We use CPB's volumetric data for imports and exports in our analysis, which are indexed to 2010 = 100; we converted these data to USD values to see how the composition of imports and exports is changing so as to better see how the relative shares of EM and DM are evolving. 2 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Chinese Financial Tightening: Passing The Phase Of Maximum Strength," published by on June 22, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "A Chinese Slowdown: How Much Downside," published on June 8, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 As we noted in our research earlier this month, the read-through on this is EM trade volumes are closely tied to income levels, given this income elasticity in non-OECD economies. Please see "The Price of Oil - Will It Start Rising Again?" OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1031, p. 6 (2013). In our modeling, we assume the GFC ended in 2010. Our oil results vis-à-vis EM income elasticities can be found in BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Strong EM Trade Volumes Will Support Oil," published June 8, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 We originally published these results for EM oil demand vs. EM trade volumes in the June 8, 2017 article referenced above in footnote 1, in BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Strong EM Trade Volumes Will Support Oil," available at ces.bcaresearch.com. The average R2 coefficient of determination for the regressions on imports was 0.89, while the average for the regressions on exports was 0.89. 6 Palladium supply totalled 8.6mm oz, while demand came in at 9.8mm oz, according to the Thomson Reuters - GFMS Platinum Group Metals Survey 2017. 7 In our modelling, we treat palladium as an industrial metal, given the overwhelming influence auto demand - particularly gasoline-powered vehicles - has on its price. Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "2016 Commodity Outlook: Precious Metals," published by December 3, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8 A number of cities are looking to ban diesel cars entirely from their central districts. Please see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/02/four-of-worlds-biggest-cities-to-ban-diesel-cars-from-their-centres. 9 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Go Long Gold As A Strategic Portfolio Hedge," published May 4, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Stocks Are From Mars, Bonds Are From Venus?," published June 23, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights Trade 1: An unwinding of the Trump reflation trade... has worked exactly as expected. Take profits and switch into Trade 5. Trade 2: Short pound/euro at €1.18 and simultaneously buy call options at €1.30... is up 4%. Take profits and add to long euro/dollar. Trade 3: Underweight French OATS... has worked well both in a European bond portfolio and in a global bond portfolio. Stick with this trade. Trade 4: Long euro/yuan... is up 6%. Stick with this trade. Trade 5 (New): Underweight emerging market equities. European equity investors should underweight Poland. Feature At the mid-point of the year, we are devoting this report to appraise our top investment ideas for 2017 - as recommended in our December 22 report Five Pressing Questions (And Four Trades) For 2017. Half-time is a good moment to review the thoughts we had at the start of 2017, establish how the ideas have performed in the first half, and assess whether to stick with them or make some changes in the second half. Chart of the WeekFor EM Equities, Excessive Groupthink Is Hitting Its Natural Limit Trade 1: An Unwinding Of The Trump Reflation Trade Chart I-2The Trump Reflation Trade Has Unwound Our thoughts at the start of 2017: "Can a modern day King Canute1 single-handedly turn the tide of global deflation - the combined structural forces of over-indebtedness, demographics, technology, and globalization? This publication believes that the tide has not turned... Rationality and analysis will conclude that Trumponomics is not the structural game changer that the market seems to believe right now." How has the trade performed in the first half? Exactly as scripted, the Trump reflation trade - in its various guises - has unwound. Since our original report, the trade-weighted dollar is down 5%; the global bond yield is down 15bps (the 10-year T-bond yield is down 40bps); and banks have underperformed the market by 5% (Chart I-2). Our thoughts for the second half of 2017: Never forget that the financial markets are a complex ecosystem in which long-term investors jostle with short-term traders. The equilibrium of this ecosystem relies on rationality and analysis ultimately checking emotion and impulse. In February, our prescient warning in The Contrarian Case For Bonds was that as emotional and impulsive short-term traders had been left unchecked to drive markets, excessive groupthink was hitting its natural technical limit. The 6-month sell-off in bonds had reached a point of instability. And sure enough, the trend broke (Chart I-3). Chart I-3For Bonds, Excessive Groupthink Hit Its Natural Limit In February At such tipping points of excessive groupthink, a good benchmark is that the preceding trend will reverse by one third. On this basis, a large part of the gains in the Trump trade unwind have now been made. Take profits and switch into new trade 5. Trade 2: Short Pound/Euro At €1.18 And Simultaneously Buy Call Options At €1.30 Our thoughts at the start of 2017: "2017 will be an especially unpredictable year for U.K. politics and economics because Brexit creates a larger number of moving parts, complex interactions and feedback loops, both negative and positive... The pound is unlikely to stay near today's €1.18. Expect a sharp move one way or the other." How has the trade performed in the first half? For U.K. politics, "especially unpredictable" could be the understatement of the year! An unpredicted general election generated an even more unpredicted result. With pound/euro now below €1.13, the directional position is up 5% in gross terms, and up around 4% in net terms allowing for the cost of the call options (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Pound / Euro Has Underperformed In 2017 Our thoughts for the second half of 2017: In a hung parliament, the minority Conservative government does not have the parliamentary maths to legislate for a hard Brexit in either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. Significantly, the so-called 'Salisbury Convention' - in which the House of Lords does not oppose the second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto - does not necessarily apply in a hung parliament. This is because, by definition, the minority Conservative government's manifesto did not secure a majority in the House of Commons. With the hard Brexit tail-risk diminished, our current preference for currencies is euro first, pound second, dollar third, based on the evolution of interest rate expectations explained below. Hence, take profits in short pound/euro and add to long euro/dollar. Trade 3: Underweight French OATS Our thoughts at the start of 2017: "2016 was the year when QE peaked... The credibility of the ECB to suppress long-term bond yields would then be severely damaged. And the greatest danger would be to those euro area bond yields closest to zero." How has the trade performed in the first half? French OATS have substantially underperformed both U.K. gilts (Chart I-5) and U.S. T-bonds (Chart I-6). So it has been correct to underweight French government bonds both in a European bond portfolio and in a global bond portfolio. Chart I-5French OATs Have Underperformed In##br## A European Bond Portfolio... Chart I-6...And A Global ##br##Bond Portfolio Our thoughts for the second half of 2017: Central banks' professed commitment to data-dependency means that their words - and ultimately actions - must acknowledge the hard data. No ifs, buts or maybes. Based on the latest PMIs which capture current economic sentiment, and on 6-month credit impulses, which lead activity, euro area hard data will continue to be among the best among the major economies. Combined with the supply shortages the ECB is now facing in buying German bunds, expect the ECB's words to continue becoming more hawkish. The recent relatively smooth winding down of three failing banks - Spain's Banco Popolare and Italy's Banca Popolare di Vicenza and Veneto Banca - will also hearten the ECB that the strategy for resolving its undercapitalised banks does not pose a systemic risk to the economy or markets. Hence, expect euro area interest rate expectations to continue converging with other developed economies. And stick with the underweight French OATS (or German Bunds) trade, especially in a global bond portfolio. Chart I-7Euro / Yuan Is Up 6% Trade 4: Long Euro/Yuan Our thoughts at the start of 2017: "The debt super cycle is over when the cost of malinvestment and misallocation of capital outweighs the benefit of good credit creation... China appears to be approaching this point. One manifestation would be continued weakness in its currency against the major developed market crosses." How has the trade performed in the first half? Euro/yuan is up 6% (Chart I-7). Our thoughts for the second half of 2017: The thoughts we expressed at the start of 2017 are still entirely valid and supported by the argument for trade 5 below. Stick with long euro/yuan. Trade 5 (New): Underweight Emerging Market Equities Just as we presciently warned of excessive negative groupthink towards bonds in February, we are now seeing similarly excessive positive groupthink towards EM equities hitting its natural technical limit. This is a strong warning that the first half 15% rally risks reversing, or fizzling, in the second half (Chart of the Week). Chart I-8If EM Underperforms DM, Poland ##br##Underperforms Europe For the detailed fundamental analysis, I refer you to the latest reports penned by my colleague, BCA's Chief Emerging Markets Strategist, Arthur Budaghyan. But in summary, Arthur says: "China's liquidity conditions have tightened, warranting a meaningful slowdown in money/credit and economic growth... the outlook for EM risk assets is extremely poor... and we continue to recommend an underweight allocation towards EM within global portfolios across stocks, credit and currencies."2 For European equity investors, this means underweighting Poland, whose relative performance tracks EM versus DM equities (Chart I-8). Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 In fact, the story of King Canute has been misinterpreted. Rather than show that he could turn the tide, he wanted to show the opposite: that he was powerless against the tide. 2 Please see the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM: Contradictions And A Resolution" published on June 14, 2017 and available at ems.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* As shown on page 1, this week's trade is to go short emerging markets with a corresponding long in developed markets. In this case, the trade duration is up to 6 months with a profit target and stop-loss of 3%. Amongst our other open trades, long FTSE100 / short IBEX35 is approaching its 4% profit target. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Special Report

Our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) is the latest installment in our ongoing research into trading rules that can augment our top-down macro approach to asset allocation. The RPI borrows from Paul Samuelson's "revealed preference" theory of consumer behavior to market behavior. It combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and the monetary policy backdrop. A trading rule for the stock/bond allocation based on the RPI outperforms traditional technical, monetary, and valuation indicators. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive equity market momentum lines up with positive signals from policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. This model adds value on its own, but we feel that it is best used in conjunction with other indicators designed to improve performance around major market turning points. Future research will experiment with combining the RPI with other indicators to further enhance performance. In the meantime, we will present the RPI's signals each month in Section III of the monthly publication. As with all indicators and models, however, the RPI is only one input to our decision process. We base our asset allocation decision on a combination of indicators, macro themes, detailed data analysis and judgment. In 1938, economist Paul Samuelson published a paper entitled, "A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer's Behavior," in which he outlined an alternative to the well-known economic principle, utility theory. He dubbed his work "revealed preference theory."1 His goal was to redefine utility - a measure of consumer satisfaction with a good or service - by observing behavior. He posited that when consumers reveal their preferences by buying one item rather than another, they reveal the way in which they maximize happiness or satisfaction. For instance, one can measure preferences via experiments in which a subject is given $200 and the choice between two brands of shoes at different prices. Repeating the exercise at different levels of income and relative prices generates "preference axioms." Samuelson's theory has many more layers of complexity, but this Special Report focuses on modelling investors' preferences through observed behavior. Borrowing from Samuelson's reasoning, we developed a methodology to identify investors' axioms of preference for equities and bonds at different levels of incomes and prices. Then we compared investors' real actions with those anticipated by our methodology. This allowed us to generalize our findings and analyze the effects on a portfolio of equities and bonds. The main finding of our statistical exercise is that asset allocators can profit from understanding how short-term moves are linked to the market's revealed preferences at different times during the economic cycle. We then use the results to construct an indicator and a trading rule that not only outperforms a buy-and-hold strategy by a wide margin, it outperforms other traditional trading rules as well. Building A Revealed Preference Model Our primary objective in constructing a revealed preference indicator (RPI) is to understand: (1) how market preferences shape the behavior of investors; and (2) how they ultimately affect future returns. To do so, we broke down our analysis into three key areas: Part I identifies market preferences for different levels of income and price in the economy. Part II defines a general investment strategy that utilizes historic preferences and short-term market movements as a market timing tool. Part III optimizes the RPI and compares its historical track record with a buy-and-hold asset allocation and trading rules based on other indicators. Part I - Developing The Framework The first step in building the RPI is to establish the proper control variables. We limited our basket of investable "goods" to U.S. equities and 10-year Treasurys. We also need a variable that is analogous to the income measure that Samuelson used in his study. For the choice facing investors who are deciding between buying two financial assets, we believe that a measure of market "liquidity" is more appropriate than income. By this we do not mean the ease by which financial assets can be bought and sold. Rather, it is "funding liquidity", or how easily it is to borrow to invest. BCA often uses the four phases of the Fed cycle, as interest rates fluctuate around the equilibrium level, as a measure of funding liquidity (Chart II-1):2 Chart II-1Fed Funds Rate As A Proxy For Income Phase I = Policy is accommodative but the fed funds rate is rising. Phase II = Policy is tight and the Fed is still tightening. Phase III = Policy is tight but the Fed is cutting rates. Phase IV = Policy is easy and the Fed is cutting rates. The rationale for using the fed funds-rate cycle as a proxy for income is that, when interest rates are below equilibrium, monetary conditions are accommodative. Leverage is easy to obtain because there is plenty of liquidity (income) to fund investments. When conditions are tight, funding liquidity is relatively scarce. To measure relative prices, we first divided the S&P 500 price index by its 12-month moving average and second, we took the inverse of the 10-year Treasury yield divided by 12-month moving average.3 We then used the ratio of these two deviations-from-trend to construct a relative price measure (Chart II-2). This ratio provides a single measure of how expensive stocks and bonds are, not only to each other, but to their own history as well. We then grouped the relative price data into four sets of percentiles, or buckets, shown in Table II-1. Stocks are expensive and bonds cheap at the top of the table, while the reverse is true at the bottom. Chart II-2Constructing A Single Price Measure For Equities And Bonds Table II-1Distribution Of Relative Price Table II-2A presents the average historical monthly percent change in stock prices for each combination of the four relative price and liquidity buckets over the entire dataset. In the fourth phase of the Fed cycle (when monetary conditions are easy and the Fed is still cutting interest rates), and when relative prices are in the first bucket (i.e. stocks are expensive), the average stock price increase during the month was slightly above 1% percent. Table II-2B provides the same breakdown for the average change in bond yields (shown in basis points, not returns). Tables II-2A and II-2B are recalculated at each point in time - meaning that we used an expanding sample to calculate the price buckets, and updated the results for the ensuing price or yield movements as new data are added. That way, we completely avoid the advantage of hindsight. To simplify our methodology, we coded the results to end up with the stock and bond returns for the 16 different combinations of Fed and relative price buckets. Table II-3 uses the results from Tables II-2A and II-2B in the last period of history as an example. The "Liquidity" and "Price" columns indicate the bucket (e.g. price in bucket 1 and liquidity in bucket 1). The "Stocks" and "Bonds" columns are coded as "1" if the asset appreciated during the month given the indicated liquidity/price bucket, and a "0" if it depreciated that month. Table II-2AEquity Market Reactions At Given Levels Of Price And Liquidity Table II-2BTreasury Market Reactions At Given Levels Of Price And Liquidity Chart II-3Revealing What Investors Prefer Part II - Habits Create Expectations It is important to keep in mind that the objective of our revealed preference model is not to use the revealed market preferences as forecasts but rather to examine what happens when investors decide to follow or ignore them. Our hypothesis in building this model is that, when investors go against their historical preferences, the result should be interpreted as short-term noise. It is only when preferences and (subsequent) short-term market moves are aligned that we should heed the signal and invest accordingly. Table II-3 can be thought of as the market's revealed preference. Again, keep in mind that we allowed revealed preferences to change over time by recalculating it under our stretching-sample approach. The following steps detail how we used investor preferences to create a trading rule that verifies our hypothesis empirically: Step 1 - Expected vs. Actual: The first step is to examine how actual equity prices and bond yields behaved relative to their expected trajectory. We created two variables - one for equities and one for bonds. If revealed preference last month (t-1) suggested that the asset's return should be positive in the subsequent month (t), and it indeed turned out to be positive in period t, then we coded month t as "1." If both the revealed preference and the actual outcome were negative, we coded it as "-1." If they did not match, the code is "0" (in other words, the market did not follow the typical historical revealed preference). Thus we have two time series, one for bonds and one for stocks, which are made up of 1s, -1s and zeros. Step 2 - Bullish, Bearish, and Neutral: We combined the coded series for stocks and bonds to encompass the nine possible outcomes in our model (i.e. both bonds and stocks can have a value in any month of 1, 0 or -1, providing 9 different combinations). Table II-4 presents the nine outcomes along with the asset allocation that would have maximized investor returns based on our historical analysis. For example, investors were paid to be overweight equities when equities and bonds have a code of "1" and "-1," respectively (top row in Table II-4). In other words, stocks tended to outperform bonds when revealed preferences from the month before predicted rising stock prices and rising bond yields, and these predictions were confirmed. Table II-4Understanding The Signals From Preferences If revealed preference is not confirmed for both bonds and stocks, then it is best for investors to stand aside with a benchmark allocation. Step 3 - "If It Don't Make Dollars, It Don't Make Sense": To test whether our theory would add strategic value, we computed a trading rule to see how well it performed against a benchmark portfolio of 50% equities and 50% Treasurys. The trading rule was computed as follows: when the revealed preference for equities is positive (at time t-1) and this signal is confirmed in t, then in t+1 we allocate 100% to the S&P 500 and 0% to Treasurys. When the revealed equity preference signal is correctly bearish, we removed all exposure to equities and allocated 100% to Treasurys. When the signal was neutral, we kept a benchmark allocation of 50% equities and 50% Treasurys. Chart II-3 shows that this trading rule outperforms the benchmark, confirming our initial hypothesis - one should fade the short-term movements when investors go against their preferences, and only follow the signals when those movements align with historical preferences. History shows that investors tend to underperform in terms of the stock/bond allocation when they deviate from their revealed preference. Chart II-3Correctly Gauging How Investors Behave Pays Off Part III - Validating The Results One drawback is that this trading rule would require frequent portfolio allocation changes every month, as shown in Chart II-4. As such, we constructed a smoothed version by imposing the rule that asset allocation is unchanged unless the model provides a new signal for two months in a row (Chart II-5).4 These restrictions not only dramatically reduced the frequency of the asset allocation adjustments, but it also augmented historical cumulative excess returns (Chart II-6). Chart II-4Revealed Preference Indicator Is Inherently Volatile Chart II-5Removing Some Of The Noise Any new indicator of course must be able to outperform a buy-and-hold strategy to be useful but it is also interesting to see how its performance ranks compared to a set of random portfolios. This way, we can identify if the indicator truly provides additional information. Random portfolios are generated using a monthly allocations of 100% or 0% to equities, with the remainder in Treasurys. Chart II-7 shows the performance of the smoothed indicator versus a set of 1,000 randomly generated portfolios. Chart II-6Once Smoothed, The RPI Truly Shines Chart II-7The RPI Adds A Significant Amount Of Information We compared the indicator's trading rule to simple moving averages or BCA's other indicators. We also wanted to ensure that the RPI adds value beyond investing based strictly on the four phases of the liquidity cycle or based on relative value alone. We therefore compared the track record of the RPI trading rule to rules that are based on: (1) the deviation of the S&P 500 from its 12-month moving trend; (2) BCA's monetary conditions indicator; (3) BCA's valuation indicator; (4) BCA's technical indicator; (5) the four phases of the Fed cycle; and (6) the relative price index. Charts II-8A and II-8B highlights that RPI indeed impressively dominates the other trading rules. The one exception is that, during the Great Recession, the model's performance fell to roughly match the performance of a S&P 500 technical trading rule. Chart II-8AThe RPI Outperforms The Sum Of Its Parts... Chart II-8B...As Well As Other Indicators Part IV - Conclusions The RPI is the latest installment in our ongoing research into trading rules that can augment our top-down macro approach to asset allocation. Quite simply, it combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. This model adds value on its own, but we feel that it will best be used in conjunction with other indicators designed to improve performance around major market turning points. Future research will experiment with combining the RPI with other indicators to further enhance performance. In the meantime, we will present the RPI's signals each month in Section III of the monthly publication. As with all indicators and models, however, the RPI is only one input to our decision process. We base our asset allocation decision on a combination of indicators, macro themes, detailed data analysis and judgment. The indicator's current reading for stocks versus bonds, at benchmark, is more conservative than our official recommendation. The benchmark reading reflects the fact that equities are overvalued and that investors have deviated from their preferences in their past two quarters. David Boucher Associate Vice President Quantitative Strategist 1 For more information, please see P. A. Samuelson, "A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer's Behavior," Economica 5:17 (1938), pp. 61-71. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "Stocks And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," dated December 23, 2013, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 3 We tested a few other measures, most notably the stock-to-bond total return ratio (measured by comparing each asset's total returns), but the chosen measures provided the best and most robust results. 4 We conducted a statistical exercise to validate and optimize the allocations in Table 4 to provide a smoother performance.

Highlights A whiff of global deflation shook-up financial markets in June, driven by melting oil prices and a startling May U.S. CPI report. Nonetheless, we have not changed our recommended asset allocation. Bond markets have over-discounted the impact of the commodity price weakness, especially with regard to Fed policy and long-term inflation expectations in the major countries. We do not see the selling pressure in the commodity pits as a harbinger of slower global growth. Above-trend growth in the U.S. is likely in the second half of the year, along with continuing robust activity at the global level. Oil prices should rebound, based on our view that consumption will outstrip production in the second half of the year; the surprise will be how strong oil prices are in the coming months. The FOMC appears more determined than in the past to stick with the current policy normalization timetable. Unemployment will edge further below the full-employment level if the FOMC does not slow the pace of job creation. We believe that the labor market is tight enough to gradually push up inflation. Together with a rebound in the commodity pits, this means that the recent bond rally will reverse. Soft U.S. CPI readings are a challenge to our view. The Fed will delay the next rate hike into next year if core inflation does not move up in the next few months. The equity market is vulnerable to unforeseen shocks given stretched valuation. Nonetheless, none of the main indicators that have provided leading information in the past are warning of an equity bear market. The profit backdrop remains constructive. Our base case is that stocks beat bonds and cash for the remainder of 2017. We expect to trim exposure to equities next year, but the evolution of a number of indicators will influence the timing. The same is true for corporate bonds. The dollar's bull phase has one more upleg left. Japanese, European and U.K. equities will outperform the U.S. in local currency terms. Feature A whiff of global deflation shook-up financial markets in June, driven by melting oil prices and a startling May U.S. CPI report. Investors quickly concluded that the Fed will have to proceed even more slowly in terms of its policy normalization plan which, in turn, sent the dollar and global bond yields sharply lower. Equity indexes held up because of the dollar and bond yield "relief valves". Stocks are also benefiting from the continuing rebound in corporate earnings growth in the major economies. Nonetheless, the commodity pullback and soft U.S. inflation data are a challenge to our reflation theme, which includes a final upleg in the U.S. dollar and a negative view on bond prices. We believe that markets have over-discounted the impact of the commodity price weakness, especially with regard to Fed policy and long-term inflation expectations in the major countries. Above-trend growth in the U.S. is likely in the second half of the year, along with continuing robust activity at the global level. We also think that the FOMC is more determined than in the past to stick with the current policy normalization timetable. The bottom line is that we are not changing our recommended asset allocation based on June's market action. We remain overweight stocks and corporate bonds relative to government bonds and cash. We are also short duration and long the dollar. A key risk to our asset allocation relates to our contrarily bullish view on oil prices. Oil Drove The Bond Rally... The decline in long-term bond yields since March reflected in large part a drop in inflation expectations (Chart I-1). BCA's fixed-income strategists point out that the slump in long-term inflation expectations has been widespread across the major countries, irrespective of whether actual inflation is trending up or down.1 Core inflation has moved lower in the U.S., Japan, Canada and (slightly) in the Eurozone, but has increased in Australia and the U.K. In terms of diffusion indexes, which often lead core inflation, they are falling in the U.S., Japan and Canada, but are rising in the U.K., the Eurozone and Australia (Chart I-2). Chart I-1 Inflation Expectations Drive Bond Rally Chart I-2Diverging Inflation Trends Given all these diverging signals within the national inflation data, it is odd that there has been such a uniform decline in inflation expectations across the major bond markets. That leads us to look to the commodity price decline as the main driver of the downshift in expectations. Short-term moves in oil prices should not affect long-term inflation expectations, but in practice the correlation has been strong since the plunge in oil prices beginning in 2014. Weaker oil and other commodity prices have also fed investor concerns that global growth is waning. We see little evidence of any slowdown in global growth, although some leading indicators have softened. Key monthly data such as industrial production, retail sales and capital goods orders reveal an acceleration in growth for the advanced economies as a group (Chart I-3). There has also been a general upgrading of the consensus growth forecast for the major countries and for the world in both 2017 and 2018 (Chart I-4). This is unlike previous years, when growth forecasts started the year high, only to be slashed as the year progressed. Chart I-3No Slowdown In Advanced Economies Chart I-4Growth Expectations Revised Up ...But Watch Out For A Reversal The implication is that we do not see the selling pressure in the commodity pits as a harbinger of slower global growth. Nonetheless, the mini oil meltdown in June went against our medium-term bullish view. In a recent report,2 our Energy Sector Strategy team noted that investors are confused about conflicting supply signals in oil markets. Traders do not yet see the physical shortage that the IEA/EIA/OPEC and BCA's top-down supply & demand analyses argue will prevail in the coming months. Chart I-5Falling Inventories To Drive Oil Rebound The investment community is being overly pessimistic in our view. The coalition led by the Saudi Arabia and Russia will have removed 1.4 MMB/d of production on average from the market between January 2017 and end-March 2018, versus peak production in November of last year. This will be diluted somewhat by the Libyan and U.S. production gains, but the increased production will not be sufficient to counter the OPEC/Russia cuts entirely. We expect global production to increase by only 0.7 MMB/d in 2017, an estimate that includes rapid increases in U.S. shale output. Meanwhile, we expect consumption to grow by 1.5 MMB/d, implying that oil inventories will fall over the remainder of this year. If history is any guide, this will lead to a rebound in oil prices (Chart I-5). It will be quite a shock to markets if crude reaches $60/bbl by December as we expect. As for base metals, it appears that the correction is largely related to reduced speculative demand rather than weak global and/or Chinese demand. It is true that the Chinese economy has slipped a notch according to some measures, such as housing starts and M2 growth. Nonetheless, the government remains cognizant of the risks of tightening policy too aggressively, especially with the National Party Congress slated for this autumn. The PBoC injected 250 billion yuan into the financial system in June and fiscal policy has been eased. Real-time measures of industrial activity such as railway freight traffic, excavator sales, and electricity production remain upbeat. Retail sales continue to expand at a healthy clip. Export growth is accelerating thanks to a weaker currency and stronger global activity. Given that many investors remain concerned about a hard landing in China, the bar for positive surprises is comfortably low. If China can clear this bar, as we expect it will, it will be good news for the commodity currencies and other commodity plays. A rebound in base metal and, especially, oil prices would boost global inflation expectations and bond yields, especially since inflation expectations have fallen too far relative to underlying non-energy inflation pressures. This forecast also applies to the U.S. bond market, although there was more to the soft May CPI report than oil prices. Is The Fed's Inflation Target Credible? Investors are questioning whether the Fed has the ability to reach its inflation goals. Is it possible that the U.S. is following Japan's roadmap where even an over-heated labor market is insufficient to generate any meaningful inflation? We argued above that the moderation in inflation expectations in the major markets was mostly related to the decline in commodity prices. However, in the U.S., it also reflected a fairly widespread pullback in CPI inflation this year. This is contrary to Fed Chair Yellen's assertion that most of it reflects special factors such as wireless telecommunications prices. The deceleration in inflation began around the start of the year. The three-month rate of change of the headline index fell by more than five percentage points between January and May, of which energy accounts for 3.3 percentage points. The deceleration in the core rate was a less severe, but still substantial at 2.8 percentage points. Table I-1 presents the components of the CPI that made the largest contribution to the deceleration in core inflation. Motor vehicles, owners' equivalent rent, apparel, recreation, wireless telecom and medical care services accounted for 1.2 percentage points as a group. However, many other sectors contributed in a small way to the overall deceleration of core inflation in the first five months of the year. Table I-1Key Drivers Of U.S. Core Inflation Deceleration In 2017 Some special factors were at play. The moderation in rent inflation likely reflects the bottoming of the vacancy rate. Discounting in the auto sector is not a surprise given weak sales. Wireless prices can be viewed as a special case as well. Nonetheless, the breadth and suddenness of the deceleration in core inflation across such diverse sectors, some unrelated to labor markets, commodity prices, the dollar or on-line shopping, is worrying. The disinflation this year in the Fed's preferred measure, the PCE price index, is not as extended but the data are published almost a month behind the CPI data. A diffusion index made up of the components of the PCE index is still in positive territory, unlike the CPI's diffusion index (Chart I-6). Nonetheless, the CPI data suggest that core PCE inflation will edge lower when the May data are released at the end of June. There has also been a moderation in some of the wage inflation data, such as average hourly earnings (Chart I-7). The slowdown has been fairly widespread across manufacturing and services. However, the soft patch already appears to be over; 3-month rates of change have firmed almost across the board (retail is a major exception). There is no slowdown evident at all in the better-constructed Employment Cost Index (ECI) as of the first quarter (Chart I-8). The ECI is adjusted to avoid compositional effects that can distort the aggregate index. The related diffusion indexes also remain constructive. Chart I-6PCE Inflation Rate To Follow CPI Lower Chart I-7AHE SoftPatch Appears Over... Chart I-8...And The ECI Marches Higher We conclude from these and other wage measures that the Phillips curve is still operating in the U.S. Admittedly, the curve appears to be quite flat, which means it is difficult to generate inflation even with a tight labor market. Nonetheless, the relationship between the ECI and various measures of labor market tightness shown in Chart I-8 does not appear to have broken down. The percentage of U.S. states with unemployment below the Fed's estimate of full employment jumped to 70% in May. Anything over 60% in the past has been associated with wage pressure (Chart I-9). The bottom line is that, while we are concerned about the breadth of the soft patch in the consumer price data, we are in agreement with the Fed hawks that the labor market is tight enough to gradually push up inflation. We are willing at this point to chalk up the recent drop in core inflation partly to randomness in the data, and partly to lagged effects of the slowdown in real GDP growth in the first half of 2016 (Chart I-10). Admittedly, however, the U.S. inflation reports in the coming months are a key risk to our reflation-related asset allocation. Chart I-9More Than 70% Of U.S. States Have Excess Labor Demand Chart I-10Financial Conditions Point To Faster Growth And Inflation What Will The Fed Do? The CPI data have certainly rattled some members of the FOMC. Federal Reserve Bank Presidents Kaplan and Kashkari, for example, believe that the Fed needs to be patient to ensure that the inflation pullback is temporary. However, the June FOMC Statement and Yellen's press conference suggested that the consensus is determined to stick with the current tightening timetable in terms of rate hikes and balance sheet adjustment. She stressed that the FOMC makes policy for the "medium term," and should not over-react to short-term wiggles in the data. Vice President Dudley echoed this view in recent comments he made to the press. The Fed has been quick to back away from planned rate hikes at the first hint of trouble in recent years. However, it appears that the reaction function has changed, now that the labor market is at full employment. This is especially the case because financial conditions have eased further, despite the June rate hike. Unemployment will edge further below the full-employment level if the FOMC does not slow the pace of job creation. Policymakers know that the Fed has had little success in the past when it tried to nudge unemployment higher in order to relieve budding inflation pressure; these attempts almost always ended in recession. Dudley added that "...pausing policy now could raise the risk of inflation surging and hurting the economy." Other FOMC members are worried that financial stability risk will build if the low-rate environment extends much further. The bottom line is that we expect the Fed to stick with the game-plan for now. The FOMC will begin shrinking the balance sheet in September, but will wait until December for the next rate hike. That said, a stubbornly low inflation rate in the coming months would likely see the FOMC postpone the next rate increase into next year. Where Next For Bonds? We see three possible scenarios for the bond market: Reflation Returns: Weak recent inflation readings are nothing more than a lagged response to last year's deceleration in economic growth. U.S. growth accelerates in the second half, unemployment falls further and both wage growth and inflation pick up. Oil inventories begin to contract and prices head higher. The FOMC is vindicated in its inflation view and proceeds with the current rate hike and balance sheet adjustment agenda. Investors receive a "wake up call" from the Fed, bond prices get hit and recent curve-flattening trend reverses. Fed Capitulates: The U.S. labor market continues to tighten, but core PCE inflation is still close to 1½% by the September FOMC meeting. We would expect the Fed to lower its forecasted rate hike path, signaling that no further rate hikes are likely in 2017. Long-maturity real yields would fall in this scenario, although long-term inflation expectations could rise to the extent that the Fed's more dovish tilt will weaken the dollar and generate more inflation in the medium term. Nominal yields may not end up moving much in this scenario. A Policy Mistake: If core inflation remains low between now and the September FOMC meeting and the Fed continues to write-off low inflation as transitory, signaling its intention to stick to its current projected rate hike path, then the market would begin to discount a "policy mistake" scenario. The yield curve would flatten and long-maturity nominal yields would fall, led by tighter TIPS breakevens. In terms of probabilities, we would characterize Scenario 1 as our base case, Scenario 2 as unlikely and Scenario 3 as a tail risk. We remain short-duration in anticipation of a rebound in long-term inflation expectations and higher yields. A bond selloff, however, should not present a major headwind for stocks as long as the earnings backdrop remains constructive. Will The Real Profit Margin Please Stand Up For some time we have been highlighting the importance of the mini-cycle in U.S. earnings growth; the corporate sector is in a catch-up phase following last year's profit recession, a trend that extends beyond the energy patch. EPS growth has surged this year on the back of somewhat stronger sales and rising S&P 500 margins. The National Accounts (NIPA) data, however, paint a different picture. Earnings growth for the entire corporate sector fell sharply in the first quarter and margins continued to slide. If the NIPA data are telling the true story, then the equity market is in big trouble because it suggests that the earnings outlook is much weaker than what is discounted in stock prices. There are many definitional differences that make it difficult to reconcile the NIPA and S&P data.3 Nonetheless, we can make some general observations. Chart I-11 presents the 4-quarter growth rate of NIPA profits4 and a proxy for aggregate S&P earnings. For the latter, we multiplied earnings-per-share by the divisor to obtain an estimate of the level of aggregate earnings in dollar terms (i.e. not on a per-share basis). The bottom panel of Chart I-11 compares the level of profits, each indexed to be 100 in 2011 Q1. The charts highlight that, while there have been marked differences in annual growth rates between the two measures in some years, the levels ended up being close to the same point in the first quarter of 2017. The dip in NIPA profit growth in the first quarter was not reflected in the S&P measure. It appears that this is partly due to different profiles for profit growth in the energy and financials sectors. That said, broadly speaking, it does not appear that the difference in margins is due to a significant divergence in aggregate profits. It turns out that most of the margin divergence is related to the denominator of the calculation (Chart I-12). The NIPA denominator is corporate sector Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This is a value-added concept that is quite different from sales. It is not clear why, but GDP has grown much faster than sales since the end of 2014. It appears to us that the S&P data are telling the correct story at the moment. After all, sales are straight forward to measure, while value added is complicated to construct. The fact that sales are growing slowly is not a bullish point for stocks. Nonetheless, it does not appear that financial engineering has distorted bottom-up company data to such an extent that the S&P data are signaling strong profit growth when the reality is the opposite. We expect the secular mean-reversion of margins to re-assert itself in the S&P data, perhaps beginning early in 2018. Nonetheless, the profit backdrop remains positive for stocks for now. The same is true in the Eurozone and Japan, where margins are also rising. It is worrying that a large part of this year's U.S. equity market advance has been concentrated in a small number of stocks, but that belies the breadth of the profit recovery (Chart I-13). The proportion of S&P industry groups with rising earnings estimates is above 75%. Such widespread participation is consistent with ongoing upward revisions to 12-month forward earnings estimates. Chart I-11S&P And NIPA Profit Comparison Chart I-12Denominator Explains S&P/NIPA Margin Divergence Chart I-13Positive Earnings Revisions Are Broadly Based The solid earnings backdrop is the main reason we remain overweight stocks versus bonds and cash. Of course, given poor valuation, we must be extra vigilant in watching for warning signs of a bear market. Valuation has never been good leading indicator for bear markets, but it does provide information on the risks. Monitoring The Bear Market Barometer BCA's Chief Economist, Martin Barnes, highlighted the best "equity bear market" indicators to watch in a 2014 Special Report.5 He noted that no two bear markets are the same, and that there are no indicators that have reliably heralded bear phases. Nonetheless, there are some common elements. The safest time to invest in the market is when monetary conditions are favorable, there are no signs of a looming economic downturn, there is not extreme overvaluation, and technical indicators are not flashing red. Some indicators related to each of these fundamental factors are shown in Chart I-14: Chart I-14Equity Bear Market Indicators Monetary Conditions: The yield curve is quite flat by historical standards, but it is far from inverting. Moreover, real short-term interest rates are normally substantially higher than today, and above 2%, when bear markets commence. Excess liquidity, which we define as M2 growth less nominal GDP growth, is also still well above the zero line, a threshold that has warned of a downturn in stock prices in the past. Valuation: Our composite valuation indicator is still shy of the +1 standard deviation level that defines over-valued. However, this is because of the components that compare equity prices to bond yields. The other three components of the equity indicator, which are unrelated to bond yields, suggest that stock valuation is quite stretched. Economic Outlook: Economic data such as the leading economic indicator and ISM have been unreliable bear market signals. That said, we do not see anything that suggests that a recession is on the horizon. Indeed, U.S. growth is likely to remain above-trend in the second half of the year based on its relationship with financial conditions. Technical conditions: Sentiment is elevated, which is bearish from a contrary perspective. However, breadth, the deviation from the 40-week moving average, and our composite technical indicator are not flashing red. Earnings: Trends in earnings and margins did not provide any additional reliable signals for timing equity market downturns in the past. Still, it has been a bad sign when EPS growth topped out. And this has often been preceded by a peak in industrial production growth. We expect U.S. EPS growth to continue to accelerate for at least a few more months, but are watching industrial production closely. EPS growth in Japan and the Eurozone will likely peak after the U.S., since these markets are not as advanced in the profit rebound. The bottom line is that the equity market is vulnerable to unforeseen shocks given stretched valuation. Nonetheless, none of the main indicators that have provided some leading information in the past are warning of an equity bear market. Investment Conclusions The major world bourses remain in a sweet spot because of the mini cyclical rebound in profits. One can imagine many scenarios in which equities suffer a major correction or bear phase. However, stocks would likely perform well under the two most likely scenarios for the remainder of the year. If U.S. and global growth disappoint, the combination of low bond yields and still-robust earnings growth will continue to support prices. Conversely, if world growth remains solid and the U.S. picks up, as we expect, then bond yields will rise but investors will pencil-in an even stronger profit advance over the next year. Of course, this win-win situation for stocks will not last forever. Perhaps paradoxically, the economic cycle could be shortened if the U.S. Congress gets around to passing a bill that imparts fiscal stimulus in 2018. The Fed would have to respond with a more aggressive tightening timetable, setting the stage for the next recession. In contrast, the economic cycle would be further stretched out in the absence of fiscal stimulus, keeping alive for a while longer the lackluster growth/low inflation/low bond yield backdrop that has been favorable for the equity market. We are watching the indicators discussed above to time the exit from our pro-risk asset allocation that favors stocks and corporate bonds to government bonds and cash. As for the duration call, the whiff of deflation that has depressed bond yields over the past month is overdone. Investors have also become too complacent on the Fed. We expect that the recent drop in commodity prices, especially oil, will reverse. If this view is correct, it means that the cyclical bull phase in the dollar is not over because market expectations for the pace of Fed rate hikes will rise relative to expectations in the other major economies (with the exception of Canada). We are still looking for a 10% dollar appreciation. It also means that Treasurys will underperform JGBs and Bunds within currency-hedged fixed-income portfolios. We expect the Eurostoxx 600 and the Nikkei indexes to outperform the S&P 500 this year in local currencies, despite our constructive view on U.S. growth. Stocks are cheaper in the former two markets. Moreover, both Japan and the Eurozone are earlier in the profit mini-cycle, which means that there is room for catch-up versus the U.S. over the next 6-12 months when growth in the latter tops-out. The prospect of structural reform in France is also constructive for European stocks, following the election of a reformist legislature in June. However, the upcoming Italian election warrants close scrutiny. The key risk to this base case is our view that oil prices will rebound. This is clearly a non-consensus call. If OPEC production cuts are unable to overwhelm the rise in U.S. shale output, then inventories will remain elevated and oil prices could move even lower in the near term. Our bullish equity view would be fine in this case, but the bond bear market and dollar appreciation we expect would at least be delayed. Finally, a few words on the U.K. Our geopolitical experts highlight two key points related to June's election outcome: fiscal austerity is dead and the U.K. will pursue a "softer" variety of Brexit. This combination should provide a relatively benign backdrop for U.K. stocks and the economy over the next year. Nonetheless, the cloud of uncertainty hanging over the U.K. is large enough to keep the Bank of England (BoE) on hold. Some BoE hawks are agitating for tighter policy due to the worsening inflation overshoot, but it will probably be some time before the consensus on the Monetary Policy Committee shifts in favor of rate hikes. This means that it is too early to position for gilt underperformance within fixed-income portfolios. Sterling weakness looks overdone, although we do not see much upside either. As long as Brexit talks do not become acrimonious (which is our view), the U.K. stock market should be one of the outperformers in local currency terms among the major developed markets. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 29, 2017 Next Report: July 27, 2017 1 For more discussion, see Alternative Facts in the Bond Market at BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, dated June 13, 2017 available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Views from the Road," dated June 21, 2017, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com 3 The first problem is that the S&P data are expressed on a per-share basis. Moreover, the NIPA data adjusts for inventory and depreciation allowance. S&P margins are calculated using sales in the denominator, while we generally use GDP as the denominator for calculating NIPA profits. 4 The NIPA data shown include financials and profits earned overseas, as is the case for the S&P. 5 Please see BCA Special Report "Timing The Next Equity Bear Market," dated January 24, 2014, available at bcaresearch.com II. Preferences As Trading Constraints: A New Asset Allocation Indicator Our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) is the latest installment in our ongoing research into trading rules that can augment our top-down macro approach to asset allocation. The RPI borrows from Paul Samuelson's "revealed preference" theory of consumer behavior to market behavior. It combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and the monetary policy backdrop. A trading rule for the stock/bond allocation based on the RPI outperforms traditional technical, monetary, and valuation indicators. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive equity market momentum lines up with positive signals from policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. This model adds value on its own, but we feel that it is best used in conjunction with other indicators designed to improve performance around major market turning points. Future research will experiment with combining the RPI with other indicators to further enhance performance. In the meantime, we will present the RPI's signals each month in Section III of the monthly publication. As with all indicators and models, however, the RPI is only one input to our decision process. We base our asset allocation decision on a combination of indicators, macro themes, detailed data analysis and judgment. In 1938, economist Paul Samuelson published a paper entitled, "A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer's Behavior," in which he outlined an alternative to the well-known economic principle, utility theory. He dubbed his work "revealed preference theory."1 His goal was to redefine utility - a measure of consumer satisfaction with a good or service - by observing behavior. He posited that when consumers reveal their preferences by buying one item rather than another, they reveal the way in which they maximize happiness or satisfaction. For instance, one can measure preferences via experiments in which a subject is given $200 and the choice between two brands of shoes at different prices. Repeating the exercise at different levels of income and relative prices generates "preference axioms." Samuelson's theory has many more layers of complexity, but this Special Report focuses on modelling investors' preferences through observed behavior. Borrowing from Samuelson's reasoning, we developed a methodology to identify investors' axioms of preference for equities and bonds at different levels of incomes and prices. Then we compared investors' real actions with those anticipated by our methodology. This allowed us to generalize our findings and analyze the effects on a portfolio of equities and bonds. The main finding of our statistical exercise is that asset allocators can profit from understanding how short-term moves are linked to the market's revealed preferences at different times during the economic cycle. We then use the results to construct an indicator and a trading rule that not only outperforms a buy-and-hold strategy by a wide margin, it outperforms other traditional trading rules as well. Building A Revealed Preference Model Our primary objective in constructing a revealed preference indicator (RPI) is to understand: (1) how market preferences shape the behavior of investors; and (2) how they ultimately affect future returns. To do so, we broke down our analysis into three key areas: Part I identifies market preferences for different levels of income and price in the economy. Part II defines a general investment strategy that utilizes historic preferences and short-term market movements as a market timing tool. Part III optimizes the RPI and compares its historical track record with a buy-and-hold asset allocation and trading rules based on other indicators. Part I - Developing The Framework The first step in building the RPI is to establish the proper control variables. We limited our basket of investable "goods" to U.S. equities and 10-year Treasurys. We also need a variable that is analogous to the income measure that Samuelson used in his study. For the choice facing investors who are deciding between buying two financial assets, we believe that a measure of market "liquidity" is more appropriate than income. By this we do not mean the ease by which financial assets can be bought and sold. Rather, it is "funding liquidity", or how easily it is to borrow to invest. BCA often uses the four phases of the Fed cycle, as interest rates fluctuate around the equilibrium level, as a measure of funding liquidity (Chart II-1):2 Chart II-1Fed Funds Rate As A Proxy For Income Phase I = Policy is accommodative but the fed funds rate is rising. Phase II = Policy is tight and the Fed is still tightening. Phase III = Policy is tight but the Fed is cutting rates. Phase IV = Policy is easy and the Fed is cutting rates. The rationale for using the fed funds-rate cycle as a proxy for income is that, when interest rates are below equilibrium, monetary conditions are accommodative. Leverage is easy to obtain because there is plenty of liquidity (income) to fund investments. When conditions are tight, funding liquidity is relatively scarce. To measure relative prices, we first divided the S&P 500 price index by its 12-month moving average and second, we took the inverse of the 10-year Treasury yield divided by 12-month moving average.3 We then used the ratio of these two deviations-from-trend to construct a relative price measure (Chart II-2). This ratio provides a single measure of how expensive stocks and bonds are, not only to each other, but to their own history as well. We then grouped the relative price data into four sets of percentiles, or buckets, shown in Table II-1. Stocks are expensive and bonds cheap at the top of the table, while the reverse is true at the bottom. Chart II-2Constructing A Single Price Measure For Equities And Bonds Table II-1Distribution Of Relative Price Table II-2A presents the average historical monthly percent change in stock prices for each combination of the four relative price and liquidity buckets over the entire dataset. In the fourth phase of the Fed cycle (when monetary conditions are easy and the Fed is still cutting interest rates), and when relative prices are in the first bucket (i.e. stocks are expensive), the average stock price increase during the month was slightly above 1% percent. Table II-2B provides the same breakdown for the average change in bond yields (shown in basis points, not returns). Tables II-2A and II-2B are recalculated at each point in time - meaning that we used an expanding sample to calculate the price buckets, and updated the results for the ensuing price or yield movements as new data are added. That way, we completely avoid the advantage of hindsight. To simplify our methodology, we coded the results to end up with the stock and bond returns for the 16 different combinations of Fed and relative price buckets. Table II-3 uses the results from Tables II-2A and II-2B in the last period of history as an example. The "Liquidity" and "Price" columns indicate the bucket (e.g. price in bucket 1 and liquidity in bucket 1). The "Stocks" and "Bonds" columns are coded as "1" if the asset appreciated during the month given the indicated liquidity/price bucket, and a "0" if it depreciated that month. Table II-2AEquity Market Reactions At Given Levels Of Price And Liquidity Table II-2BTreasury Market Reactions At Given Levels Of Price And Liquidity Chart II-3Revealing What Investors Prefer Part II - Habits Create Expectations It is important to keep in mind that the objective of our revealed preference model is not to use the revealed market preferences as forecasts but rather to examine what happens when investors decide to follow or ignore them. Our hypothesis in building this model is that, when investors go against their historical preferences, the result should be interpreted as short-term noise. It is only when preferences and (subsequent) short-term market moves are aligned that we should heed the signal and invest accordingly. Table II-3 can be thought of as the market's revealed preference. Again, keep in mind that we allowed revealed preferences to change over time by recalculating it under our stretching-sample approach. The following steps detail how we used investor preferences to create a trading rule that verifies our hypothesis empirically: Step 1 - Expected vs. Actual: The first step is to examine how actual equity prices and bond yields behaved relative to their expected trajectory. We created two variables - one for equities and one for bonds. If revealed preference last month (t-1) suggested that the asset's return should be positive in the subsequent month (t), and it indeed turned out to be positive in period t, then we coded month t as "1." If both the revealed preference and the actual outcome were negative, we coded it as "-1." If they did not match, the code is "0" (in other words, the market did not follow the typical historical revealed preference). Thus we have two time series, one for bonds and one for stocks, which are made up of 1s, -1s and zeros. Step 2 - Bullish, Bearish, and Neutral: We combined the coded series for stocks and bonds to encompass the nine possible outcomes in our model (i.e. both bonds and stocks can have a value in any month of 1, 0 or -1, providing 9 different combinations). Table II-4 presents the nine outcomes along with the asset allocation that would have maximized investor returns based on our historical analysis. For example, investors were paid to be overweight equities when equities and bonds have a code of "1" and "-1," respectively (top row in Table II-4). In other words, stocks tended to outperform bonds when revealed preferences from the month before predicted rising stock prices and rising bond yields, and these predictions were confirmed. Table II-4Understanding The Signals From Preferences If revealed preference is not confirmed for both bonds and stocks, then it is best for investors to stand aside with a benchmark allocation. Step 3 - "If It Don't Make Dollars, It Don't Make Sense": To test whether our theory would add strategic value, we computed a trading rule to see how well it performed against a benchmark portfolio of 50% equities and 50% Treasurys. The trading rule was computed as follows: when the revealed preference for equities is positive (at time t-1) and this signal is confirmed in t, then in t+1 we allocate 100% to the S&P 500 and 0% to Treasurys. When the revealed equity preference signal is correctly bearish, we removed all exposure to equities and allocated 100% to Treasurys. When the signal was neutral, we kept a benchmark allocation of 50% equities and 50% Treasurys. Chart II-3 shows that this trading rule outperforms the benchmark, confirming our initial hypothesis - one should fade the short-term movements when investors go against their preferences, and only follow the signals when those movements align with historical preferences. History shows that investors tend to underperform in terms of the stock/bond allocation when they deviate from their revealed preference. Chart II-3Correctly Gauging How Investors Behave Pays Off Part III - Validating The Results One drawback is that this trading rule would require frequent portfolio allocation changes every month, as shown in Chart II-4. As such, we constructed a smoothed version by imposing the rule that asset allocation is unchanged unless the model provides a new signal for two months in a row (Chart II-5).4 These restrictions not only dramatically reduced the frequency of the asset allocation adjustments, but it also augmented historical cumulative excess returns (Chart II-6). Chart II-4Revealed Preference Indicator Is Inherently Volatile Chart II-5Removing Some Of The Noise Any new indicator of course must be able to outperform a buy-and-hold strategy to be useful but it is also interesting to see how its performance ranks compared to a set of random portfolios. This way, we can identify if the indicator truly provides additional information. Random portfolios are generated using a monthly allocations of 100% or 0% to equities, with the remainder in Treasurys. Chart II-7 shows the performance of the smoothed indicator versus a set of 1,000 randomly generated portfolios. Chart II-6Once Smoothed, The RPI Truly Shines Chart II-7The RPI Adds A Significant Amount Of Information We compared the indicator's trading rule to simple moving averages or BCA's other indicators. We also wanted to ensure that the RPI adds value beyond investing based strictly on the four phases of the liquidity cycle or based on relative value alone. We therefore compared the track record of the RPI trading rule to rules that are based on: (1) the deviation of the S&P 500 from its 12-month moving trend; (2) BCA's monetary conditions indicator; (3) BCA's valuation indicator; (4) BCA's technical indicator; (5) the four phases of the Fed cycle; and (6) the relative price index. Charts II-8A and II-8B highlights that RPI indeed impressively dominates the other trading rules. The one exception is that, during the Great Recession, the model's performance fell to roughly match the performance of a S&P 500 technical trading rule. Chart II-8AThe RPI Outperforms The Sum Of Its Parts... Chart II-8B...As Well As Other Indicators Part IV - Conclusions The RPI is the latest installment in our ongoing research into trading rules that can augment our top-down macro approach to asset allocation. Quite simply, it combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. This model adds value on its own, but we feel that it will best be used in conjunction with other indicators designed to improve performance around major market turning points. Future research will experiment with combining the RPI with other indicators to further enhance performance. In the meantime, we will present the RPI's signals each month in Section III of the monthly publication. As with all indicators and models, however, the RPI is only one input to our decision process. We base our asset allocation decision on a combination of indicators, macro themes, detailed data analysis and judgment. The indicator's current reading for stocks versus bonds, at benchmark, is more conservative than our official recommendation. The benchmark reading reflects the fact that equities are overvalued and that investors have deviated from their preferences in their past two quarters. David Boucher Associate Vice President Quantitative Strategist 1 For more information, please see P. A. Samuelson, "A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer's Behavior," Economica 5:17 (1938), pp. 61-71. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "Stocks And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," dated December 23, 2013, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 3 We tested a few other measures, most notably the stock-to-bond total return ratio (measured by comparing each asset's total returns), but the chosen measures provided the best and most robust results. 4 We conducted a statistical exercise to validate and optimize the allocations in Table 4 to provide a smoother performance. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Thanks to the recent dollar and bond yield “relief valves”, the S&P 500 is stubbornly holding above the 2,400 level. The breakout above this level further stretched valuation metrics. Measures such as the Shiller P/E and price/book are at post tech-bubble highs. Stocks remain expensive based on our composite Valuation Index, although it is still shy of the +1 standard deviation level that demarcates over-valuation. This is because our composite indicator includes valuation measures that take into account the low level of interest rates. Of course, once interest rate normalization is well underway, these indicator will not look as favorable. It is good news for the equity market that our Monetary Indicator did not move further into negative territory over the past month. Indeed, the indicator has hooked up slightly and is sitting close to a neutral level. Our equity Technical Indicator remains constructive. Other measures, such as our Speculation Index, composite sentiment and the VIX suggest that equity investors are overly bullish from a contrary perspective. On the other hand, the U.S. earnings surprises diffusion index highlights that upside earnings surprises are broadly based. Our elevated U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator ticked down from a high level this month, suggesting that ‘dry powder’ available to buy this market is depleted. This indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. In contrast to the U.S., the WTP indicators for both the Eurozone and Japan are rising from a low level. This suggests that a rotation into these equity markets is underway and has some ways to go. We remain overweight both the Eurozone and Japanese markets relative to the U.S. on a currency-hedged basis. The pull back in long-term bond yields since March was enough to “move the dial” in terms of the bond valuation or technical indicators. U.S. bond valuation has inched lower to fair value. However, we believe that fair value itself is moving higher as some of the economic headwinds fade. We also think that the FOMC is determined to stick with the current tightening timetable in terms of rate hikes and balance sheet adjustment, which support our negative view on bond prices. Now that oversold technical conditions have been unwound, it suggests that the consolidation phase for bond yields is largely complete. The trade-weighted dollar remains quite overvalued on a PPP basis, although less so by other measures. Technically, it is a bearish sign that the dollar moved lower and crossed its 200-day moving average. However, our Composite Technical Indicator highlights that overbought conditions have been worked off. We still believe the U.S. dollar’s bull phase has one more upleg left. Technical conditions are also benign in the commodity complex. Most commodities have shifted down over the last month to meet support at their 200-day moving averages. Base metals are due for a bounce, but we are most bullish on oil. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-5U.S. Earnings Chart III-6Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-8U.S. Treasurys and Valuations Chart III-9U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-10Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1110-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-12U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-13Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-14Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-15U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-17U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-18Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-19Euro Technicals Chart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-22Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-23Commodity Prices Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Sentiment Chart III-26Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-27U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-28U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-29U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-30U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-31U.S. Labor Market Chart III-32U.S. Consumption Chart III-33U.S. Housing Chart III-34U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-35U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-36Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: China

Special Report

Highlights The EM carry trade - supported by a commodity price rally, falling bond yields, and a weak USD - have propped up South African assets; Investors have largely ignored politics and focused on personalities instead of political fundamentals; South Africa's socio-economic factors - governance, middle class wellbeing, productivity, and unemployment - have all regressed; The "median voter" has therefore turned more radical and left-wing; Stay short ZAR versus USD and MXN, stay underweight stocks, sovereign credit, and domestic bonds, and bet on yield-curve steepening. Feature Why do investors in Europe and the U.S. continue to invest in South Africa? - Every client in South Africa Our recent week-long trip to South Africa was revealing for two reasons. First, it reminded us of the promise and opportunity of this amazing country and its people. Second, it impressed upon us the deep pessimism of its entire financial community. As the quote at the top of this report suggests, every client we met over seven days was deeply puzzled by continued resilience of foreign inflows. Clients were surprised that foreign investors continued to find value in South Africa's fixed income and currency markets amidst a continued growth downtrend, soft commodity prices, and the ongoing political imbroglio (Chart I-1). The answer to the puzzle is simple: the main driving force behind EM risk assets, year-to-date, has been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart I-2). 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 I-1ZAR Rally Amidst Economic##br## And Commodity Downturn Chart I-2EM Carry Trade Is ##br##Alive And Well How likely is it that the carry trade can continue? BCA's Global Investment Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy both argue that U.S. growth will soon accelerate.1 The U.S. financial conditions have eased thanks to lower Treasury yields, narrower credit spreads, a weaker dollar, and higher equity prices (Chart I-3). Historically, an easing in financial conditions has foreshadowed faster growth (Chart I-4). Meanwhile, the relative U.S. growth underperformance versus DM is late and will turn around very soon (Chart I-5). As U.S. economic growth surprises pick up, investors will bid up the 10-year Treasury yield and the greenback, ushering in the end of the carry trade. Chart I-3U.S. Financial Conditions Have Eased... Chart I-4...U.S. Growth Should Therefore Sharply Rebound Chart I-5U.S. Underperformance Is Long-In-The-Tooth How resilient are South Africa's economic fundamentals and politics? In this report, we argue that they are not resilient at all. The country is facing considerable structural problems on both economic and political fronts. Even its sole silver lining - that it retains cyclical maneuvering room, i.e., it can adopt fiscal stimulus - will only encourage its leaders to double-down on a populist growth model that has already run out of steam. Cyclical Outlook: A Dark Cloud With A Silver Lining The cyclical outlook for South Africa has darkened as of late. All the drivers that pushed the rand to appreciate over the last 12 months are now showing signs of a reversal: The rand's rally in the past six months or so - a period when it decoupled from commodities prices - is often attributed to its higher interest rates. However, Chart I-6 demonstrates that higher local interest rates historically did not prevent the rand's selloff when metal prices fell. In short, we believe the last six months is an aberration rather than a new norm. Remarkably, hedged yields in South Africa are no longer attractive within the EM space. South Africa already offers the worst hedged returns, after Turkey and China, for the U.S. dollar and euro-based investors (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8).2 The situation will only get worse as the U.S. dollar appreciates and Treasury yields rise. Chart I-6High Local Interest Rates ##br##Are No Panacea For ZAR The drop in precious metal prices will force the rand to selloff (Chart I-9). The unprecedented resilience in the rand was supported by increasing financial flows. Now that these are decreasing, the historic correlation with precious metals should reemerge. The decoupling between the ZAR and AUD since early this year is unprecedented (Chart I-10). Both economies are leveraged to industrial and precious metals as well as coal prices, making both exchange rates correlated. Needless to say, Australia commands much better governance and politics than South Africa. In fact, higher interest rates in South Africa have never precluded the rand's depreciation when the AUD dropped. Chart I-9Is The Divergence With Precious Metals... Chart I-10...And AUD Sustainable? Therefore, we conclude that the rand's strength has not been warranted by any of its historic drivers. It has been due to nothing else than the blind search for yield. Over the medium and long run, the outlook for the rand remains bleak. The ongoing dynamic of high wage growth and negative productivity growth will assure a lingering stagflationary environment (Chart I-11). This is bearish for the rand. Surprisingly, despite a rising currency and falling bond yields over the last 12 months, the South African economy is still showing signs of weakness. The household sector, which represents 61% of the economy, is not showing signs of a recovery yet. Credit growth to households is still falling and private consumption is abysmal. (Chart I-12). On the corporate side, the situation is not reassuring either. Firms are not investing and business confidence has not shown any signs of a significant recovery (Chart I-13). Chart I-11Productivity Is Weak But Wages Are Strong Chart I-12Household Consumption Is Declining Chart I-13No Confidence, No Investment The one positive is that the government has fiscal room to maneuver. South African gross government debt is at a comfortable 51% of GDP. However, we suspect that the nature of fiscal spending will likely result in transfers to appease the population - especially ahead of key elections in late 2017 and 2018 - rather than investments that can genuinely improve productivity. In fact, fiscal spending in the form of transfers could very well entice consumers to import more and consequently widen the current account deficit, putting more downward pressure on the rand. Bottom Line: The commodity price rally in 2016 and falling bond yields failed to buoy the economy. While policymakers do retain fiscal room to stimulate, the problem is that such efforts will likely merely rekindle populist policies that have failed South Africa thus far. Structural Outlook: Late Innings Of The Crisis Of Expectations South Africa is not alone in the EM universe in having failed to improve governance over the past decade. Most EM economies have squandered the commodity bull market and Chinese industrialization, allowing their governance to stagnate or even worsen during the good times (Chart I-14).3 However, South Africa does stand alone when it comes to a tepid rise in middle class, as percent of total population (Chart I-15), and continued high income inequality (Chart I-16). Chart I-14Quality Of EM Governance Declined##br## Amidst The Good Times Chart I-15Middle Class Has ##br##Barely Budged... The data is clear: South Africa is as unequal overall, and its middle class unchanged relative to overall population, as it was at the end of apartheid in the early 1990s. Governance in the country has continued to deteriorate, and while it remains higher than in Sub-Saharan Africa, the gap has astonishingly begun to narrow from both ends (Chart I-17). Chart I-17Governance Gap With Sub-Saharan ##br##Africa Is Closing! A major reason for the deterioration in governance is the "state capture" thesis that has become a popular one in characterizing President Jacob Zuma's rule.4 This process began early, as the country shifted its developmental program in 1996 away from a top-down, state-led, developmental model to one that encouraged a free-market economy balanced with welfare spending. This was a natural result of the global rise of laissez-faire capitalism, the Washington Consensus, and "Third Way" politics of left-leaning parties. A commitment to laissez-faire capitalism and free markets, combined with a strong welfare state, were seen as hallmarks of a successful economy. The problem with this approach is that it confused the symptoms of developed economies with their catalysts. South Africa needed a much more state-led approach to development, one that would have harnessed the resources of the state for productivity-enhancing investments. As such, the laissez-faire approach unsurprisingly failed to address the inequalities of the apartheid system and the country saw a decline in the middle class as percent of total population under both Presidents Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki. This pivot towards free-market capitalism ended with the 2007 "Polokwane moment," which saw President Mbeki's free-market, reactive, attempt to address inequality between the white and black populations replaced with the proactive policy of Jacob Zuma. Zuma's more radical approach was to complement welfare transfers and high wage growth with an activist use of state owned enterprises (SOEs) as a vehicle for redistribution. This proactive policy meant using the government's tender system to doll out lucrative contracts to well-connected insiders, under the auspices of helping enfranchise black entrepreneurs and businesses. While the media has focused on the role that the Indian-born Gupta family has played in this process, it is highly unlikely that they are the only beneficiaries. Zuma's administration has, in the name of black enfranchisement and the fight against inequality, essentially rigged the entire government tender system for the sake of its own political preservation. The results of this process are unsurprising. First, government wages have outpaced those in both manufacturing and mining sectors (Chart I-18). Meanwhile, productivity has declined precipitously since 2007 and has been negative since 2012. South Africa has a lower productivity rate than both Latin American EM economies and its neighbors in sub-Saharan Africa (Chart I-19). Chart I-18Government Wages Have Outpaced All Others Chart I-19South African Productivity Has No Peer Financial media and investment research have continued to focus on the intricacies of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) politics. And we do so as well below. However, investors have to understand that South Africa's ills will not be fixed by the appointment of a pro-market finance minister or even the removal of Jacob Zuma from rule. South Africa has failed to develop inclusive economic institutions that engender creative destruction, which is at the heart of all successful development stories.5 South Africa ranked 74th in the World Bank's annual Doing Business report in 2017, an astonishing fall from grace over the past decade (Chart I-20). Compared to regional averages, South Africa barely beats the Sub-Saharan "distance to frontier" scores in several World Bank categories (Chart I-21). This is not due to the gross failure of the Zuma administration to do the "right thing." Rather, it exhibits a structural failing of South African political institutions. This development path is not unique to South Africa. Most sub-Saharan African states experienced a similar regression within 10-20 years of decolonization. Political scientist Robert Bates famously documented how African leaders co-opted colonial-era extractive economic institutions - such as the state marketing boards that purchased all cash crops and exported them on the global market - in order to generate enough revenue to industrialize their economies.6 While their intentions may have originally been noble, if misplaced, they quickly began to use control over marketing boards for political purposes. The rent generated from marketing boards became an immense source of political power for African leaders and they held on to it to the detriment of the economic development of their state. South Africa is far more developed than its sub-Saharan peers were in the 1970s. Nevertheless, its leaders are exhibiting similar rent-seeking behavior, albeit at a much higher level of development. It is also entering a dangerous period in its post-apartheid history: it has now been twenty years since South Africa's effective decolonization and it is facing its first serious economic downturn. Bottom Line: We doubt that anyone in the current leadership elite will be able to fully abandon the rent-seeking behavior of the Zuma administration and improve South Africa's economic institutions. The crisis of expectations among the country's voters is palpable and demands for greater redistribution are rising. This is not a context for pro-market reforms that will encourage creative destruction. Instead, we would expect a doubling-down of populism and greater emphasis on proactive redistribution, which will, at the same time, encourage greater out-migration of talent out of the country and rent seeking behavior from political elites. Can Any One Man Or Woman Fix South Africa? The African National Congress (ANC) will meet in December 2017 to decide the party candidate that will contest the 2019 general election (Diagram I-1). Given the ANC's stranglehold on the country's politics, it is likely that whoever emerges at the upcoming ANC Congress will be the next president of South Africa. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy subscribes to the idea that policymakers are price takers in the political marketplace, not price makers. This is particularly the case in democracies, but it is also the case in some authoritarian regimes where public opinion is relevant. As such, the puzzle investors have to resolve is not what policymakers stand for, but rather what the median voter wants. In South Africa, the median voter lives in a rural area, works in the agriculture or service industry, and is a black citizen. The polls indicate that the main concerns of the median voter are a high structural unemployment rate (Chart I-22), endemic corruption (Chart I-23), poor healthcare infrastructure, and a desire for aggressive, and targeted, redistributive economic policies. Chart I-22Crisis Of Expectations Is this the profile of a median voter about to elect a pro-market reformer willing to pursue painful structural reforms? We do not think so. The two candidates vying for the ANC presidency are the ex-wife of Jacob Zuma and former Chair of the African Union, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, and former Deputy President, Cyril Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa is the darling of the international investment community. This is because he has abandoned his previous union credentials - he founded the country's largest trade union, the National Union of Mineworkers in addition to founding the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) - and turned into a successful businessman. As such, the narrative among South Africa bulls (who are exclusively found in Europe and the U.S.) is that he would be able to bridge the divide between the demands for redistribution and pro-market reforms. To the median voter, however, Ramaphosa is alleged to be involved in the Marikana Massacre. Acting as the Deputy President, he ordered increased police presence at the mines and called for the use of force, which resulted in 47 deaths in August-September 2012. Dlamini-Zuma, on the other hand, speaks the language of the median voter while also not being seen as part of Zuma's corrupt entourage. Her credentials are bolstered by a successful tenure as Chair of the African Union and as a woman independent and strong enough to divorce President Zuma. She has not amassed personal wealth and does not hold strong loyalties to a particular faction within the ANC. However, she has begun to parrot Zuma's line that the country requires "radical economic transformation," which is a signal to left-leaning members of the ANC that she will continue much of economic policies begun under Zuma. Both the ANC Youth and Women's Leagues, which are left leaning, support her. The problem that investors face in South Africa is that there is no clear demand for pro-market reforms. Investors cheered the results of the August 2016 municipal election, for example, because the ANC lost in several key cities and saw its total vote share fall by 8%. However, few in the media or investment research community raised the obvious point that the centrist Democratic Alliance only saw its vote total rise by 3% compared to the 2011 election. It was the radically left-wing Economic Freedom Fighters, led by ex-Youth League leader Julius Malema, which saw the largest increase in vote share, by over 8%. In other words, ANC voters that did abandon Zuma most likely fell behind Malema, who is far more redistributionist. As such, we stick to our long-held view that Zuma and the ANC leadership are unlikely to do what investors want them to do given that the South African median voter is swinging further to the left. There is no demand for pro-market reforms and thus policymakers are more likely to double-down on populism. Bottom Line: Dlamini-Zuma is the likely winner of the upcoming ANC Congress, which will effectively decide the next president of South Africa. She has the sufficient left-leaning economic credentials to satisfy the demands for redistribution of the median voter. There is also a chance that she will attempt to clean up the corruption that has become endemic under Zuma, which would undoubtedly be a good thing for the country. However, it is unlikely that the macroeconomic context she will face will be positive, or that she will have the mandate to balance redistributive policies with painful pro-market reforms that would rebuild institutions required for creative destruction. Investment Implications South African assets are ultimately at the mercy of foreign inflows. When the dollar is weakening, U.S. bond yields falling, and Chinese growth stable, even the election of Julius Malema to the presidency would not dent foreign enthusiasm for yield in South African assets. Given the expected improvement in U.S. growth and the transitory nature of the drop in the U.S. inflation rate, we expect the global macro backdrop to worsen substantially for carry trades in general, and for South Africa in particular. China remains the wild card in our analysis, but its credit and fiscal impulse has rolled over, suggesting slower import growth over the next six months (Chart I-24). Even if Chinese policymakers react by re-stimulating the economy, the effects will only be felt in early 2018 given lead times. When the global carry trade reverses, it will not matter who is in charge of South Africa. Investors will realize that the country has failed to address serious socio-economic ills that have plagued South Africa since the end of apartheid. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy continues to recommend the following investment positions: Chart I-24China Slowdown Is A Risk To EM Chart I-25Yield Curve Will Steepen Continue shorting ZAR versus USD and MXN. Underweight South African stocks, sovereign credit and domestic bonds relative to their respective EM benchmarks. A new trade: bet on yield-curve steepening (Chart I-25). The short end of the curve will be steady but populist politics, larger fiscal deficits/higher public debt, and an inflationary backdrop will push up long-end yields. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Beement Alemayehu, Research Assistant beementa@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Stocks Are From Mars, Bonds Are From Venus?" dated June 23, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Contradictions And A Resolution," dated June 14, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "EM Local Bonds: Looking At Hedged Yields," dated May 10, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 'Governance' is a catchall term that attempts to capture the quality of public service delivery, broadly defined. In essence, investors can consider governance as a factor that underpins the quality of political institutions. We rely on the World Bank's Development Indicators because the World Bank aggregates the work of several credible surveys on governance. These indicators are also useful because the World Bank standardizes the results in a way that allows cross-country/region comparisons. We then aggregate the scores across five different variables and look for trends and changes over time. 4 Please see State Capacity Research Project, "Betrayal Of The Promise: How South Africa Is Being Stolen," dated May 2017, available at pari.org.za. 5 Please see Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, Why Nations Fail (New York: Crown Business, 2012). 6 Please see Robert H. Bates, Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies (Berkeley, University of California Press, 2014 edition). Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

Highlights The EM carry trade - supported by a commodity price rally, falling bond yields, and a weak USD - have propped up South African assets; Investors have largely ignored politics and focused on personalities instead of political fundamentals; South Africa's socio-economic factors - governance, middle class wellbeing, productivity, and unemployment - have all regressed; The "median voter" has therefore turned more radical and left-wing; Stay short ZAR versus USD and MXN, stay underweight stocks, sovereign credit, and domestic bonds, and bet on yield-curve steepening. Feature Why do investors in Europe and the U.S. continue to invest in South Africa? - Every client in South Africa Our recent week-long trip to South Africa was revealing for two reasons. First, it reminded us of the promise and opportunity of this amazing country and its people. Second, it impressed upon us the deep pessimism of its entire financial community. As the quote at the top of this report suggests, every client we met over seven days was deeply puzzled by continued resilience of foreign inflows. Clients were surprised that foreign investors continued to find value in South Africa's fixed income and currency markets amidst a continued growth downtrend, soft commodity prices, and the ongoing political imbroglio (Chart I-1). The answer to the puzzle is simple: the main driving force behind EM risk assets, year-to-date, has been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart I-2). 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 I-1ZAR Rally Amidst Economic##br## And Commodity Downturn Chart I-2EM Carry Trade Is ##br##Alive And Well How likely is it that the carry trade can continue? BCA's Global Investment Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy both argue that U.S. growth will soon accelerate.1 The U.S. financial conditions have eased thanks to lower Treasury yields, narrower credit spreads, a weaker dollar, and higher equity prices (Chart I-3). Historically, an easing in financial conditions has foreshadowed faster growth (Chart I-4). Meanwhile, the relative U.S. growth underperformance versus DM is late and will turn around very soon (Chart I-5). As U.S. economic growth surprises pick up, investors will bid up the 10-year Treasury yield and the greenback, ushering in the end of the carry trade. Chart I-3U.S. Financial Conditions Have Eased... Chart I-4...U.S. Growth Should Therefore Sharply Rebound Chart I-5U.S. Underperformance Is Long-In-The-Tooth How resilient are South Africa's economic fundamentals and politics? In this report, we argue that they are not resilient at all. The country is facing considerable structural problems on both economic and political fronts. Even its sole silver lining - that it retains cyclical maneuvering room, i.e., it can adopt fiscal stimulus - will only encourage its leaders to double-down on a populist growth model that has already run out of steam. Cyclical Outlook: A Dark Cloud With A Silver Lining The cyclical outlook for South Africa has darkened as of late. All the drivers that pushed the rand to appreciate over the last 12 months are now showing signs of a reversal: The rand's rally in the past six months or so - a period when it decoupled from commodities prices - is often attributed to its higher interest rates. However, Chart I-6 demonstrates that higher local interest rates historically did not prevent the rand's selloff when metal prices fell. In short, we believe the last six months is an aberration rather than a new norm. Remarkably, hedged yields in South Africa are no longer attractive within the EM space. South Africa already offers the worst hedged returns, after Turkey and China, for the U.S. dollar and euro-based investors (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8).2 The situation will only get worse as the U.S. dollar appreciates and Treasury yields rise. Chart I-6High Local Interest Rates ##br##Are No Panacea For ZAR The drop in precious metal prices will force the rand to selloff (Chart I-9). The unprecedented resilience in the rand was supported by increasing financial flows. Now that these are decreasing, the historic correlation with precious metals should reemerge. The decoupling between the ZAR and AUD since early this year is unprecedented (Chart I-10). Both economies are leveraged to industrial and precious metals as well as coal prices, making both exchange rates correlated. Needless to say, Australia commands much better governance and politics than South Africa. In fact, higher interest rates in South Africa have never precluded the rand's depreciation when the AUD dropped. Chart I-9Is The Divergence With Precious Metals... Chart I-10...And AUD Sustainable? Therefore, we conclude that the rand's strength has not been warranted by any of its historic drivers. It has been due to nothing else than the blind search for yield. Over the medium and long run, the outlook for the rand remains bleak. The ongoing dynamic of high wage growth and negative productivity growth will assure a lingering stagflationary environment (Chart I-11). This is bearish for the rand. Surprisingly, despite a rising currency and falling bond yields over the last 12 months, the South African economy is still showing signs of weakness. The household sector, which represents 61% of the economy, is not showing signs of a recovery yet. Credit growth to households is still falling and private consumption is abysmal. (Chart I-12). On the corporate side, the situation is not reassuring either. Firms are not investing and business confidence has not shown any signs of a significant recovery (Chart I-13). Chart I-11Productivity Is Weak But Wages Are Strong Chart I-12Household Consumption Is Declining Chart I-13No Confidence, No Investment The one positive is that the government has fiscal room to maneuver. South African gross government debt is at a comfortable 51% of GDP. However, we suspect that the nature of fiscal spending will likely result in transfers to appease the population - especially ahead of key elections in late 2017 and 2018 - rather than investments that can genuinely improve productivity. In fact, fiscal spending in the form of transfers could very well entice consumers to import more and consequently widen the current account deficit, putting more downward pressure on the rand. Bottom Line: The commodity price rally in 2016 and falling bond yields failed to buoy the economy. While policymakers do retain fiscal room to stimulate, the problem is that such efforts will likely merely rekindle populist policies that have failed South Africa thus far. Structural Outlook: Late Innings Of The Crisis Of Expectations South Africa is not alone in the EM universe in having failed to improve governance over the past decade. Most EM economies have squandered the commodity bull market and Chinese industrialization, allowing their governance to stagnate or even worsen during the good times (Chart I-14).3 However, South Africa does stand alone when it comes to a tepid rise in middle class, as percent of total population (Chart I-15), and continued high income inequality (Chart I-16). Chart I-14Quality Of EM Governance Declined##br## Amidst The Good Times Chart I-15Middle Class Has ##br##Barely Budged... The data is clear: South Africa is as unequal overall, and its middle class unchanged relative to overall population, as it was at the end of apartheid in the early 1990s. Governance in the country has continued to deteriorate, and while it remains higher than in Sub-Saharan Africa, the gap has astonishingly begun to narrow from both ends (Chart I-17). Chart I-17Governance Gap With Sub-Saharan ##br##Africa Is Closing! A major reason for the deterioration in governance is the "state capture" thesis that has become a popular one in characterizing President Jacob Zuma's rule.4 This process began early, as the country shifted its developmental program in 1996 away from a top-down, state-led, developmental model to one that encouraged a free-market economy balanced with welfare spending. This was a natural result of the global rise of laissez-faire capitalism, the Washington Consensus, and "Third Way" politics of left-leaning parties. A commitment to laissez-faire capitalism and free markets, combined with a strong welfare state, were seen as hallmarks of a successful economy. The problem with this approach is that it confused the symptoms of developed economies with their catalysts. South Africa needed a much more state-led approach to development, one that would have harnessed the resources of the state for productivity-enhancing investments. As such, the laissez-faire approach unsurprisingly failed to address the inequalities of the apartheid system and the country saw a decline in the middle class as percent of total population under both Presidents Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki. This pivot towards free-market capitalism ended with the 2007 "Polokwane moment," which saw President Mbeki's free-market, reactive, attempt to address inequality between the white and black populations replaced with the proactive policy of Jacob Zuma. Zuma's more radical approach was to complement welfare transfers and high wage growth with an activist use of state owned enterprises (SOEs) as a vehicle for redistribution. This proactive policy meant using the government's tender system to doll out lucrative contracts to well-connected insiders, under the auspices of helping enfranchise black entrepreneurs and businesses. While the media has focused on the role that the Indian-born Gupta family has played in this process, it is highly unlikely that they are the only beneficiaries. Zuma's administration has, in the name of black enfranchisement and the fight against inequality, essentially rigged the entire government tender system for the sake of its own political preservation. The results of this process are unsurprising. First, government wages have outpaced those in both manufacturing and mining sectors (Chart I-18). Meanwhile, productivity has declined precipitously since 2007 and has been negative since 2012. South Africa has a lower productivity rate than both Latin American EM economies and its neighbors in sub-Saharan Africa (Chart I-19). Chart I-18Government Wages Have Outpaced All Others Chart I-19South African Productivity Has No Peer Financial media and investment research have continued to focus on the intricacies of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) politics. And we do so as well below. However, investors have to understand that South Africa's ills will not be fixed by the appointment of a pro-market finance minister or even the removal of Jacob Zuma from rule. South Africa has failed to develop inclusive economic institutions that engender creative destruction, which is at the heart of all successful development stories.5 South Africa ranked 74th in the World Bank's annual Doing Business report in 2017, an astonishing fall from grace over the past decade (Chart I-20). Compared to regional averages, South Africa barely beats the Sub-Saharan "distance to frontier" scores in several World Bank categories (Chart I-21). This is not due to the gross failure of the Zuma administration to do the "right thing." Rather, it exhibits a structural failing of South African political institutions. This development path is not unique to South Africa. Most sub-Saharan African states experienced a similar regression within 10-20 years of decolonization. Political scientist Robert Bates famously documented how African leaders co-opted colonial-era extractive economic institutions - such as the state marketing boards that purchased all cash crops and exported them on the global market - in order to generate enough revenue to industrialize their economies.6 While their intentions may have originally been noble, if misplaced, they quickly began to use control over marketing boards for political purposes. The rent generated from marketing boards became an immense source of political power for African leaders and they held on to it to the detriment of the economic development of their state. South Africa is far more developed than its sub-Saharan peers were in the 1970s. Nevertheless, its leaders are exhibiting similar rent-seeking behavior, albeit at a much higher level of development. It is also entering a dangerous period in its post-apartheid history: it has now been twenty years since South Africa's effective decolonization and it is facing its first serious economic downturn. Bottom Line: We doubt that anyone in the current leadership elite will be able to fully abandon the rent-seeking behavior of the Zuma administration and improve South Africa's economic institutions. The crisis of expectations among the country's voters is palpable and demands for greater redistribution are rising. This is not a context for pro-market reforms that will encourage creative destruction. Instead, we would expect a doubling-down of populism and greater emphasis on proactive redistribution, which will, at the same time, encourage greater out-migration of talent out of the country and rent seeking behavior from political elites. Can Any One Man Or Woman Fix South Africa? The African National Congress (ANC) will meet in December 2017 to decide the party candidate that will contest the 2019 general election (Diagram I-1). Given the ANC's stranglehold on the country's politics, it is likely that whoever emerges at the upcoming ANC Congress will be the next president of South Africa. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy subscribes to the idea that policymakers are price takers in the political marketplace, not price makers. This is particularly the case in democracies, but it is also the case in some authoritarian regimes where public opinion is relevant. As such, the puzzle investors have to resolve is not what policymakers stand for, but rather what the median voter wants. In South Africa, the median voter lives in a rural area, works in the agriculture or service industry, and is a black citizen. The polls indicate that the main concerns of the median voter are a high structural unemployment rate (Chart I-22), endemic corruption (Chart I-23), poor healthcare infrastructure, and a desire for aggressive, and targeted, redistributive economic policies. Chart I-22Crisis Of Expectations Is this the profile of a median voter about to elect a pro-market reformer willing to pursue painful structural reforms? We do not think so. The two candidates vying for the ANC presidency are the ex-wife of Jacob Zuma and former Chair of the African Union, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, and former Deputy President, Cyril Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa is the darling of the international investment community. This is because he has abandoned his previous union credentials - he founded the country's largest trade union, the National Union of Mineworkers in addition to founding the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) - and turned into a successful businessman. As such, the narrative among South Africa bulls (who are exclusively found in Europe and the U.S.) is that he would be able to bridge the divide between the demands for redistribution and pro-market reforms. To the median voter, however, Ramaphosa is alleged to be involved in the Marikana Massacre. Acting as the Deputy President, he ordered increased police presence at the mines and called for the use of force, which resulted in 47 deaths in August-September 2012. Dlamini-Zuma, on the other hand, speaks the language of the median voter while also not being seen as part of Zuma's corrupt entourage. Her credentials are bolstered by a successful tenure as Chair of the African Union and as a woman independent and strong enough to divorce President Zuma. She has not amassed personal wealth and does not hold strong loyalties to a particular faction within the ANC. However, she has begun to parrot Zuma's line that the country requires "radical economic transformation," which is a signal to left-leaning members of the ANC that she will continue much of economic policies begun under Zuma. Both the ANC Youth and Women's Leagues, which are left leaning, support her. The problem that investors face in South Africa is that there is no clear demand for pro-market reforms. Investors cheered the results of the August 2016 municipal election, for example, because the ANC lost in several key cities and saw its total vote share fall by 8%. However, few in the media or investment research community raised the obvious point that the centrist Democratic Alliance only saw its vote total rise by 3% compared to the 2011 election. It was the radically left-wing Economic Freedom Fighters, led by ex-Youth League leader Julius Malema, which saw the largest increase in vote share, by over 8%. In other words, ANC voters that did abandon Zuma most likely fell behind Malema, who is far more redistributionist. As such, we stick to our long-held view that Zuma and the ANC leadership are unlikely to do what investors want them to do given that the South African median voter is swinging further to the left. There is no demand for pro-market reforms and thus policymakers are more likely to double-down on populism. Bottom Line: Dlamini-Zuma is the likely winner of the upcoming ANC Congress, which will effectively decide the next president of South Africa. She has the sufficient left-leaning economic credentials to satisfy the demands for redistribution of the median voter. There is also a chance that she will attempt to clean up the corruption that has become endemic under Zuma, which would undoubtedly be a good thing for the country. However, it is unlikely that the macroeconomic context she will face will be positive, or that she will have the mandate to balance redistributive policies with painful pro-market reforms that would rebuild institutions required for creative destruction. Investment Implications South African assets are ultimately at the mercy of foreign inflows. When the dollar is weakening, U.S. bond yields falling, and Chinese growth stable, even the election of Julius Malema to the presidency would not dent foreign enthusiasm for yield in South African assets. Given the expected improvement in U.S. growth and the transitory nature of the drop in the U.S. inflation rate, we expect the global macro backdrop to worsen substantially for carry trades in general, and for South Africa in particular. China remains the wild card in our analysis, but its credit and fiscal impulse has rolled over, suggesting slower import growth over the next six months (Chart I-24). Even if Chinese policymakers react by re-stimulating the economy, the effects will only be felt in early 2018 given lead times. When the global carry trade reverses, it will not matter who is in charge of South Africa. Investors will realize that the country has failed to address serious socio-economic ills that have plagued South Africa since the end of apartheid. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy continues to recommend the following investment positions: Chart I-24China Slowdown Is A Risk To EM Chart I-25Yield Curve Will Steepen Continue shorting ZAR versus USD and MXN. Underweight South African stocks, sovereign credit and domestic bonds relative to their respective EM benchmarks. A new trade: bet on yield-curve steepening (Chart I-25). The short end of the curve will be steady but populist politics, larger fiscal deficits/higher public debt, and an inflationary backdrop will push up long-end yields. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Beement Alemayehu, Research Assistant beementa@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Stocks Are From Mars, Bonds Are From Venus?" dated June 23, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Contradictions And A Resolution," dated June 14, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "EM Local Bonds: Looking At Hedged Yields," dated May 10, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 'Governance' is a catchall term that attempts to capture the quality of public service delivery, broadly defined. In essence, investors can consider governance as a factor that underpins the quality of political institutions. We rely on the World Bank's Development Indicators because the World Bank aggregates the work of several credible surveys on governance. These indicators are also useful because the World Bank standardizes the results in a way that allows cross-country/region comparisons. We then aggregate the scores across five different variables and look for trends and changes over time. 4 Please see State Capacity Research Project, "Betrayal Of The Promise: How South Africa Is Being Stolen," dated May 2017, available at pari.org.za. 5 Please see Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, Why Nations Fail (New York: Crown Business, 2012). 6 Please see Robert H. Bates, Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies (Berkeley, University of California Press, 2014 edition). Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Dear Client, We hope that you will find value in this report, a product of collaboration between BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy and EM Equity Sector Strategy. My colleagues Oleg Babanov and Matt Gertken look for investment opportunities in the recent geopolitical changes on the Korean Peninsula. The election of President Moon Jae-in will be a boon for domestic consumer sentiment and relations with China. This will produce a tailwind for the consumer-oriented South Korean stocks, which have high exposure to the country’s trade with China. We deliver this report to you both for its investment value and as an example of BCA Research commitment to seek alpha in the intersection of economics, markets, and geopolitics. Kindest Regards, Marko Papic Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist Overweight South Korea Consumer Staples We are recommending an overweight position in select South Korean consumer staples on a long-term (one year-plus) time horizon. A decline in geopolitical tensions between South Korea and China, and a potential improvement on the Korean peninsula, will provide tailwinds to the performance of Korean consumer staples, which have high exposure to China. We expect Chinese tourist numbers to Korea to recover gradually, and sales of South Korean products in mainland China to pick up over the rest of the year. Presidential elections in South Korea and a slowly improving economy are bolstering consumer sentiment and aiding a turnaround in retail sales in the country, with companies in the consumer space displaying better earnings momentum and trading at more attractive valuations than their EM peers (Table 1). Sector Backdrop We are turning cautiously positive on consumer staples in South Korea. We believe the following factors will trigger a turnaround in consumer sentiment and support share price performance of consumer-oriented South Korean stocks. Geopolitics The election of President Moon Jae-in by a wide margin, as well as a geopolitical shift toward more accommodative policy on China, will alleviate geopolitical risks and help consumer sentiment. Moon has already kicked off his administration's tenure with considerable political capital. For one, his administration represents a return to stable and legitimate government after over a year of turmoil surrounding the scandal, impeachment and removal of former President Park Geun-hye - a relief for South Korean voters. What's more, voter turnout was higher than usual, at 77%, and Moon's margin of victory over his closest contender was over 15%, the second-highest since South Korea became a full-fledged democracy in 1987 (Chart 1). There are also institutional factors playing to Moon's advantage. He was the leading contender for the presidency even without Park being removed from office - but if she had not been removed, he would have taken office in January 2018. Now, Moon has half a year longer in office than he otherwise would have had before he faces his first serious political hurdle in the April 2020 legislative elections. This half year could make a difference. Since Korean presidents serve a single, five-year term, they often become lame ducks in the second half of their term, and therefore move rapidly on policy in the first half while their political capital is high. The only significant domestic political constraint on Moon is the rival left-of-center party, the People's Party. It holds the kingmaker position in the legislature, with the ability to give a majority to either Moon's ruling Democratic Party or to the conservative opposition (Chart 2). However, the People's Party has serious weaknesses and has been compelled by its voting base to cooperate on much of Moon's platform of expanding social spending and thawing relations with North Korea and China. Moreover, the conservative opposition is discredited and fractured. Thus, Moon has limited political constraints. Given that his administration is competent - i.e. the clear populist elements are not joined with a lack of experience or pragmatism - the key question is what policies he will prioritize while his political capital is high. Chart 3THAAD Deployment Hurt ##br##Bilateral China-Korea Trade It is our view that China-exposed companies stand to benefit in the short term as China eases sanctions over the recently deployed U.S. THAAD missile defense system (Chart 3), and as better relations with China benefit the economy more broadly (Chart 4). However, if Moon prioritizes China and North Korea excessively, he risks squandering his political capital. Korea remains stuck in the middle of U.S.-China tensions that are growing on a secular basis. Tensions with the U.S. will rise as a result of Moon's orientation, and North Korean political risks will remain elevated over the medium and long term. Moon's attempts to engage with North Korea will collide with Trump's efforts to ratchet up pressure against it. Therefore, Moon is likely to find the most success in his domestic agenda of increasing government spending, hiring more public workers, raising wages and instilling worker protections, expanding the social safety net and subsidizing small- and medium-sized enterprises. These measures will boost both public and private consumption. We do not have particularly high hopes for Moon's ability to reform the so-called 'chaebol', a South Korean term denoting large, typically family-owned corporate conglomerates, but his attempt to do so will add a modicum of corporate governance and competitiveness improvements that markets will likely cheer. Macroeconomics With improvement in the geopolitical situation, stabilization in the local political system following the Park Geun-hye scandal and new elections has aided in a recovery in consumer sentiment (Chart 5). Meanwhile, a rebound in total employment numbers together with a decline in household debt is providing support to consumer spending (Charts 6A, 6B, 6C). Chart 5Consumer Confidence Is ##br##Back To A Five-Year High Chart 6ANumber Of Employed ##br##Higher Than In 2015... Chart 6B...While The Household Debt ##br##Burden Is Slowly Declining... Chart 6C...Aiding A Recovery##br## In Retail Sales Sector Specifics From a sector perspective, South Korean consumer staples remain highly competitive, outperforming their EM peers (Chart 7). At the same time, valuations are attractive for South Korean companies (Charts 8A & 8B). Chart 7South Korean Consumer Stocks Outperforming EM Consumer Staples' Aggregate... Chart 8ASouth Korean Companies Trading At Cheaper ##br##Valuations Since Mid-2016... Chart 8B...And At One Standard Deviation Below ##br##Their Seven-Year Average Furthermore, bottom-line expansion of South Korean companies remains strong, supported by solid margin trends (Charts 9A, 9B, 9C). Chart 9A...Earnings Growth In South Korea##br## Is Outperforming EM Peers Chart 9B...With Gross Margin Nearly Twice ##br## The EM Industry Average... Chart 9C...And EBTIDA Margin Is Steadily ##br## Above EM Peers We also like the fact that the net debt level for South Korean consumer staples companies is low to negative, while companies have managed to generate excess free cash flow. One undesirable implication, however, is notoriously low dividend yields, which are discouraging investors and raising corporate governance issues (Charts 10A, 10B, 10C). Taking into account the factors listed above, we have created a portfolio of six South Korean consumer staples stocks (Table 2). Chart 10ADebt Levels Have Fallen Significantly ##br## Over The Past Seven Years... Chart 10B...While Cash Generation ##br## Has Recovered... Chart 10C...But Dividend Yields ##br## Remain Disappointing Low The Overweight Basket Chart 11Performance Since June 2016: ##br## Amorepacific Corp Vs. MSCI EM Amorepacific Corp (090430 KS): A leading beauty and cosmetics producer in South Korea (Chart 11). Founded in the 1940s by Yun Dok-jeong as a company distributing camellia oil for hair treatment, the company was inherited by Yun's son and later grandson, who became the second-richest man in South Korea, controlling directly 10% of the company's free float. Today, Amorepacific is the world's 14th largest cosmetics company, with oversight of some 33 brands around the world such as Etude House, Sulwhasoo and others. In terms of revenue, the bulk is generated by beauty and cosmetic products (91%), where luxury cosmetics constitute 43%, followed by premium brands with 18%. Personal care products contribute 9% to total revenue. Geographically, 70% of revenues are generated in South Korea, and another 19% in China. Amorepacific reported weaker-than-expected first-quarter 2017 financial results on April 24. Revenue increased by 5.7% year over year, with falling Chinese tourist numbers weighing on local sales, and weaker sales in mainland China. At the same time, cost of sales went up by 10.6% year over year, which resulted in gross margin compression by 100 basis points. As a result of an operating cost increase of 8.4% year over year, mainly driven by SG&A expansion (increased labor costs and one-off bonus payments), operating profit fell 6.2% year over year. Operating margin finished at 20.2% compared to 22.8% same period last year, while EBTDA margin contracted to 17.8% from 19.5% last year. Weak operating performance and disproportionate expense growth led to the bottom line falling 15% year over year. Amorepacific is currently trading at a forward P/E of 30.0x, while the market is forecasting an EPS CAGR of 13% over the next three years. We believe the share price will continue to recover strongly, taking into account that easing tensions with China will restore demand and organic volume growth as well as strong momentum in overseas sales, supporting an earnings recovery. Chart 12Performance Since June 2016: ##br## E-Mart Vs. MSCI EM E-Mart (139480 KS): Number one hypermarket brand in South Korea (Chart 12). E-Mart was established in 1993 and has grown into the largest hypermarket and discount store chain in South Korea, operating over 148 branch locations locally and another 16 in China. In 2006 the company also acquired its largest competitor in the country - Wal-Mart Korea - strengthening its market share. Additionally, E-Mart runs speciality shops such as "Emart" discount stores, the "Emart Mall" online store, "Emart Traders," an everyday low-price store, as well as pet and sports/outdoor stores. In terms of revenue breakdown, the flagship E-Mart brand is responsible for 78% of total revenue, followed by the food distribution and supermarket segment with 7% each respectively. From a geographic perspective, 98% of revenue originates in South Korea and only 2% in China. E-Mart reported first-quarter 2017 financial results on May 11, missing estimates. Revenue growth was solid, up 7.4% year over year, helped by 1% same-store sales growth in the main hypermarket segment, while cost of sales increased by 6.5% year over year, which resulted in gross margin falling slightly by 20 basis points to 28.2%. Operating profit increased by 2.8% year over year, weighed on by a year-on-year jump in operating expenses of 11.1%. Operating margin stood at 4.1%, down from 4.3% in 2016, while EBITDA margin finished virtually flat at 6.7%. Thanks to better operating performance, the bottom line improved by 5% year over year. The main detraction to performance came from one-off store opening expenses and a negative calendar effect. E-Mart is currently trading at a forward P/E of 14.0x, while the market is forecasting an EPS CAGR of 9% over the next three years. A store restructuring program is currently underway, and management has done well in accelerating closures of non-performing stores, which has already led to cost savings and margin turnaround. We expect this process to continue. Together with strong performance of the discount and online segments, this should warrant a further re-rating of the share price. Chart 13Performance Since June 2016: ##br## GS Retail Vs. MSCI EM GS Retail (007070 KS): Number one convenience store chain in South Korea (Chart 13). GS Retail is part of the GS Group, a former part of LG Group and the sixth-largest conglomerate in South Korea, which controls just under 66% of the company. GS Retail was incorporated back in 1971 and today operates GS25 - the largest convenience store brand in South Korea - as well as other brands such as GS Supermarkets, Watsons - a health and beauty chain, and Parnas Hotel. The largest contributor to total revenue is the convenience store segment, with 77%, followed by the supermarket business with 20% and the hotel operation with 3%. Geographically, all the revenue originates in South Korea. GS Retail reported first-quarter 2017 financial results on May 11. Revenue displayed strong growth, up 12.5% year over year, driven by solid performance in the convenience store segment (+21% year over year), while cost of sales increased by 12.3% year over year, which brought gross margin up by 20 basis points to 18.4%. A 15% year-over-year increase in operating costs due to the ongoing consolidation of the Watsons business brought operating income down slightly by 1.5% year over year, suppressing operating margin by 20 basis points to 1.4%. EBITDA margin stood at 5.9% compared to 6.2% a year ago. Despite weak operating performance, the bottom line grew by 18.8%, helped by a non-operating gain and lower interest expenses. GS Retail is currently trading at a forward P/E of 19.6x, while the market is forecasting an EPS CAGR of 14% over the next three years. We expect the non-convenience store segments to contribute more to performance in the second part of the year. Furthermore, non-performing supermarket store closedowns together with seasonally strong second and third quarters, where the summer weather typically helps sales, should support stock performance. Chart 14Performance Since June 2016: ##br## H&H Vs. MSCI EM LG Household & Healthcare (051900 KS): Producer of the very first cosmetic products in Korea (Chart 14). LG H&H was incorporated in 1947 by Koo In-Hwoi, the founder of LG Corp., and had the initial name Lucky Chemical Industrial Corp. The company produced the first-ever Korean cosmetic product, "Lucky Cream," followed by "Lucky Toothpaste." From 1995 to 2001, LG H&H was part of LG Chem before being spun off. In addition to the cosmetics and household goods businesses, the company also acquired Coca Cola Beverage in 2007, turning itself into an exclusive bottler and distributor of Coca Cola products in South Korea. In terms of revenue breakdown, the cosmetics business contributes 53% to overall revenue, followed by personal products with 27% and the soft drink division with 20%. Geographically, 84% of revenue originates in South Korea, followed by China with 8% and Japan with 4%. LG H&H reported better-than-expected first-quarter 2017 financial results on April 28. Revenue expanded by 5.3% year over year, driven by strong sales in the luxury cosmetics and beverage segments, while cost of sales grew by 4% year over year, bringing gross margin 50 basis points higher to 60.9%. Furthermore, operating income displayed strong growth, up 11.3%, helped by good management of operating expenses (+4.5% year over year). As a result, operating margin improved by 90 basis points to 16.2% and EBITDA margin finished at 16.9%, up from 15.7% last year. The bottom line increased by 11.9% year over year, helped by strong operating performance. LG H&H is currently trading at a forward P/E of 24.1x, while the market is forecasting an EPS CAGR of 8% over the next three years. As with Amorepacific, the trigger to a re-rating in the share price of LG H&H is the improving geopolitical situation. We expect tourist numbers to South Korea to gradually increase, which will aid in both sales recovery and earnings revisions, while strong momentum in the luxury cosmetics segment will contribute to further margin expansion. Chart 15Performance Since June 2016: ##br## KT&G Vs. MSCI EM KT&G Corp (033780 KS): Korea Tobacco & Ginseng (Chart 15). Initially founded as a government monopoly with the name "Korea Tobacco & Ginseng," the company was later privatized and rebranded as the "Korea Tomorrow & Global Corporation." Today, the company is the largest tobacco company in South Korea, controlling the majority of the local market. The company also has extensive exposure to Eastern European countries. In addition to the tobacco business, KT&G also has a pharma arm, the Korea Ginseng Corp. The revenue stream is broken down into the cigarette business, which contributes 60% to overall revenue, followed by the ginseng-pharma segment, adding another 30%. KT&G reported in-line first-quarter 2017 financial results on April 27. Revenue increased by a solid 8% year over year, helped by strong ginseng sales, which expanded despite a market contraction and were also alleviated by market share gain and higher prices. Cost of sales, meantime, were up 12.7%, bringing gross margin down to 59.4% from 61.1% previously. Due to a strong increase in operating costs (+11.3% year over year), driven by higher SG&A expenses, operating income edged up only 0.6% year over year. Operating margin fell 45 basis points from last year, while EBITDA margin stood at 35.5%, or 80 basis points lower compared to the same period last year. The bottom line fell by 17.5% year over year, weighted on by higher foreign exchange losses. KT&G is currently trading at a forward P/E of 12.8x, while the market is forecasting an EPS CAGR of 6.5% over the next three years. Several factors have been weighing on the company's share price recently, including the introduction of warning messages on cigarette packages and the introduction of e-cigarettes in the domestic market - making the stock one of the cheapest among its global peers (~20% discount). We believe that worries regarding e-cigarette introduction and projections of the Japanese experience are overstated due to differences in law (e.g. prohibition of smoking indoors), as well as the age composition of the market. Furthermore, we expect a strong revival in overseas sales in the second part of the year, with less headwinds from foreign exchange swings and double-digit growth due to low base effects - as well as an offset to flat local market expansion via higher selling prices. Chart 16Performance Since June 2016: ##br## Nongshim Vs. MSCI EM Nongshim (004370 KS): Farmer's Heart (Chart 16). Nongshim, or Farmer's Heart, was founded in 1965 under the name Lotte Food Industrial Company, and later changed its name. The company first focused on ramyun (instant noodle) production, later expanding into snacks - it was the first to introduce the "Shrimp Cracker" as well as beverages. Today, Nongshim is the largest ramyun and snack company in South Korea, selling to over 100 countries, with production facilities in Korea, China and the U.S. From a revenue perspective, ramyun products contribute 67% to total revenue, followed by other food products with 17.5% and snacks with 15.6%. Geographically, most sales occur in South Korea, with 80%, followed by the U.S. with 10% and China with 8%. Nongshim reported slightly better-than-expected first-quarter 2017 financial results on May 15. Revenue declined slightly by 2.2% year over year due to a fall in domestic ramyun sales by 9%, while cost of sales actually declined by 5% year over year, which led to a gross margin improvement by 190 basis points to 33.7% (helped by price increases.) Operating income was virtually flat year over year, as operating costs increased by 4%. Operating margin stood at 5.85% compared to 5.70% in 2016, while EBITDA margin declined to 7.9% from 9.4% last year. Nongshim is currently trading at a forward P/E of 18.5x, while the market is forecasting an EPS CAGR of 5.6% over the next three years. We expect a reversal of weak sales in China (-5% year over year) due to an easing of the geopolitical situation. Furthermore, Nongshim has already begun to claw back market share, helped by new starts and forced price hikes among its competition, which will continue to help turn around margins and improve profitability. How To Trade? The EMES team recommends gaining exposure to the sector through a basket of listed equities consisting of six overweight recommendations. The main goal is active alpha generation by excluding laggards and including out-of-benchmark plays, to avoid passive index-hugging via an ETF. Direct: Equity access through the tickers (Bloomberg): Amorepacific Corp (090430 KS); E-Mart (139480 KS); GS Retail (007070 KS); LG Household & Healthcare (051900 KS); KT&G Corp (033780 KS); Nongshim (004370 KS). ETFs: At the moment, there are no ETFs with significant consumer staples sector exposure for South Korea. Funds: At the moment, there are no funds with significant consumer staples sector exposure for South Korea. Please note this trade recommendation is long term (1Y+) and based on an overweight trade. We do not see a need for specific market timing for this call (for technical indicators please refer to our website link). For convenience, the performance of both market cap-weighted and equal-weighted equity baskets will be tracked (please see upcoming updates as well as the website link to follow performance). Risks To Our Investment Case We believe that one of the main risks is the geopolitical situation and further developments surrounding North Korea. Although the usual springtime tensions have passed, the underlying dynamic remains highly precarious. North Korea has not moderated its behavior despite President Moon's olive branch and U.S. President Trump continues to prioritize the issue and threaten bolder action. Any kind of escalation in tensions, whether they be driven by North Korea or the U.S., would negatively affect both Chinese interests and the new South Korean administration's attempts at engagement. Given that South Korea has not yet fully reversed the THAAD missile deployment, for instance, it is possible that China could maintain or intensify its informal sanctions on South Korea, such as travel and product bans, and that renewed tensions could depress overall consumer sentiment in South Korea. We are also cognizant that debt levels in the South Korean manufacturing sector as well mass layoffs in shipyards and a slowdown in exports could continue to create pressure on household disposable income levels and, in turn, spending. However, President Moon's efforts for a supplementary budget to support employment in the public sector, if approved, should alleviate some pain from layoffs. On a company level, we see increased price competition as one of the main risks to our investment case. Since many of the companies in the basket are market leaders, they will need to defend their market share aggressively in case of increased competition. Furthermore, for companies operating abroad, we see increased expansion costs as one of the risk factors for future performance. Finally, Chinese economic policy pose a risk to our view. The fiscal spending and credit impulse in China have rolled over, suggesting that demand will slow in the coming months. Moreover, the Communist Party’s ongoing “deleveraging campaign” – a crackdown on various risky financial practices and the shadow banking sector – raises the risks of a policy mistake. A slowdown in China would have negative repercussions for the South Korean companies most exposed to China and the broader Korean economy. Nevertheless, we think Chinese authorities are willing and able to meet their growth target this year. Oleg Babanov, Senior Editor obabanov@bcaresearch.co.uk Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.co.uk

Highlights Fed Policy Loop: Low inflation is preventing rate hike expectations from being revised higher, prolonging the current rally in spread product. We expect rate hike expectations to move up as inflation recovers, eventually leading to a correction in spread product. Such a correction will prove fleeting as long as inflation stays below target. High-Yield: High-yield valuation is consistent with its historical average, after accounting for expected default losses. Current valuation levels should translate into excess returns of just over 200 bps during the next 12 months. Aaa Spread Product: Non-agency CMBS offer the most spread pick-up of any Aaa-rated sector. However, we prefer to focus our Aaa-rated spread product allocation in Agency CMBS and credit card backed consumer ABS. Feature Chart 1The Fed Policy Loop In Action One of this publication's main themes during the past few years has been the Fed Policy Loop.1 In essence, the Loop describes the feedback mechanism between monetary policy and financial markets, a relationship that results from both investors' sensitivity to the Fed's policy stance and the Fed's reliance on financial conditions as a predictor of economic growth. In practice, the Loop works as follows: Easier Fed policy causes spread product to outperform Treasuries. Tighter credit spreads lead to easier financial conditions, which the Fed interprets as a sign that economic growth will accelerate. An improved economic outlook causes the Fed to step up the pace of tightening. Tighter Fed policy causes spread product to underperform Treasuries. Wider credit spreads lead to tighter financial conditions, which the Fed interprets as a sign that economic growth will moderate. A worse economic outlook causes the Fed to slow its expected pace of tightening. Rinse, repeat. Chart 2 provides a graphical description of the Loop, and its most recent iteration can be seen in Chart 1 above. Chart 1 shows that corporate bonds outperformed Treasuries leading up to the March rate hike, but then rate expectations rose too far. In mid-March the market was discounting a fed funds rate of 1.86% by the end of 2018. These overly stringent rate hike expectations caused corporate bonds to underperform, and this underperformance led rate hike expectations to be revised lower. The market now expects a fed funds rate of only 1.47% by the end of 2018, and these depressed rate expectations have fueled the rally in corporate bonds that started in mid-April. Normally at this stage of the Fed Policy Loop we would expect rate hike expectations to move higher until they eventually prompt a correction in corporate spreads. However, extremely disappointing core inflation prints during the past three months have caused the market to keep its rate hike expectations depressed. This has extended the most recent rally in spread product. This is why we have consistently pointed to core inflation and the cost of inflation protection embedded in long-maturity bond yields as the main factors to watch to determine how much life is left in the corporate bond trade. As long as inflation stays below target, the Fed absolutely needs it to rise. It will therefore be quick to respond to any tightening of financial conditions/widening of credit spreads. Table 1 shows average monthly excess returns for investment grade corporate bonds relative to duration-matched Treasuries. These returns are split into buckets based on the reading from the St. Louis Fed's Price Pressures Measure (PPM). The PPM is a composite of 104 economic indicators designed to measure the probability that inflation will exceed 2.5% during the next 12 months. As can be seen, average monthly excess returns are strongest when inflation pressures are low, but they gradually decline as inflation heats up and the Fed's reaction function becomes less supportive for markets. At present, the PPM gives a reading of only 4.8%. Table 1Investment Grade Corporate Bond Excess Returns* Under Different ##br## Ranges Of Price Pressures Measure** (January 1990 To Present) Similarly, Table 2 shows that it is difficult to get a long-lasting correction in an environment with low inflation pressures and a responsive Fed. This table shows the results of a "buy the dips" trading strategy where if the average junk spread widens by 20 basis points we buy the junk index versus duration-matched Treasuries and hold it for a period of 1, 2 or 3 months. Just as in Table 1, this strategy works well when inflation pressures are muted, but starts to fail as inflation ramps up. Table 2High-Yield Corporate Bond Returns* Achieved By Holding The Junk Index ##br## Following A 20 BPs Widening In High-Yield Corporate OAS** Under Different Ranges Of ##br## The St. Louis Fed Price Pressures Measure*** (February 1994 To Present) Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves So when will the Fed staunch the current rally? That depends on how quickly inflation rebounds,2 and also on how much emphasis Fed policymakers place on financial conditions versus the actual inflation data. At the moment, most indexes are sending the message that financial conditions are easier than average and that the Fed should continue to tighten (Chart 3). However, as was noted above, inflation gauges are sending the opposite signal (Chart 3, panel 2). For now, the Fed is downplaying low inflation as transitory. It decided to leave its median projected rate hike path unchanged at the June FOMC meeting. But the Fed's refusal to capitulate in the face of weaker inflation has caused the yield curve to flatten, the cost of inflation protection to plummet (Chart 3, bottom panel) and investors to grow increasingly concerned about a policy mistake (Chart 4). Chart 3Financial Conditions Are Supportive Chart 4Should The Fed Keep Tightening? This brings up an interesting flaw in the financial conditions approach to policymaking. Most indexes of financial conditions are at least partially driven by long-maturity Treasury yields (lower yields = easier financial conditions, and vice-versa). This makes some sense. Lower yields do in fact indicate that the financing back-drop is more supportive and tend to translate into higher growth in the future (Chart 5). Chart 5Financial Conditions Lead Economic Growth However, what if lower long-maturity Treasury yields are the result of excessively tight Fed policy? This would appear to be the case at the moment. Investors are revising their long-run inflation forecasts lower on the view that the Fed is not doing enough to allow prices to rise. In such a situation it would be incorrect to interpret lower Treasury yields as a signal that policy needs to tighten further. On the contrary, tighter policy would only exacerbate the downtrend in yields. For this reason we do not include the level of yields in the financial conditions component of our Fed Monitor (Chart 3, top panel). As a result, this financial conditions indicator is not as deep in "easing territory" as most other indicators. However, it is still above the zero line, suggesting that policy should be biased tighter at the margin. Bottom Line: Low inflation is preventing rate hike expectations from being revised higher, prolonging the current rally in spread product. We expect rate hike expectations to move up as inflation recovers, eventually leading to a correction in spread product. Such a correction will prove fleeting as long as inflation remains below the Fed's target. The key risk is that inflation stays low but the Fed continues to focus exclusively on "easy" readings from financial conditions indexes, and proceeds on its current tightening path. In that scenario cries of "policy mistake" will grow louder and spread product will sell off, converging with lower rate hike expectations. We view this scenario as a low-probability tail risk. Junk Valuation Update At 378 bps, the average spread on the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index is only 55 bps above its post-crisis low, but still more than 100 bps above the level where it tends to settle in the late stages of the economic cycle when the Fed is tightening policy (Chart 6, top panel). Higher debt levels than are typical for this stage of the cycle suggest that somewhat wider spreads are justified,3 but the idea that junk spreads are extremely tight compared to history does not hold up to scrutiny. Chart 6High-Yield Default-Adjusted Spread Our preferred measure of junk valuation, the default-adjusted high-yield spread, paints an even rosier picture. The second panel of Chart 6 shows an ex-post measure of the default-adjusted spread (the option-adjusted spread of the high-yield index less actual default losses over the subsequent 12 months). The most recent reading from this indicator is based on our forecast of default losses for the next 12 months, and is shown as a dashed line. The message from the default-adjusted spread is that, assuming our default loss forecast is correct, junk bonds currently offer compensation for default risk that is in line with the historical average. That level of compensation would be consistent with an excess return of just over 200 bps during the next 12 months (Chart 6, panel 3), and is contingent on the speculative grade default rate falling to 2.68%, in line with Moody's baseline forecast (Chart 6, bottom panel). We expect a decline in the default rate to materialize in the coming months as commodity sector defaults continue to work their way out of the data. Moody's did not record any commodity-related defaults in May, the first month this has occurred since January 2015. The risk going forward is that defaults start to emerge in the increasingly stressed retail sector. So far, Moody's has recorded two retail defaults this year. However, more are probably on the way. This will be especially true if inflationary pressures start to mount and the Fed tightens policy, giving banks less incentive to extend credit. We will be monitoring the situation in retail closely going forward. Bottom Line: High-yield valuation is consistent with its historical average, after accounting for expected default losses. Current valuation levels should translate into excess returns of just over 200 bps during the next 12 months. Aaa Roundup As can be inferred from the previous two sections, we are still reasonably comfortable taking credit risk in U.S. bond portfolios. However, this week we also look at the compensation offered by Aaa-rated spread product. For investors who desire some Aaa-rated allocation outside of the Treasury market, Chart 7 provides a snapshot of where the most additional spread is available. The first thing that jumps out is that Agency bonds offer very little spread compared to other Aaa-rated instruments. Agency residential mortgage-backed securities also offer relatively little compensation, unless one is willing to extend into premium coupons (4% and above). Agency CMBS, auto ABS and credit card ABS all offer more spread than Aaa-rated corporate bonds. Non-agency CMBS offer much more attractive spreads than the other Aaa sectors, but we see potential for capital losses in that segment, as is discussed below. Agency MBS Only agency MBS carrying coupons of 4% or above offer interesting compensation relative to other Aaa-rated sectors, and even there we see potential for spread widening in the coming months. Nominal MBS spreads are already very tight compared to history (Chart 8) and appear even tighter relative to trends in net issuance (Chart 8, panel 2). While refinancing activity will likely stay depressed (Chart 8, panel 3), we see potential for option-adjusted spreads to follow net issuance higher, even as the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) remains low. A similar scenario played out in 2007 (Chart 8, bottom panel). The Fed's exit from the MBS market, which could occur as early as September, represents an additional upside risk for spreads. Chart 8MBS Spreads Biased Wider Chart 9Avoid Non-Agency CMBS CMBS As noted above, non-agency CMBS look very attractive compared to other Aaa-rated spread products. But we see potential for spread widening in this sector. Commercial real estate lending standards are tightening and property prices are decelerating, both should pressure non-agency CMBS spreads wider (Chart 9). Agency CMBS offer somewhat lower spreads than their non-agency counterparts. But this sector should be more insulated from spread widening. For one thing, Agency CMBS are mostly backed by multi-family loans. Multi-family property prices have been stronger than those in the retail or office segments (Chart 9, panel 3), and multi-family properties have also experienced much lower delinquencies (Chart 9, bottom panel). Consumer ABS Chart 10Credit Cards Greater Than Autos While Chart 7 shows that Aaa-rated auto ABS offer a slight spread advantage over Aaa-rated credit card ABS, we are inclined to view credit card ABS more favorably. Rising auto loan net loss rates pose a risk for auto ABS spreads, while credit card charge-offs remain historically low (Chart 10). Auto lending standards have also moved deep into "net tightening" territory, while credit card lending standards have dipped back into "net easing" territory. The small extra compensation available in auto ABS relative to credit card ABS does not seem to be worth the extra risk. Bottom Line: Non-agency CMBS offer the most spread pick-up of any Aaa-rated sector. However, we view the risk of a further widening in non-agency CMBS spreads as substantial. We prefer to focus our Aaa-rated spread product exposure in Agency CMBS and credit card backed consumer ABS. Both sectors offer reasonably attractive spreads, and should remain insulated from capital losses going forward. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Caught In A Loop", dated September 29, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Our view is that core inflation will rebound fairly quickly. For further details please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Scenarios For Treasury Yields In 2017", dated June 20, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For further details please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Low Inflation And Rising Debt", dated June 13, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Swap consumer staples into financials in our pair trade versus the tech sector. Relative profit fundamentals signal that this relative share price ratio will soon come alive. Global growth tailwinds argue for lifting the air freight & logistics index to high-conviction overweight status. Recent Changes S&P Financials/S&P Tech - Switch the long side of the S&P Consumer Staples/S&P Tech pair trade from S&P Consumer Staples to S&P Financials. S&P Consumer Staples - Remove from the high-conviction overweight list. S&P Air Freight & Logistics - Add to the high-conviction overweight list. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Feature Equities broke out to new highs early last week, and there are good odds that a playable rally will unfold. Investors' jitters have recently focused on the bear market in oil prices and weak core CPI, which have joined forces to push down inflation expectations (Chart 1). However, we have a more bullish interpretation. Unlike in late-2015/early-2016, oil and stock prices have decoupled. True, energy stocks are plumbing multi-decade lows relative to the broad market, but the energy sector comprises less than 6% of the S&P 500's market cap. In fact, the two largest S&P 500 constituents have a greater weight than the 34 stocks in the S&P energy index combined. In other words, the energy sector's broad market influence has been severely diluted. We think it is unlikely that the positive correlation between oil and stock prices reasserts itself. Rather, our sense is that this is likely an energy/commodity-centered deflation that will not have a serious contagion on the rest of the corporate sector. High yield energy spreads continue to widen, but the overall junk spread is flirting with cyclical lows. This stands in marked contrast with the summer of 2014 and late-2015, the last time oil prices melted (second panel, Chart 1). Chart 2 shows that the nonfarm business sector and the GDP implicit price deflators, both of which are reliable corporate sector pricing power proxies, are positively deviating from core CPI. These deflators have historically been excellent leading indicators of inflation and signal that the recent poor inflation prints will likely prove transitory. Importantly, the U.S. is a large closed economy that benefits greatly from lower oil prices, via a boost to discretionary income. Lower energy costs are adding to an already stimulative backdrop owing to the decline in the U.S. dollar and Treasury yields. At the margin, the broad corporate sector also benefits from oil price deflation: energy is a non-trivial input cost. Our more optimistic overall economic and market outlook is also borne out by survey data: economists revised higher their U.S and global GDP growth expectations both for 2017 and 2018, according to Bloomberg estimates (bottom panel, Chart 1). Finally, real yields, the bond market's gauge for economic growth expectations, have climbed close to a 2-year high, and suggest that GDP growth will soon pick up steam (Chart 1). Our view remains that this is a goldilocks scenario for equities, as it may keep the Fed at bay for a while longer and sustain easy financial conditions. This thesis also assumes that the corporate sector will maintain its pricing power gains, and likely pull consumer prices out of their lull. On that front, we have updated our corporate pricing power proxy and while it has lost some steam of late, it continues to expand at a healthy clip (Chart 3). Chart 1Decoupled Chart 2Implicit Price Deflators Lead Core CPI Chart 3Corporate Pricing Power Is Fine Table 2 shows our updated industry group pricing power gauges, which are calculated from the relevant CPI, PPI, PCE and commodity growth rates for each of the 60 industry groups we track. The table also highlights shorter term pricing power trends and each industry's spread to overall inflation in order to identify potential profit winners and losers. Table 2Industry Group Pricing Power Our analysis concludes that still ¾ of the industries we cover are enjoying rising selling prices and 43% are also beating overall inflation rates. Admittedly, the inflation rates have come down since our April update, and there was a tick up in the number of deflating industries from 14 to 16, but that figure is still down from the 19 registered in January. Importantly, 27 out of 60 industries have clocked a rising pricing power trend down from 31 in April, but still up from 20 in January, 14 have a flat trend and 19 are falling. Encouragingly, corporate sector selling prices are still comfortably outpacing wage inflation, which suggests that the positive momentum in profit margins has staying power (Chart 3). One theme that stands out from our analysis is that commodity related industries have either falling or flat inflation trends, with the exception of aluminum and chemicals. We take this as confirmation that resources are at the epicenter of deflation/disinflation pressures. Similarly, the majority of tech sub-sectors are still fighting deflation and suffer from a flat or down trend in selling prices. Adding it all up, the recent mild slowdown in corporate sector selling prices is transitory, mostly commodity related and unlikely to infect the broad business sector. There are high odds that an earnings-led playable break out phase in the equity market will develop from here. This week we promote an industrials sub-sector to our high-conviction overweight list and swap a safe haven sector out, and also tweak our long/short pair trade. Pair Trade Tweak: Long Financials/Short Tech Over the past month, we have reduced the extent of our consumer staples overweight, downgrading soft drinks to underweight and hypermarkets to neutral. In contrast, in May we boosted the S&P financials index to overweight on the back of improving earnings fundamentals. As a result, swapping out consumer staples for financials in our existing pair trade versus the tech sector makes sense. This relative share price ratio is at a critical juncture and has dropped to its long term support level (top panel, Chart 4). Importantly, the relative market capitalization differential is at its widest gap since the tech bubble (Chart 5) and a renormalization is in order. Chart 4Long Term Support Should Hold Chart 5Unsustainable Gap The valuation case is equally compelling: financials are deeply undervalued and unloved compared with the tech sector (Chart 4), such that even a modest shift in sentiment would drive a large relative price swing. The macro outlook is rife with catalysts to trigger a renormalization. Our respective Cyclical Macro Indicators (CMI) signal that financials profits will best tech sector earnings in the coming quarters (top panel, Chart 6). Historically, relative performance has moved in lockstep with relative profitability. The message from our CMIs is that relative earnings will move decisively in favor of the financials sector, thereby producing positive price momentum (bottom panel, Chart 6). A simple relative demand indicator concurs with our CMIs message: bank loan growth should outpace tech capital expenditures in the back half of the year. The middle panel of Chart 6 shows our recently published bank loans and leases regression model compared with our U.S. Capex Indicator (a good proxy for tech spending) and the message is to expect a catchup phase in relative share prices. If our thesis proves accurate, then relative demand will soon show up in relative top line figures. On that front, our forward looking relative sales per share models argue that the budding recovery in relative revenue is sustainable (Chart 7). Relative pricing power dynamics provide another source of support, both in terms of sales and operating profit margins. Firming financials pricing power is the mirror image of chronically deflating tech selling prices (Chart 7). Keep in mind that overall mild price inflation is a boon for financials because it will keep monetary conditions from becoming overly tight, which would undermine credit quality and availability. Using the nonfarm business sector's implicit price deflator as a proxy for overall inflation, the (third panel, Chart 7) shows that relative share prices move in lockstep with overall corporate sector prices. In terms of economic undercurrents, if geopolitical risks remain muted and financial conditions reasonably accommodative, then a further boost in economic and investor sentiment is likely. History shows that the financials/tech share price ratio has benefited when risk premia recede. The same relationship is also evident in the positive correlation with our U.S. sentiment indicator and real 10-year bond yield (Chart 8), and inverse correlation with corporate bond spreads (not shown). Chart 6Heed The Relative##br## CMI Signal Chart 7Financials Have##br## The Upper Hand Chart 8Improving Economy = ##br##Go Long Financials/Short Tech Finally, recent positive bank sector news suggests that financials have the upper hand in this share price ratio. Banks passed the Fed's stringent stress test with flying colors and should become more shareholder friendly, i.e. boost dividend payouts and reinstate/augment share retirement. In addition, even a modest watering down of Dodd-Frank will also lift the appeal of banks and financials at the expense of tech stocks in the coming quarters. Adding it up, we recommend swapping consumer staples with financials in our pair trade versus the tech sector. Relative profit fundamentals suggest that this relative share price ratio will soon spring into action. Bottom Line: Switch consumer staples out and sub financials in the pair trade versus tech stocks. We are also removing the S&P consumer staples index from our high-conviction overweight list for a modest gain of 0.1% since the early-January inclusion. The latter move makes room for an upgrade to high-conviction of a transportation sub-group that has caught fire since our recent upgrade to overweight. Air Freight Stocks Achieve Liftoff! We raised the S&P air freight & logistics group to overweight two months ago, reflecting a lack of recognition in either valuations or earnings estimates that a global trade revival was unfolding and washed out technical conditions. Since then, this transportation sub-group has regained its footing, and firming profit fundamentals now embolden us to add air freight stocks to our high-conviction overweight list. The relative share price ratio has smartly bounced off its GFC lows. Similarly, our Technical Indicator found support at one standard deviation below the historical mean, a typical launch point for playable rallies. Importantly, deeply discounted valuations remain in place, both in terms of P/S and P/E ratios (Chart 9). We expect the rebound in global growth to help unlock excellent value in air freight equities. Global trade is reviving. The synchronized DM and EM economic recovery has buoyed the global manufacturing PMI, which continues to trend well above the boom/bust line. Both global export volumes and prices are expanding. Yet buoyant global trade expectations are still not reflected in tumbling relative sales expectations (Chart 10). Chart 9Unwarranted ##br##Grounding Chart 10Buoyant Trade Growth Is Neither Reflected##br## In Collapsing Sales Expectations... Chart 11 highlights two additional Indicators to gauge the stage of the global trade recovery. Korea and Taiwan are two small open economies: exports in both countries are accelerating. Meanwhile, our Global Trade Activity Indicator, comprising the economically-sensitive Baltic Dry Index and lumber prices, is also waving a green flag. The upshot is that a number of Indicators confirm that a durable pickup in trade is underway, which should ultimately translate into a recovery in relative earnings expectations (Chart 11). Domestically, business shipments-to-inventories ratios are expanding comfortably in all three major segments: manufacturing, wholesale and retail (bottom panel, Chart 10). Anecdotally, recent news that FedEx beat both top and bottom line estimates also reinforces a firm global activity backdrop. All of this serves as reliable evidence that the budding recovery in global (and domestic) growth has morphed into a sustainable advance. The implication is that air freight pricing power has ample room to grow. Wholesale price momentum has reached a 5-year high. If our thesis plays out, more pricing power gains are in store, which will boost profit margins given the industry's impressive labor cost restraint and high operating leverage (Chart 12). Chart 11...Nor In Depressed##br## Forward EPS Chart 12Margin Expansion##br##Phase Looms Finally while investors are digesting the Walmart in-store pick up option and Amazon's push for its own delivery service plans, the persistent ascent in online shopping suggests that the structural increase in rapid delivery services will remain intact. Investors should expect pricing power to gravitate toward the long-term trend (bottom panel, Chart 12). Tack on the recent corrective action in the commodity pits and this group also benefits from the fall in fuel costs. Taken together, profit margins should resume expanding. In sum, appealing relative valuations along with a durable synchronized global growth rebound argue for increasing conviction in our overweight position in this transportation sub-group. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P air freight & logistics group (UPS, FDX, CHRW, EXPD), and bump it to the high-conviction overweight list. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.