Monetary

Special Report

Dear Client, Wednesday, we sent you a Special Report by our Global Investment Strategist, Peter Berezin titled: The Return of Vol, which fleshed out BCA's view on the recent volatility spike and the associated market selloff. BCA believes that markets are realizing that U.S. inflation is not forever dead. As such, market volatility is set to rise, even if global equities can make new highs. From an FX perspective, a rise in U.S. inflation, especially when accompanied by the kind of spending programs announced this week in Washington DC, could result in a period of strength for the U.S. dollar. Additionally, since financial markets tend to experience clusters of volatility, the recent bout of volatility can stay in place for a while. High volatility tends to be negative for carry trades, hence EM currencies could suffer this quarter. The Australian dollar and the euro could also decline under this scenario. However, the yen and CHF may experience upside, but mostly against other currencies than the greenback. In this present report, we are updating our views on the G10 central banks. Best regards, Mathieu Savary Feature In our Special Report published last summer titled "Who Hikes Next?" we examined which of the G10 central banks would be next to join the Federal Reserve on its tightening path.1 Seven months later, we now know that the Bank of Canada and, to a lesser extent, the Bank of England, were respective second and third to begin raising their own policy rates. It is now time to revisit the topic and see which central banks are most likely to adjust their policy further. As Chart 1 shows, global goods prices have picked up steam, which has been translated in an ebbing of global deflationary forces. A few factors lie behind this improvement. First, China is not exporting deflation around the world anymore because the trade-weighted yuan has been stable and producer price inflation, which currently stands at 5%, has been in positive territory for 15 straight months. Second, thanks to ebullient global growth, global capacity utilization has grown significantly. Third, oil prices have climbed further. This development has been particularly meaningful as it has contributed to a significant pick-up in market-based inflation expectations. But as in every economic cycle, some risks are worth monitoring. As we have highlighted before, global money growth has slowed, Chinese monetary conditions have tightened meaningfully and Asian manufacturing activity has decelerated in a wide swath of countries. Even BCA's Global Capex Indicator (Chart 1, bottom panel), which flashed an unabashed green light last June, has begun to roll over. The recent market shakeup has also reminded investors that higher bond yields do have an impact on asset prices and economic growth. Despite these worries, we expect more central banks to join the fray this year and begin removing accommodation one way or another. Others will shy away, but they will guide markets toward expecting less monetary accommodation next year. Finally, some central banks will likely stand pat, and will leave their policy settings unchanged. Chart 2 illustrates where we think G10 central banks stand in their respective hiking cycles. Chart 1The Reasons Why Central Banks Are Tightening Chart 2G10 Central Banks Map The Hikers 1) The U.S. Chart 3U.S. The Federal Reserve will continue to tighten policy this year. To begin with, its communications on the topic have been extremely clear: the Federal Open Market Committee wants to increase interest rates three times in 2018. The Fed has good reasons for this hawkish stance. The gap between the real policy rate and the recent average of real GDP growth remains in stimulative territory (Chart 3). Meanwhile, U.S. financial conditions have rarely been easier, yet the economy is receiving a boost thanks to tax cuts and spending increases. There is, therefore, little mystery as to why survey data point to healthy GDP growth for the first half of 2018. In fact, the Atlanta Fed GDPnow model currently forecasts a growth rate of 4.0% for the first quarter of this year. This is an inflationary combination. It is not just growth conditions that are creating tailwinds for the Fed. Resource utilization is also elevated. According to the CBO, the U.S. output gap closed last year, and the unemployment rate not only stands at its lowest level in 17 years, but it is also well below equilibrium. We are already seeing the symptoms of this state of affairs: the employment cost index is growing at 2.6%/annum, its highest rate in three years; the growth of average hourly earnings just hit 2.9%/annum, and even core inflation is bottoming. These developments will give comfort to the Fed that hiking rates three times this year is the right strategy. The Hikers 2) Canada Chart 4Canada The Bank of Canada has already increased rates three times since we first explored this topic last summer. Like the Fed, the BoC has strong justification behind its hawkish stance. While the policy rate is not as stimulative as it was last year, capacity utilization has become much tighter (Chart 4). The unemployment rate is now back in line with its underlying equilibrium, and the BoC's Business Outlook Survey shows that the quantity and intensity of labor shortages have become elevated, which has historically led to higher wages. Additionally, the OECD's approximation of the output gap has closed, something also acknowledged by the BoC's models. Core inflation has begun to respond, rising to 1.5% in December. The current backdrop suggests this trend has further to go. Moreover, as exports to the U.S. represent 20% of Canada's GDP, the economic vigor south of the border will only translate into further inflationary pressures up north. Based on these factors, we expect the BoC to increase rates as much as the Fed in 2018. This view is not without risks. NAFTA negotiations remain rocky, and the uncertainty emanating from trade policy could hurt Canadian capex. Additionally, Canadian house prices remain 31% above fair value, Canadians sport a debt load of 170% of disposable income, and a growing array of macro-prudential measures are being implemented to slow the housing market. If this combination bites deeply - which remains to be seen - the BoC may be forced to, at least, pause its tightening policy faster than anticipated. Still Hiking? 3) The U.K. Chart 5U.K. On many metrics, the Bank of England looks set to hike again in 2018. There is no denying that British monetary policy remains extremely easy, as the gap between the real policy rate and real GDP growth is still in massively stimulative territory (Chart 5). Moreover, according to the OECD, the output gap stands at 0.4% of potential GDP. This observation seems to be corroborated by the fact that the unemployment rate remains nearly 1% below its equilibrium value. Adding credence to these assertions, U.K. core inflation spiked as high as 2.9% one month ago. However, make no mistake: the spike in inflation, while facilitated by tight supply conditions, is still mostly a consequence of the pass-through created by the pound's collapse in 2016. Because the rate of change of the pound has stabilized, the U.K.'s inflation rate will fall back to earth. Moreover, the outlook for British consumption is murky as the household savings rate has plunged to a mere 5.2% of disposable income, and debt growth is peaking. Corporations too have curtailed their borrowings, pointing to a weak capex outlook. While the MPC would like to hike once or twice this year, since a policy tightening is contingent on elevated inflation, the central bank may once again disappoint. For now, rate hikes look likely, but this may change if inflation decelerates sharply. In The Starting Blocs For 2018 4) Sweden Chart 6Sweden The December policy statement by the Riksbank highlighted that while the world's oldest central bank will reinvest the proceeds from redemptions and coupon payments from its large bond portfolio, it still expects to begin lifting its benchmark rate in the middle of 2018. This is not a minute too soon. Swedish monetary conditions are incredibly easy: Real interest rates are 6% below the average real GDP growth of the past three years (Chart 6). Moreover, Sweden is facing growing capacity constraints. The unemployment rate is nearly 1% below equilibrium, and according to the OECD, the output gap stands at 1.5% of GDP, the most positive number among the G10. The Riksbank's own capacity utilization measure - an excellent leading indicator of inflation - is at a 10-year high, pointing to further acceleration in a core inflation that is already very close to 2%. Additionally, Sweden is in the thralls of a massive real estate bubble, a byproduct of extremely loose monetary policy. The external environment will remain the main source of risk to this hawkish outlook. On the plus side, the European Central Bank has begun tapering its QE program and should end new purchases in September 2018. This limits how high the SEK can spike against the euro - the currency of Sweden's main trading partner - if the Riksbank tightens policy. However, Asian industrial production has slowed sharply, and Swedish PMIs are already buckling. Any deepening of the recent selloff in risk assets, especially if it spreads further into commodities, could cause Riksbank Governor Stefan Ingves to retreat to his dovish safe place. In The Starting Blocs For 2019... Or 2018 5) New Zealand Chart 7New Zealand The Reserve Banks of New Zealand is slated to hike rates by mid-2019. However, risks are growing that the RBNZ could be forced into an earlier first hike. Policy is currently massively accommodating as the real official cash rate stands nearly 4% below the average real GDP growth of the past three years (Chart 7). At 1.4%, core inflation remains below the RBNZ's target, but it is on a rising trend, especially as the Kiwi economy is beyond full employment and the OECD's measure for New Zealand's output gap is at 0.8% of potential GDP. Moreover, GDP growth remains robust, and terms of trade have been improving as dairy prices are still firm, thus a further overheating in this economy is likely. The political front could also give impetus for the RBNZ to hike earlier than it recently suggested. The Ardern government has proposed increasing the minimum wage to NZ$20/hour by 2021, starting in April 2018. This could fuel already improving wages, and thus fan inflation. This government also plans to increase fiscal spending, which tends to exacerbate inflationary pressures when an economy is at full capacity. Thus, inflationary risks in New Zealand are skewed to the upside. In The Starting Blocs For 2019... Or 2018 6) Norway Chart 8Norway The Norges Bank anticipates it will begin to increase rates toward the middle of 2018. The Norwegian central bank is facing an interesting cross current. On the one hand, when compared with other nations on the list, the Norwegian economy seems less ripe to withstand higher rates. To begin with, because Norwegian core inflation has fallen precipitously in recent years, the gap between real interest rates and the average real GDP growth of the past three years has narrowed considerably (Chart 8). Moreover, the unemployment rate remains 0.9% above equilibrium, while a more broad-based measure of slack, the output gap, stands at -1.6% of potential GDP, at least according to the OECD. Moreover, core inflation only hovers near a 1.2% annual pace and is expected to stay below 2.5% in the coming years. Despite these negatives for Norway, some important positives also exist, which explains the Norges Bank's optimism. The Norwegian economy did not go through much of a financial crisis this cycle; as a result, Norwegian banks are healthy, and the Norwegian money multiplier never imploded as it did in other G10 countries. Also, the Norwegian krone is very cheap, adding a further reflationary impulse beyond low rates. Moreover, Norwegian GDP growth has experienced a rebound on the back of rallying oil prices. However, oil prices are nearing the top end of our energy strategists' forecasts, suggesting this tailwind is receding. Altogether, this confluence of factors suggests that similar to the RBNZ, the Norges Bank is likely to hike rates in early 2019 or late 2018. 2019 Take Off 7) Australia Chart 9Australia The Reserve Bank of Australia may well begin increasing interest rates in early 2019. Many factors would argue that the RBA could in fact increase interest rates earlier. Even though it is less accommodative than Sweden's or New Zealand's, Australian monetary policy is quite easy as the gap between the real policy rate and the average real GDP growth rate of the past three years is well into negative territory (Chart 9). Additionally, core inflation has rebounded hitting 1.9% recently, while trimmed-mean CPI stands at 1.8%. Among additional positives, Australia's national income is growing at a robust 4.3% annual pace and job creation is brisk, with payrolls expanding at an impressive 3.6% rate on a yearly basis. These positives mask some stiff headwinds. Rapid national income growth will likely peter out. It was the result of the very large rebound in the RBA's commodity price index, however, this benchmark, which was growing at a 53% annual rate in February 2017, is now contracting at a 1% annual rate. Additionally, the OECD's measure for the Australian output gap stands at -1.5%. While it is true that the unemployment rate is below its equilibrium rate, the RBA's labor underutilization measure remains near 25-year highs. This explains why robust job creation is not being translated into wage gains, and suggests that the RBA is right to expect trimmed-mean inflation to durably be at 2-2.25% only by the end of 2019. Moreover, the recent strength in the AUD will also weigh on inflation going forward. Netting out pros and cons suggests that the most likely first hike by the RBA will be in early 2019. 2019 Take Off 8) Euro Area Chart 10Euro Area The European Central Bank has begun tapering its QE program, and if the global economy does not experience any meaningful relapse, the ECB will end new purchases this September. However, a rate hike is not in the offing this year. To begin with, the ECB's communications on the topic have been rather clear: At its latest press conference, President Mario Draghi once again rejected any possibility of a move this year, and even Jens Weidmann, the Bundesbank's head, acknowledged that the current market pricing - a hike in the summer of 2019 - is about right. While it is true that the ECB's monetary policy setting is still very accommodative, the unemployment rate remains 0.8% above equilibrium, and outside of Germany, labor underutilization is still high. Moreover, the OECD's estimate of the euro area's output gap still stands at -0.5% of potential GDP (Chart 10). Another hurdle is core CPI which remains well below the ECB's objective; in fact, after hitting 1.2% in May, inflation excluding food and energy has now relapsed to 0.9%. Peripheral nations are experiencing even weaker inflation readings. With the ECB's inflation forecast still well below target until 2020, a rate hike will have to wait until next year. The Laggards 9) Switzerland Chart 11Switzerland The Swiss National Bank remains firmly among the lagging central banks within the G10. Because inflation is still at only 0.7%, the gap between real interest rates and average real GDP growth of the past three years is among the least stimulative in the G10 (Chart 11). Corroborating this observation, loan growth has averaged a paltry 4% over the course of the past three years. Moreover, the Swiss economy is still replete with excess capacity. The unemployment rate may be a low 3%, but it still stands 1.3% above equilibrium, and Swiss wage growth remains very depressed. Moreover, the OECD pegs the Swiss output gap at -1.2% of potential GDP. On a PPP basis, the Swiss franc remains 5% overvalued against the euro, Swiss core inflation was only 0.7% in December, but better than the -1% posted in early 2016. The SNB is likely to officially abandon its foreign asset purchases this year. The Swiss economy has recovered from its doldrums of the past several years, and most importantly, the euro crisis is now fully in the rearview mirror. This means that safe-haven flows out of the euro area, which were pushing the CHF to nosebleed valuation levels, have dried up. In fact, this year's weakness in the franc versus the euro was not accompanied by much increases in SNB sight deposits, suggesting this depreciation has been organic and not manufactured in Bern and Zurich. However, until core CPI moves closer to 2% and Swiss wages pick up, the SNB will likely lag the ECB when it comes to actual interest rate increases amid fears that the Swiss franc will rebound and tighten policy again. A late 2019 or early 2020 hike remains the most likely scenario. The Laggards 10) Japan Chart 12Japan The Bank of Japan is also faraway from increasing policy rates. This is not because the Japanese economy is replete with excess slack. It is not. The active job openings-to-applicants ratio stands at a whopping 44-year high, the unemployment rate is 0.8% below equilibrium and the OECD's estimate of the output gap is in positive territory (Chart 12). However, despite this very inflationary backdrop, inflation excluding food and energy remains a paltry 0.3%/annum. The BoJ has rightfully identified moribund inflation expectations as the key to unlocking this mystery. Decades of deflation have created a deflationary mindset among Japanese economic agents. As a result, wages and inflation itself are not experiencing much of a lift. The BoJ is tackling this issue head on, and has made it clear that it will not abandon its yield curve control strategy until inflation is well above its 2% target. In the BoJ's view, an inflationary overshoot is now necessary to shock deflationary mentalities, which will be the keystone to let inflation take off in durable fashion. For now, the tight negative relationship between Japanese financial conditions and inflation suggests the BoJ will do its utmost to contain the yen, which would undermine the progress made in recent quarters. As such, we do not foresee any rate hikes until well into 2019. QQE is likely to be abandoned first, as in practice the BoJ has not hit its JGB purchases target since the first half of 2016. Investment Implications The dollar could experience a further lift in the first half of 2018. Investors plunked the greenback last year and in the opening weeks of 2018 because they had been focusing on the far future - a future in which the ECB hikes rates faster than the Fed. But the reality remains that this year and next, the Fed will lift interest rates much more than the ECB. This means the euro is vulnerable to a pullback as it is very expensive relative to differentials at the front end of the curve. The outlook for EUR/USD will improve again once we get closer to 2019. The CAD has niether much upside nor downside. Interest rate markets are pricing in as many interest rate increases as we are. The key for the CAD will once again be oil prices, but keep in mind that Brent prices are not far off from our energy strategists' target of US$67/bbl. The SEK and the NOK will likely experience upside versus the euro. Their central banks are also set to pull the trigger before the ECB. Moreover, these two currencies are very cheap. However, the ride is unlikely to be a smooth one. The budding slowdown in Asian manufacturing could generate temporary hiccups before yearend that will cause these extremely pro-cyclical currencies to swoon. The picture for the pound remains as murky as ever. On one hand, the BoE has begun to increase rates. However, this progress could run astray very easily if, as we expect, British inflation weakens anew. Moreover, Brexit negotiations with the rest of the EU are far from fully settled. Further, the trade-weighted pound is moving toward the top end of its post-Brexit range, making it highly vulnerable to even a modest disappointment. The Australian dollar is likely to experience a poor 2018, as the RBA is a long way from increasing interest rates, and on all the long-term metrics we track, the AUD is one of the most expensive currencies. A continuation of the recent spat of asset market volatility could prove to be unkind to the Aussie. The kiwi will likely outperform its antipodean brethren as we see upside risk for interest rates in New Zealand. Finally, Swiss and Japanese interest rates will remain near current levels for a few more years. This suggests that the Swiss franc and the yen have little durable upside this year. The same holds true for the first half of 2019. However, since Switzerland and Japan still sport hefty current account surpluses and supersized positive net international investment positions, the CHF and JPY will continue to behave as safe-haven currencies, rallying when global asset prices weaken. This means that since markets tend to experience volatility clusters, the recent bout of market volatility could continue, which will help both the Swiss franc and the yen over the coming weeks. This will be especially true if the CHF and JPY are bought against the EUR, AUD, CAD, and NZD. But beware: the yen is especially cheap, so any signs that inflation expectations of Japanese agents pick up could be associated with a sharp rally in the yen, as it will spell imminent doom for the BoJ's YCC strategy. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Who Hikes Next?", dated June 30, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades

Highlights This week's global equities sell-off spilled into oil markets, taking Brent and WTI down 2.7% and 3.7% as of Tuesday's close, in line with the S&P 500 decline, which began Friday. In line with our House view, we do not believe this will, in and of itself, deter the Fed from raising overnight rates four times this year. Nor do we believe oil-price weakness earlier this week reflects a breakdown in fundamentals. Any demand-dampening effects coming from a stronger USD in the wake of Fed rate hikes will have a muted effect on oil prices, provided OPEC 2.0 can maintain production discipline, and, critically, keep the Brent and WTI forward curves backwardated.1 Likewise, any demand stimulation coming from a weaker USD in the wake of a more measured Fed policy - e.g., two or three hikes - also will be muted by backwardation. Energy: Overweight. Fundamentally, we cannot see anything that warrants a change in our average-price forecast of $67 and $63/bbl for Brent and WTI this year. Our long Jul/18 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI calendar spread, put on in expectation of continued backwardation in oil forward curves, is up 81.5% since Nov 2/17, when we recommended it. Base Metals: Neutral. Base metals also were caught up in the equities sell-off, with spot copper trading ~ $3.15 - $3.20/lb on the COMEX. As with oil, we do not see the equities sell-off as a harbinger of a bearish shift in base metals fundamentals. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold returns were relatively flat amid the equities sell-off with only a 0.6% loss. Our long gold portfolio hedge is up 7.9% since it was recommended on May 4/17. Ags/Softs: Underweight. China opened an anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigation into U.S. sorghum imports, which the country's foreign ministry insisted was not related to recent U.S. tariffs on solar panels and washing machines. China accounts for ~ 80% of U.S. sorghum exports. Feature The global equity sell-off spilled into oil markets, with Brent and WTI prompt futures down 2.7% and 3.7% over the past week when the equity slide began (Chart of The Week). The proximate cause of the equities down leg appears to be the stronger-than-expected U.S. wage growth reported last week, suggesting inflationary pressures continue to build in the U.S. This prompted speculation the Fed would be inclined to increase the number of rate hikes it executes this year - going from a consensus view of three hikes to four - and that financial conditions would tighten. The equities sell-off this prompted then led to speculation the Fed would dial back the number of rate hikes it executes this year. We believe the Fed will look through the recent equity-market volatility, and will lift rates four times this year, in line with BCA's once-out-of-consensus House view. Chart of the WeekOil Prices Caught Up In Equities Sell-Off Chart 2Fundamentals Support Backwardation As far as oil markets are concerned, as long as the Brent and WTI forward curves remain backwardated (Chart 2), any impact from U.S. monetary policy on oil prices - chiefly through currency effects - will be muted. Demand-dampening effects coming from a stronger USD in the wake of Fed rate hikes will be dissipated in backwardated markets. Likewise, any demand stimulation coming from a weaker USD in the wake of fewer rate hikes policy at the Fed - e.g., two or three hikes - will be muted by backwardation. Fundamentals Dominate Oil-Price Evolution Chart 3Strong Fundamentals##BR##Force Inventories Lower Fundamentals point to continued tightening of crude oil markets in 1H18, the period we have the greatest visibility on: OPEC 2.0's production cuts are pretty much locked in to end-June, when the producer coalition again will meet to assess market conditions, and global demand growth will remain robust. Even with U.S. shale-oil output increasing, OECD inventories will continue to draw during this period (Chart 3). OPEC 2.0's goal of reducing OECD inventories to five-year average levels likely will be met late in 1H18 or early in 2H18, based on our global balances model. While it is possible OPEC 2.0 will extend its production cuts to year-end 2018, we don't believe it is likely. Voluntary production cuts by Russia and Gulf OPEC nations, combined with decline-curve losses in non-Gulf OPEC producers have removed ~ 1.4mm b/d from the market since January 2017. The bulk of these cuts have been made by KSA and Russia, which account for close to 1.0mm b/d of OPEC 2.0 production cuts. Based on our fundamentally driven econometric model, extending OPEC 2.0's cuts to year-end would lift average prices in 2018 from our current expectation of $67/bbl for Brent and $63/bbl for WTI to $71 and $67/bbl, respectively. Counterintuitively, we believe maintaining prices at this level for the entire year is not the desired outcome of OPEC 2.0's production-cutting strategy. Higher price levels will incentivize larger-than-expected shale-oil production gains than we currently are forecasting - ~ 1.0mm b/d in 2018 and 1.2mm b/d in 2019. In addition, they would breathe life into marginal production around the world, particularly in provinces where break-evens and services costs have fallen - e.g., the North Sea, Barents Sea and offshore Brazil. OPEC 2.0's Long Game KSA's and Russia's oil ministers, the leaders of OPEC 2.0, have stated they would prefer to see their coalition endure beyond end-2018, when their production-cutting deal expires. Be that as it may, they have yet to publicly articulate an agreed strategy for OPEC 2.0, either in terms of a preferred price level or price band, or a strategy that builds on the gains they've made in backwardating oil forward curves. Chart 4Stakes Are High For OPEC 2.0##BR##If No Post-2018 Strategy Emerges Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak recently suggested a preferred range for prices of $50 to $60/bbl for Brent, the international crude-oil benchmark. In the short term, KSA likely prefers a higher price - between $60 and $70/bbl for Brent - to support the IPO of Saudi Aramco, which probably will occur later this year. As we near the end of 1H18, OPEC 2.0's leaders will have to provide some indication they are converging on a common production-management strategy. They will, we believe, have to begin behaving more like a central bank - i.e., providing the market forward guidance - and less like a loose alliance of like-minded producers lurching between stop-gap measures to support prices. Importantly, when they do provide such guidance, they will have to follow through on publicly stated goals, or risk losing credibility with markets. The stakes are fairly high. If, as we've modeled in our unconstrained case, OPEC 2.0 returns ~ 1.1 - 1.2 mm b/d of actual production cuts (ex-decline-curve losses) to the market beginning in 2H18, and U.S. shale and other producers respond to 2018's higher prices with aggressive production growth that carries through 2019, Brent and WTI prices could be pushing toward $40/bbl by the end of 2019 (Chart 4). Also note that if prices start to moderate in H2 2018, 2019 shale production growth may ultimately be less than the 1.2 MMb/d we have forecast, softening the decline in prices during 2019. Longer term, we believe KSA and Russia are aligned with Russia's preference, if for no reason other than to keep U.S. shale-oil production from realizing the run-away growth sustained higher prices almost surely would provoke. Such growth would accelerate the development of U.S. crude oil export capacity - already hovering around ~ 2mm b/d - and the competition for market share in markets OPEC 2.0 members are keen to defend. Higher prices also would improve the competitive position of non-hydrocarbon-based transportation - e.g., electric vehicles and hybrids - which works against OPEC 2.0's long-term goals. Backwardation Matters For OPEC 2.0 Price levels always will be an important policy variable for OPEC 2.0. Equally important, we believe, will be having a strategy that maintains a backwardated forward curve in the Brent and WTI markets. This is because OPEC 2.0 member states sell oil at spot-price levels - the highest point of a backwardated forward curve - while shale-oil producers hedge their revenues over a 1- to 2-year interval. Other than allowing prices to collapse once again, this is the most viable way of constraining U.S. shale production growth longer term. The steeper the backwardation in the WTI forward curve, in particular, the lower the average price level of the hedges producers are able to lock in when they hedge forward revenues. This translates directly into lower output, since producers cannot afford to field as many rigs at lower prices over the life of the hedge as they would be able to field at higher prices. The extent to which OPEC 2.0 can keep forward curves backwardated will determine the extent to which the USD influences oil prices, as well. Our recently concluded research reveals backwardation can mitigate FX effects on oil prices induced by U.S. monetary policy. There is a long-term equilibrium between the level of the USD's broad trade-weighted index (TWIB) and crude oil prices (Chart 5). Indeed, the USD TWIB is one of the key variables we use in our demand, supply and price models. A weak dollar spurs consumption - USD/bbl prices ex-U.S. are cheaper in local-currency terms, especially for fast-growing emerging markets - while production costs ex-U.S. are higher, which limits output growth at the margin. A stronger dollar restrains consumption and encourages production ex-U.S., at the margin. However, this long-term equilibrium is asymmetric. The strength of the correlation between the level of the USD and crude oil prices is such that as oil inventories fall - and backwardation becomes more pronounced - the USD becomes less important to the evolution of oil prices.2 This can be seen in the month-on-month (m-o-m) rolling correlation between prompt WTI futures and the USD TWIB plotted against the spread between 1st nearby WTI futures and 12th nearby WTI futures (Chart 6). Chart 5Long-Term Inverse Correlation##BR##Between USD TWIB And Crude Prices Chart 6Backwardated Forward Curves##BR##Limit USD's Effect On Oil Prices With the exception of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), the higher the backwardation in crude oil forward curves, the smaller the USD-WTI correlation becomes.3 This suggests that, if OPEC 2.0 can maintain the backwardation in WTI and Brent in 2018, the correlation between crude oil prices and the USD TWIB likely will not go back to the large negative correlation typical of previous cycles. In other words, sustained backwardation will weaken the inverse relationship between WTI prices and the USD TWIB vs. the long-term average in place since 2000, which is roughly when oil prices became random-walking variables. We also looked at year-on-year change in U.S. commercial inventories vs. the USD-WTI prices correlation (Chart 7). Our analysis indicates that when inventories are building, the correlation between USD and WTI prices becomes negative, and when they are falling the correlation goes to zero or positive. This supports our earlier observation that when crude inventories fall, the USD becomes less important to the evolution of WTI prices, particularly spot prices. One more point that we should note: the inverse relationship between the USD and oil prices is a two-way street. In addition to a weaker USD helping to support higher oil prices, higher oil prices have also tended to weaken the USD by inflating the U.S. trade deficit through more expensive petroleum imports. However, over the past decade, the U.S. has reduced its volumes of petroleum imports by roughly 75%, from 12-13 MMB/d in 2007 to only 3-4 MM b/d today (Chart 8). Therefore, this feedback loop of higher oil prices weakening the USD, and lower oil prices strengthening the USD, is greatly reduced. Chart 7Tighter Inventories Limit##BR##USD's Effect On Oil Prices Chart 8Lower Imports Of Petroleum Help##BR##Insulate USD From Oil Price Moves The USD's influence on the evolution of oil prices essentially is an exogenous variable out of OPEC 2.0's control. To the extent it can minimize these effects by backwardating oil forward curves, the coalition reduces the impact of an essentially exogenous USD risk from its production-management strategy. Bottom Line: The Fed likely will view the equity sell-off as a transitory event, and proceed with four overnight-rate hikes this year, in line with our House view. Any read-through from Fed policy decisions to the USD TWIB will be muted by continued backwardation in crude oil forward curves. To the extent OPEC 2.0 can maintain backwardated forward oil curves, it reduces the impact of an essentially exogenous USD risk from its production-management strategy. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Jargon recap: OPEC 2.0 is the moniker we coined for the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. Its historic production-cutting Agreement to remove 1.8mm b/d of production from the market - via a combination of outright cuts and decline-curve run-off - has largely held, despite wide-spread skepticism. "Backwardation" is a term of art in commodities describing a forward curve in which prompt-delivered crude oil trades at a higher price than crude delivered in the future - e.g., a year hence. This is a reflection of a tight market - i.e., refiners are willing to pay more for oil delivered tomorrow or next month than they are willing to pay for oil delivered next year. The opposite of a backwardated market is a "contango" market, another term of art. 2 Generally, falling commodity inventories put a premium on prompt-delivered supply. As inventories fall, there is less readily available supply in place to meet unexpected supply outages. Under such conditions, refiners will attempt to conserve inventory and bid for flowing supply more aggressively, either to replace consumption out of inventory or to keep inventories at safe levels so as to minimize stockout risks. Either way, prompt-delivered supply becomes more valuable than deferred supply. Backwardation reflects this dynamic by keeping prompt-delivered prices above prices for deferred delivery. Backwardation is the market's way of incentivizing storage holders to release inventory to the market. It also is the source of returns for long-only commodity index products. 3 The GFC of 2008 - 09 was a global liquidity event, in which correlations between most tradeable assets went to 1.0 as prices collapsed. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Special Report

Highlights Japan's reflationary economic policies will be reinforced ahead of the constitutional referendum; The Bank of Japan is a long way from a 2% inflation overshoot; Fiscal thrust will continue to surprise to the upside; Wage law revisions are significant and, on net, inflationary; Go long JPY/EUR as a tactical play on the countertrend yen rally. Feature Despite a 8.5% selloff in Japanese equities over the past week amid the global equity pullback, Japan's underlying economic growth is strong. The unemployment rate has collapsed to 2.8%, the economy is humming along at an impressive 2.1% clip, and inflationary pressures are building at last. A variety of indicators - from sentiment surveys to household incomes to manufacturing output - attest to the fact that "Abenomics" is keeping the fire well lit (Chart 1). Before the pullback began, investors were wondering whether the BoJ's reduction of long-term government bond purchases signaled that a less dovish turn in monetary policy was underway (Chart 2). BoJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda tried to quiet these rumors by reiterating the need to keep current, easy monetary policy in place. The latest financial shakeup reinforces this message. Chart 1Japan's Macro Fundamentals Are Strong Chart 2The BoJ Has Cut Back Asset Purchases Over the long run, the BoJ's moves, and "Abenomics" in general, should be assessed from the perspective of Japan's broader geopolitical revival.1 Prime Minister Shinzo Abe needs reflation to continue for a range of reasons. Policymakers are not constrained by inflation; rather, inflation is constrained by the yen, global growth, and the increasing danger of a Chinese policy mistake. The BoJ Will Not Betray Abenomics Japan's strong consumer and business confidence, white-hot economic growth, and multi-year equity rally have stemmed from three factors: positive fiscal thrust, an EM rebound, and a weak yen.2 As a result, real interest rates have fallen (Chart 3), prompting the BoJ to downgrade its quantitative and qualitative easing policy (QQE). But cutting back bond-buying does not mean that the BoJ is removing accommodative policy. The central bank stopped targeting the quantity of asset purchases when it introduced its "yield curve control" policy in September 2016. Yield curve control ensures that long-term JGB yields stay around 0%, with a de facto cap of 10 basis points that can be adjusted as needed. Therefore the gross amount of asset purchases is arbitrary; it only needs to be sufficient to achieve the yield target. In fact, the BoJ's official annual target of asset purchases, 80 trillion yen, was until recently well above the annual net issuance of JGBs at 35 trillion yen (Chart 4). Fiscal policy, while surprising upward as expected, has not produced the volumes of new bond issuance that would be necessary to justify such a lofty target. Hence the BoJ can reduce bond-buying without turning more hawkish. As for inflation, the core price level has only barely begun to perk up (Chart 5) - and that has occurred after five years of reflationary efforts, which, in turn, followed a sea change in Japanese politics. Prime Minister Abe came to power by declaring war on deflation, putting Governor Kuroda in charge of the BoJ, and seeking a broad-based revival of Japan from the "lost decades" of the 1990s and 2000s. Neither Abe nor Kuroda can afford to remove accommodation too soon and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Chart 3Real Interest##br## Rates Have Fallen Chart 4Bond Purchases Had ##br##Exceeded New Issuances Chart 5Weak Yen, Easier Financial ##br##Conditions Pushed Up Inflation Kuroda has repeatedly stressed that he will allow inflation to "overshoot" the 2% target before normalizing policy.3 While it is possible that he will step down when his first term ends on April 8, it is neither required nor probable. We highly doubt that he will. Further, the likeliest candidates to replace him are those that would maintain policy continuity.4 Hence the wind-down of QQE does not portend any additional moves away from easy policy. Any such moves would drive the yen upward, and neither Kuroda nor his acolytes at the BoJ can allow yen strength to undermine their quest to whip deflation. Bottom Line: The BoJ's yield curve control framework will remain intact even if the quantity of asset purchases remains much smaller. No leadership change at the BoJ will alter this new monetary policy framework. With the Fed and other central banks in the midst of rate-hike cycles, and the ECB winding down its QE, the persistent dovishness of the BoJ will act as a depressant on the yen as it experiences upward pressure from abroad. Policy Is Inflationary... Significant inflationary pressures are building in Japan, and reflationary policy will be resolute in the face of any headwinds. First, Abe's political career depends on maintaining the economic revival. His most treasured policy objective - reforming the Japanese constitution to revise the pacifist Article Nine and clear the legal path for the normalization of the country's military - ultimately requires a majority vote in a popular referendum.5 This is no easy task. Abe will almost certainly win the leadership poll within the Liberal Democratic Party in September this year, but he may not wait till then to try to push a constitutional amendment through the Diet. The tentative plan is to present a bill in March and proceed to the national referendum in late 2018. Certainly it is imperative for him to secure two-thirds majority votes in each chamber before the House of Councillors elections in July 2019, since that event puts his near-supermajority in the upper house at risk (Chart 6). The constitutional referendum could coincide with that vote or precede it, but Abe wants the process finished before the 2020 Tokyo summer Olympics. It will be a stretch but it is feasible. Chart 6Abe Has A Virtual Supermajority In Both Houses, Necessary For Constitutional Change Chart 7A Popular Referendum Will Be Very Close Opinion polls have consistently showed the public almost evenly split on the topic of revising Article Nine, with the hawkish advocates of revision usually trailing dovish opponents (Chart 7). While Abe's approval rating ranges in the high forties, his constitutional tinkering has similar, sub-50% levels of support. Pacifism runs deep in Japan. The LDP and New Komeito ruling coalition has not won more than 47% of the popular vote in the 2012, 2014, and 2017 general elections (Chart 8). And it has never scored above 50% in popular opinion polls over the course of Abe's term (Chart 9). Chart 8Abe's Coalition Has Not Won 50% Of The Vote... Chart 9...Nor Polled Above 50% In Popular Opinion Abe will not have forgotten Italy's former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, who gambled his political career on controversial constitutional reforms in 2016 only to fall from power when he lost the popular referendum. More to the point, Abe knows that large-scale protests - bigger than those he faced in 2015 - could attend his final push to secure the constitutional revision. After all, Abe's grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi, faced mass protests in 1960 and was forced to resign upon concluding a new Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security with the United States. This was a consequential update to the "U.S.-Japan Security Treaty" that enabled Japan to build up de facto military forces despite its pacifist constitution. Kishi fell from power even though he had presided over a rapid expansion of real GDP and real wages and a steep drop in unemployment (Chart 10). True, Japan was a very different place in 1960. At that time, the Cold War was raging, and a large and restless youth population energized the protests. Today's youth are complacent and outnumbered by comparison. Nevertheless, Kishi did not need to put his treaty to a popular vote, unlike Abe's constitutional revisions. His grandson has a higher threshold to overcome. It follows that Japan will maintain dovish monetary policy and will continue to outperform conventional estimates of fiscal thrust (Chart 11).6 Abe's decision to abandon the goal of achieving a primary balance budget surplus by 2020 is a clear indication of this policy direction.7 Chart 10Treaty Protests In 1960 Despite Strong Economy Chart 11Fiscal Thrust Surprises To Upside Wages will be a decisive factor in Abe's economic success.8 Wage growth has remained in the black for most of his term, marking a contrast with the past twenty years of at best sporadic and short-lived wage rises (Chart 12). This is likely to continue. In this spring's "shunto" negotiations between businesses and unions, both the Abe administration and Keidanren, the top business group, are asking for 3% wage increases. The biggest union, Rengo, is only asking for one percentage point more.9 Abe has dedicated the current Diet session, beginning January 22, to "work-style reforms" that should be, on net, positive for wage growth.10 He wants to remove disparities between regular and irregular workers, particularly regarding wages, training opportunities, and welfare benefits. He also wants to impose limits on the workweek - putting a cap on the average 80-hour workweek of Japan's full-time workers so as to force companies to hire more irregular workers on a full-time basis (and to encourage employed people to have children). Companies that raise wages by 3% or more will see a cut in the corporate tax rate from around 30% to 25%. Economic conditions should push wages up regardless of central government policies. The jobs-to-applicants ratio is at the highest level since 1990. The labor participation rate is 60.8%, with female participation at 51.3%, up from 47.8% when Abe took power in 2012. Neither does the adoption of robotics, for which Japan is famous, counteract the tight labor market and inflationary consequences over time.11 In short, wages and core inflation should rise as long as the economic expansion is not derailed. As our colleague Peter Berezin of BCA's Global Investment Strategy has shown, the Phillips Curve will eventually kick in - and it even looks like Japan (Chart 13)!12 Chart 12Wage Growth Is The Key To Abe's Success Chart 13The Phillips Curve In Japan Looks Like Japan Bottom Line: A growing economy with real wage growth is Abe's only hope not only of beating deflation but also of getting his planned constitutional amendments over the line. Reflationary policy is essential to his legacy and vision of reviving Japan. ... But Not Too Inflationary Still, fiscal thrust is hardly going to explode unless an economic slowdown calls for it. Despite Abe's adoption of a twenty first-century "Takahashi Plan," i.e. simultaneous monetary and fiscal expansion, his administration's fiscal spending has remained relatively restrained. Strong revenue growth has actually improved the primary balance (Chart 14). Until very recently, Abe's "fiscal arrow" has disappointed his cheerleaders - he even raised the consumption tax from 5% to 8% in 2014, undermining his pro-growth fiscal packages. By law Abe is required to raise the consumption tax again, from 8% to 10%, in October 2019. In the latest election he campaigned on using the proceeds of this tax increase to expand social spending.13 Of course, he reserves the option of postponing this decision if he should deem a tax hike detrimental to the economic recovery (or to his odds of revising the constitution). But this flexibility means that any and all inflationary pressures in 2018-19 will increase under the shadow of a statutorily scheduled slug to consumer spending. There are also some constraints on wage growth. First, the reforms are intended to liberalize the labor market, which means their effects are not likely to be exclusively inflationary. "Performance" metrics that put less emphasis on seniority and working overtime, insofar as they are successful, could weigh on wage growth, at least initially. Second, Japan is starting to allow immigration - the number of foreign workers hit a record of 1.28 million total in October 2017 (Chart 15).14 This trend runs contrary to Japan's long status as the least hospitable destination for migrants in the developed world. The influx is apparently not limited to construction workers for the 2020 Olympics, as manufacturing is still the sector with the largest number of foreign workers. The Abe administration is committed to breaking the mold in the name of pro-growth structural reform and immigration is a meaningful change, albeit still in its early stages. Given existing labor market tightness and rising labor costs for companies, we expect this trend to outrun expectations, nudging up labor force growth and at least mildly counteracting wage rises, especially in low-skill sectors.15 Chart 14Primary Balance Improves On Growth Chart 15Japan Finally Allowing Immigration Bottom Line: Inflation will continue building if the global economy continues expanding and additional fiscal thrust and wage hikes are added to Japan's negative output gap, tight labor market, and rock-bottom unemployment rate. Nevertheless Japan is far from runaway inflation, and fiscal and labor market policies are nuanced. The BoJ's desired inflation overshoot is still a long way off. China And EM Pose Deflationary Risks Meanwhile deflationary forces lurk in China and emerging markets, which have been key factors in Japan's recent economic outperformance. Japan's trade exposure to China is substantial: The latter accounts for 18% of Japan's total exports, 2.7% of Japan's GDP (Chart 16). At the moment, Japanese manufacturing appears resilient in the face of China's slowdown, especially relative to the "newly industrialized" Asian neighbors. But Chinese Premier Li Keqiang's famous proxy for economic activity is closely correlated with Japanese export growth, and it is slowing. China's monetary conditions and credit and fiscal spending impulse - key leading indicators - also bode ill for Japanese exports (Chart 17). Chart 16Japan Exposed To Chinese Economy Chart 17China Policy Will Hit Japan Directly Beijing has so far tightened policy into the slowdown. It is adding new financial, environmental, and property sector regulations while expanding its anti-corruption campaign into finance, industry, and local government.16 Central government regulatory discipline - and reforms meant to reduce capital and energy intensity - will weigh on China's monetary and credit growth, capex, capital and commodity imports, and hence EM as a whole (Chart 18). And EM ex-China accounts for a further 25% of Japanese exports. In other words, Chinese reforms will bite in 2018-19 and thus encourage Japan to maintain loose fiscal and monetary policy. Recent market turbulence may add to this predicament as it is not easy for China to abandon its newly launched economic reforms - meaning China may ease policy too late if conditions worsen. We put the risk of a policy induced mistake in China at 30%. There are also significant geopolitical risks in East Asia that could cause headwinds to Japan's economy. China's strategic challenge is the key driver of Japan's attempts to revive its economy (including through higher military spending) and normalize its military operations (Chart 19). With Japan re-arming, China and Japan could easily suffer a breakdown in diplomatic relations - and China has already shown the willingness to use sanctions to punish Japan when strategic spats occur.17 Frictions over the Koreas or Taiwan could also encourage safe-haven flows into the yen. In short, Abe and Kuroda must be prepared for any eventuality, which is another reason to expect policy to stay looser for longer. Chart 18China Policy Will Hit Japan Via EM Chart 19Strategic Tensions Still A Serious Risk Bottom Line: Japan's exposure to both China and EM ex-China makes it vulnerable to growth wobbles as China intensifies reforms. Meanwhile Japan's constitutional revisions and remilitarization could spark a spat with China. These are compelling reasons for policymakers to stay the course with loose monetary and fiscal policies. Investment Recommendations In the short run, we would suggest clients go long JPY/EUR. The euro is expensive relative to fair value and purchasing-power-parity models (Chart 20). And investor positioning is skewed heavily in favor of the euro versus the yen (Chart 21).18 Chart 20EUR/JPY Is Expensive Chart 21Skewed Positioning In EUR/JPY We are closing our long USD/JPY for a loss of 3.23%. In the long run, as long as global growth holds up, any yen rally is likely to be a countertrend one, as a stronger yen will exert deflationary pressures and reinforce persistent, easy policy. Japanese policymakers have little need to fear inflation; they will focus on nurturing the country's economic and strategic rebound. Therefore, investors need not worry about the BoJ pulling the rug out from under the equity and bond markets. While BCA's House View favors Japanese equities over the U.S., BCA Geopolitical Strategy's China view prevents us from sharing this conviction in 2018. We would favor U.S. equities, which are low-beta and poised for continued strong earnings growth due to tax cuts and growth. The big risk for Japanese equities comes if China's central government makes a policy mistake and "overcorrects," triggering a precipitous drop in Chinese imports. We put a 30% subjective probability to such a scenario given the difficulty of reforming the financial sector in a highly leveraged economy. The yen would rally on safe-haven flows and Japanese markets would sell off. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan's Political Paradigm Shift: Investment Implications," dated December 21, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!" dated January 12, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 3 See for example Haruhiko Kuroda, "Quantitative and Qualitative Monetary Easing and Economic Theory," speech at the University of Zurich, Bank of Japan, November 13, 2017, available at www.boj.or.jp. 4 Technically, Kuroda's term ends on April 8, 2018 but he can be reappointed by the prime minister for another five-year term. Please see "Experts say Haruhiko Kuroda likely to remain at BOJ helm despite failures," Japan Times, October 7, 2017, available at www.japantimes.co.jp. Both of Kuroda's deputies, Hiroshi Nakaso and Kikuo Iwata, as well as other possible successors (Masayoshi Amamiya, Etsuro Honda, and Takatoshi Ito) are dovish candidates likely to maintain continuity with his policies if at the BoJ helm. Nobuchika Mori is the only potential exception but it is still not clear that he would deviate from Abe's and Kuroda's framework if given the top job. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016; and Special Report, "Japan: The Emperor's Act Of Grace," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Abe abandoned the 2020 budget target while campaigning in the general election of October 2017 and has stuck with his higher spending proposals. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution," dated October 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see "Japan business lobby seconds call for 3% pay hikes," Nikkei Asian Review, January 17, 2018, available at asia.nikkei.com. 10 Abe is attempting to amend the Labor Standards Law. Please see Heizo Takenaka, "A prologue to work-style reforms," Japan Times, January 30, 2018, available at www.japantimes.co.jp. 11 Despite labor shortages, Japanese firms are using robots less often. Also, companies with high technology and robot usage are actually companies that tend to pay higher wages, contrary to popular belief. Please see BCA's The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "The Impact Of Robots On Inflation," dated January 25, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy, "Three Tantalizing Trades - Four Months On," dated January 19, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 13 Abe reiterated his plans for more social spending, for instance on expanded child care support and free preschool education, in his policy speech ahead of the opening Diet session this year. Please see "Abe delivers policy speech," NHK, January 22, 2018, available at www3.nhk.or.jp. 14 Please see "Number of Foreign Workers in Japan at Record High," NHK, January 26, 2018, available at www3.nhk.or.jp. 15 Please see "Japan quietly accepting foreign workers -- just don't call it immigration," Japan Times, November 3, 2016, available at www.japantimes.co.jp 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 For full discussion, see footnote 2 above. Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

Dear Client, In light of recent market turbulence, we are publishing our weekly report earlier than usual. Caroline Miller, Garry Evans, and I will also be hosting a webcast Wednesday morning at 10am EST to discuss the investment outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Monday's stock market rout was largely driven by technical factors. Strong economic growth and positive earnings surprises should keep the equity bull market intact. Nevertheless, investors need to adjust to the fact that volatility is likely to pick up, just as it did in the last few years of the 1990s bull market. The market's expectations of where the funds rate will be over the next two years have almost converged with the Fed dots. In the near term, this will limit the ability of the 10-year Treasury yield to rise much above 3%. Looking further out, inflation is likely to move above the Fed's target early next year, setting the stage for a recession starting in late 2019. A modest overweight on global risk assets is warranted for now, but investors should consider reducing risk exposure later this year. Feature VIX Kicks Last week's Global Investment Strategy report, entitled "Take Out Some Insurance," argued that equities had become dangerously overbought and were highly vulnerable to a correction.1 We noted that the VIX had likely bottomed for the cycle and that going long volatility had now become an attractive hedge against stock market declines. As many of my colleagues have noted, betting on continued low volatility had become an increasingly crowded trade in recent years. Back in January, we observed that net short volatility positions had reached record-high levels (Chart 1). We warned that "traders have been able to reap huge gains over the past few years by betting volatility will decline. The problem is that if volatility starts to rise, those same traders could start to unload their positions, leading to even higher volatility."2 Precisely such a vicious cycle erupted on Monday, causing the S&P 500 to suffer its worst daily percentage loss since August 18, 2011. The question is where do we go from here? So far, the sell-off in stocks looks largely technical in nature. Chart 2 shows that the VIX soared by roughly four times more on Monday than one would have expected based solely on the decline in equity prices. This suggests that the spike in volatility caused the stock market plunge, rather than the other way around. The relatively muted reaction of other "risk gauges" such as junk bonds, EM stocks, and gold prices over the past few days is consistent with this thesis. Chart 1Volatility Is Back Chart 2Monday's VIX Spike Was Abnormally Large Cyclical Outlook Still Solid It is impossible to know if today's rebound will persist or if the correction still has further to run. What we do know is that the cyclical underpinnings for the bull market remain intact. Leading economic data remain buoyant (Chart 3). Corporate earnings continue to come in above expectations (Chart 4). Chart 3Global Economic Backdrop Remains Buoyant Chart 4Optimism Over 2018 Earnings Growth None of our recession-timing indicators are flashing red (Chart 5). The Conference Board's LEI is rising at a healthy 5.5% y/y pace. Historically, a decisive break below zero in the year-over-year change in the LEI has been a reliable recession indicator. Likewise, while the U.S. 2/10-year Treasury curve has flattened, it has not inverted yet. Moreover, even once the yield curve inverts, the lags can be quite long before the recession begins. For example, in the last cycle, the yield curve inverted in early 2006, but the recession did not begin until December 2007. This does not mean that everything will be smooth sailing from here. Monday's sell-off marked an inflection point in the low-volatility world that has prevailed over the past few years. The VIX Humpty-Dumpty has been irrevocably broken. Going forward, volatility will remain elevated relative to what investors have come to expect. As the experience of the 1990s shows, stocks can still go up when volatility is trending higher (Chart 6), but this is going to make for a much more challenging investment environment. Chart 5No Signs Of An Imminent End To This Business Cycle Chart 6Volatility Can Increase As Stock Prices Rise The Powell Put? How the Fed and other central banks react to this new world will be critical. It is perhaps not a complete coincidence that Monday's crash occurred on the first day that Jay Powell took over the helm of the Fed. Investors are increasingly worried that the Fed will turn from friend to foe. The faster-than-expected increase in average hourly earnings in January put those fears in stark relief. Accelerating wage growth suggests supply-side constraints are beginning to bite. This, in turn, means that the runway for low inflation and easy monetary policy may not be as long as some had hoped. As BCA editors discussed in our 2018 Outlook, "Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," central banks are in the process of winding down the extraordinary stimulus that investors have gotten used to.3 Whether this undermines the case for holding stocks and other risk assets depends on how quickly the adjustment occurs. On the plus side, we continue to think the adjustment will be fairly gradual, at least for the time being. Core CPI inflation outside of shelter is still running at 0.7% (Chart 7). This gives the Fed plenty of wiggle room. Just like Janet Yellen, Jay Powell will seek to build a consensus among his colleagues. Granted, the composition of the FOMC is likely to shift in a somewhat more hawkish direction. However, the evolution will be slow. In the meantime, the recommendations of career Fed staff will represent an important, and often underappreciated, source of continuity. As in the past, the Fed will continue to monitor incoming economic and financial data and react accordingly. The stock market rout has led to some tightening in financial conditions, but FCIs in the U.S. and most other countries remain more expansionary than they were six months ago (Chart 8). Chart 7Core Inflation Outside Housing Is Still Low Chart 8Financial Conditions Have Tightened Recently, But Are Still Easier Than They Were Last Year Just as importantly, the implosion of volatility funds is unlikely to reverberate across the financial system in the same way as it did during the financial crisis. What made the mortgage crisis so toxic was that the losses were concentrated in the books of highly leveraged financial institutions. In the case of volatility funds, that does not appear to be the case. Investment Implications Global bond yields remain quite low by historic standards and this should continue to support stocks. Indeed, even after the recent bond sell-off, average global bond yields are still close to half of what they were in 2011 - a time when global excess capacity was much greater than it is today (Chart 9). In keeping with our structurally bearish view on bonds, which we first articulated on July 5, 2016 in a note entitled "The End of 35-Year Bond Bull Market," we expect global bond yields to grind higher.4 However, in rate-of-change terms, the swift repricing of yields over the past few months has likely run its course. Chart 10 shows that market expectations of where the funds rate will be at the end of 2018 and 2019 have almost converged with the Fed dots. This convergence helped our short December-2018 fed funds futures trade, which we closed at our stop for a gain of 70 bps last Friday. A sustained move above 3% on the 10-year Treasury yield will require a more durable increase in inflation. Ultimately, we do expect core inflation to move above 2%, forcing the Fed to lift interest rates into restrictive territory. However, this is likely to be a story for 2019 rather than 2018. Stocks tend to peak about six months before the start of recessions (Table 1). If the next recession occurs in late 2019, as we expect, the equity bull market could last a while longer. A modest overweight on global risk assets is warranted for now, but investors should consider reducing risk exposure later this year. Chart 9Yields Are Still Low By Historic Standards Chart 10Market Pricing Has Almost Caught Up To The Fed's Dots Table 1Too Soon To Get Out Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Take Out Some Insurance," dated February 2, 2018. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Bitcoin Be DeFANGed?" dated January 12, 2018. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated November 20, 2017. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Global Bond Rout: Overheated financial markets are going through a much needed correction with higher bond yields being the immediate trigger. The cyclical rise in global bond yields is not yet complete, however. Monetary policy settings remain accommodative in almost all major economies, while global growth momentum is showing no signs of slowing. The current turbulence is an early indication of how the investment backdrop will become much more challenging later in 2018 as global inflation continues to rise. Fixed Income Strategy: Returns on global spread product are still expected to beat those on sovereign debt in the coming months, particularly after the latest market correction restored some value through spread widening. There is no sign yet that the sell-off is damaging future global growth expectations that can stall the move to less accommodative monetary policy. Maintain an overall below-benchmark duration stance, favoring corporate credit over sovereign debt - especially in the U.S. - for now. Feature Risk assets worldwide are finally correcting after the relentless run-up seen in January, with the trigger being the steady rise in global bond yields seen since the beginning of the year. The big decline in U.S. equity markets, particularly after the release of last Friday's U.S. employment data which featured the highest year-over-year growth rate in wages seen in almost a decade, suggests that investors are growing increasingly worried about accelerating inflation and a more aggressive tightening response from central banks (NOTE: markets were undergoing another bout of selling yesterday as this publication went to press, but the conclusions reached in this report are unchanged). Chart of the WeekThe Cyclical Rise In Yields##BR##Has Room To Run However, taking a step back to look at the big picture, nothing has really changed in the past few days. Global growth remains strong, which has already steadily increased pressure on policymakers to raise interest rates according to our own BCA Central Bank Monitors (Chart of the Week). In the U.S. - the epicenter of the latest bout of market angst - financial conditions remain highly accommodative and supportive for future growth, while bond volatility remains low by historical standards even after the most recent upward blip. Credit spreads and equity valuations in non-U.S. markets, from Europe to the emerging world, are also no impediment to future growth in those regions. We have been expecting global bond yields to rise in 2018 as markets adjust to both a normalization of global inflation expectations and a shift to a less aggressive pace of bond buying by the Fed, European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ). As we described in our 2018 Outlook report published last December:1 The current low volatility regime will end when higher inflation and less accommodative central banks raise interest rate volatility and, eventually, future growth uncertainty. We see that inflection point occurring sometime next year, leading to a more challenging environment for global fixed income "carry trades" that are also focused on global growth, like developed market corporate bonds and emerging market debt. The current market sell-off is likely too soon to be the ultimate realization of that forecast. Monetary policy settings remain accommodative and inflation is still below central bank targets in almost all major economies, while global growth momentum is showing no signs of slowing. This is an early indication, however, of how the investment backdrop will become much more challenging later in 2018 as global inflation continues to rise. We continue to recommend a pro-growth fixed income investment strategy, staying below-benchmark overall duration, focusing on lower-beta government bond markets, overweighting corporate debt over sovereign debt, and prioritizing inflation protection in bond portfolios. In the coming weeks, however, we will begin to discuss strategies to play for the shift to a more hostile investment backdrop that we expect later in 2018. The U.S. Bond Vigilantes Are Back In Charge Global monetary policies that remain "too" accommodative given robust growth and some pickup in realized inflation have prompted bond markets to reprice, through both higher inflation expectations and real yields. Rising yields have triggered a spike in market volatility measures like the U.S. VIX index, although there were also several bouts of higher volatility in 2017 (Chart 2). Growth-sensitive financial assets shrugged off those higher volatility episodes, mainly because growth expectations were not impacted. We see no reason why this current bout of market turbulence should differ from last year's volatility spikes, and have any meaningful impact on forecasts for future economic growth (and, by extension, corporate profits). At least, not without a more meaningful tightening of global monetary policy, particularly in the U.S. where inflation pressures are gaining steam. The December Payrolls report released last week may finally contain that missing piece of the inflation puzzle - faster wage growth. Headline Average Hourly Earnings expanded 2.9% on a year-over-year basis, with the 3-month annualized growth rate surging to pre-crisis levels above 4% (Chart 3). Coming at a time when the U.S. labor market remains tight by any measure (top panel), a pickup in wage growth supports the other evidence indicating that U.S. inflation is on the upswing, like the modest acceleration in core PCE inflation (3rd panel) and steady climb in TIPS breakevens (bottom panel).2 Chart 2This Is A Correction,##BR##Not A Reversal, In Risk Assets Chart 3U.S. Wage Inflation##BR##Finally Appears A faster inflation backdrop is making the Fed's current monetary policy plans more credible for investors. The U.S. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve is now fully pricing in the Fed's three planned interest rate hikes for 2018, and has almost priced in the additional 50bps of hikes the Fed is projecting for 2019 (Chart 4). Rate expectations even further out the curve have been climbing, as well. Our measure of the market's expectation for the so-called "terminal rate" - the 5-year U.S. OIS rate, 5-years forward - is now up to 2.66%, only 9bps below the current median projection ("dot") for the terminal rate. Markets have been highly skeptical that the Fed would ever be able to raise rates as high as its projections in recent years - justifiably so, given that U.S. realized inflation has been persistently falling short of the Fed's 2% inflation target. Now, with core inflation having clearly bottomed out and shorter annualized rates of change closing in on 2%, markets are coming around to the idea that the Fed inflation forecasts will be realized. If that happens, then the Fed should be expected to follow through on its published projections, not only for 2018 but for the remainder of the current tightening cycle. On that basis, there is not a lot more room for the market's pricing of the expected path of U.S. interest rates to converge to the Fed's projections. That suggests that the shorter-end of the U.S. Treasury curve may be approaching a cyclical peak - unless the Fed were to begin revising up its "dots" in response to a faster pace of U.S. economic growth and inflation. That would require the Fed to start believing that a faster pace of rate hikes, or a higher equilibrium real interest rate, was required in the U.S. The current real interest rate remains around 0% (subtracting core PCE inflation from the fed funds rate), as the Fed's rate hikes since beginning the tightening cycle in December 2015 have matched the increase in realized inflation. Measures of the so-called "r-star" equilibrium rate, like the Williams-Laubach measure, are also indicating that the real fed funds rate should be around 0% (Chart 5). The real fed funds rate has historically been highly correlated to the employment/population ratio in the U.S., and the current level of that ratio (60%) suggests that the Fed does not have to target a real funds rate above 0%. The conclusion is that it would take a sign of even greater U.S. labor market utilization - i.e. a rising employment/population ratio - for the Fed to conclude that it must raise its interest rate projections. Chart 4Market Pricing Has Caught Up##BR##To The Fed's Forecasts Chart 5A 0% Real Fed Funds Rate##BR##Is Still Appropriate Without such a boost to the Fed's expected path of interest rates, any remaining increases in U.S. Treasury yields will have to come from higher inflation expectations. On that front, the current level of the 10-year TIPS breakeven at 2.14% remains 30-40bps below the 2.4-2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target (adjusting for the typical gap between CPI and PCE inflation and allowing for a small inflation risk premium). That suggests that the 10-year nominal Treasury yield can rise to the 3.10-3.25% range to fully discount a sustainable return of inflation to the Fed's target, with the Fed delivering on its interest rate projections in response. That target range is also not far from the current fair value from our 2-factor 10-year U.S. Treasury yield model, which has risen to 3.01% (Chart 6).3 It will be critical to watch the future behavior of the parts of the U.S. economy that are most sensitive to interest rates, like consumer durables and housing, for signs that the latest rise in U.S. bond yields is having any negative effect on U.S. growth. A slowing trajectory for U.S. growth in response to higher interest rates would certainly give the Fed some second thoughts on moving ahead with its rate hike plans. On that note, the year-over-year change in the 10-year Treasury yield is now in positive territory, which has typically led to a slower contribution to U.S. real GDP growth from consumer durables (Chart 7, top panel). The rise in U.S. mortgage rates should also lead to slower growth in residential investment, although housing has already been providing very little marginal contribution to U.S. growth over the past two years (2nd panel). Chart 6Fair Value On The 10-Year##BR##UST Yield Is 3%...And Rising Chart 7Rising U.S. Capex Should Offset##BR##Slowing Interest-Sensitive Spending The potential offset to any slowdown in interest-sensitive spending, however, is capital spending by businesses, which is being boosted by easy financial conditions (bottom panel), loosening bank lending standards and a rise on the expected after-tax return on investment following the Trump corporate tax cuts. It will likely take higher interest rates, and much tighter financial conditions, before the capex cycle peaks out. Bottom Line: Overheated financial markets are going through a much needed correction, with higher bond yields, most notably in the U.S., being the immediate trigger. The cyclical rise in global bond yields is not yet complete, however, and monetary policies will need to tighten further in response to strong growth and rising inflation pressures. The cyclical interest rate tipping point for risk assets has not yet been reached, even in the U.S., but is getting incrementally closer. Don't Forget The Other Factor Driving Global Bond Yields - Reduced Central Bank Buying Amidst all the worries about higher inflation and the related impact on global bond yields, it should not be forgotten that the major developed market central banks have been cutting back on their bond purchases. Global bond yields have been correlated to the growth rate of the combined balance sheet of the "G-4" central banks (Fed, ECB, BoJ and Bank of England) since the ECB started its bond buying program in 2015 (Chart 8). The current rise in global yields has been in line with the projected slower pace of aggregate bond buying by those central banks. Based on our projection for the year-over-year growth rate of the G-4 central bank balance sheets - which incorporate the Fed letting maturing bonds run off its balance sheet and cutbacks in the pace of buying of new bonds by the ECB and BoJ - there is still more room for bond yields to rise over the course of 2018. A slower pace of central bank "liquidity" creation is something that we anticipated to weigh on risk asset returns in 2018. By driving down the yields on safe assets like government debt to highly unattractive levels, central banks induced huge inflows into global equity and credit markets, both in the developed and emerging worlds. As central banks are now buying fewer bonds, however, there is not only reduced downward pressure on government bond yields but also diminished scope for additional inflows into riskier assets. Looking at the growth rate of the G-4 central bank balance sheet versus the rolling 12-month returns on global equities and credit, the current pullback in overheated risk assets is merely bringing returns back down to levels consistent with central banks taking their foot off the monetary accelerator (Chart 9). Chart 8The Central Bank Impact On##BR##Bond Yields Is Slowly Unwinding... Chart 9...Which Impacts Risk Asset##BR##Returns, As Well For global fixed income markets, we had anticipated that 2018 would be a year of much lower expected returns on spread product like global corporate debt, although those would still beat the returns likely from government debt - at least until government bond yields reached our cyclical targets. Our view has not changed, even in light of the current pullback in risk assets and yesterday's decline in government bond yields. For now, we continue to recommend an overweight stance on global corporate debt, but favoring U.S. Investment Grade and High-Yield debt over European equivalents (and over Emerging Market hard currency debt). We will discuss our eventual recommended exit strategy in upcoming reports, but for now, our advice is to sit tight and ride out this current bout of market turbulence. Bottom Line: Returns on global spread product are still expected to beat those on sovereign debt in the coming months, particularly after the latest market correction restored some value through spread widening. There is no sign yet that the sell-off is damaging future global growth expectations that can stall the move to less accommodative monetary policy. Maintain an overall below-benchmark duration stance, favoring corporate credit over sovereign debt - especially in the U.S. - for now. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "2018 Key Views: BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets", dated December 5th, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 It is interesting to note that it took a sharp pickup in the Average Hourly Earnings measure to get the market's attention about wage inflation. Many Fed officials and market commentators (including here at BCA!) have consistently pointed out the inherent flaws in looking at Average Hourly Earnings as an accurate measure of wage pressures in the U.S. Yet the big market response to the latest surge in Average Hourly Earnings is a sign that investors still look at that indicator as the "true" measure of wage inflation. 3 The standard deviation of the fair value estimate from that model is 17bps, which means that yields could rise as high as 3.18% before reaching an "undervalued" level for U.S. Treasuries - assuming no further increases in fair value, of course. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Dear Client, In light of recent market turbulence, we are publishing our weekly report earlier than usual. Caroline Miller, Garry Evans, and I will also be hosting a webcast Wednesday morning at 10am EST to discuss the investment outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Monday's stock market rout was largely driven by technical factors. Strong economic growth and positive earnings surprises should keep the equity bull market intact. Nevertheless, investors need to adjust to the fact that volatility is likely to pick up, just as it did in the last few years of the 1990s bull market. The market's expectations of where the funds rate will be over the next two years have almost converged with the Fed dots. In the near term, this will limit the ability of the 10-year Treasury yield to rise much above 3%. Looking further out, inflation is likely to move above the Fed's target early next year, setting the stage for a recession starting in late 2019. A modest overweight on global risk assets is warranted for now, but investors should consider reducing risk exposure later this year. Feature VIX Kicks Last week's Global Investment Strategy report, entitled "Take Out Some Insurance," argued that equities had become dangerously overbought and were highly vulnerable to a correction.1 We noted that the VIX had likely bottomed for the cycle and that going long volatility had now become an attractive hedge against stock market declines. As many of my colleagues have noted, betting on continued low volatility had become an increasingly crowded trade in recent years. Back in January, we observed that net short volatility positions had reached record-high levels (Chart 1). We warned that "traders have been able to reap huge gains over the past few years by betting volatility will decline. The problem is that if volatility starts to rise, those same traders could start to unload their positions, leading to even higher volatility."2 Precisely such a vicious cycle erupted on Monday, causing the S&P 500 to suffer its worst daily percentage loss since August 18, 2011. The question is where do we go from here? So far, the sell-off in stocks looks largely technical in nature. Chart 2 shows that the VIX soared by roughly four times more on Monday than one would have expected based solely on the decline in equity prices. This suggests that the spike in volatility caused the stock market plunge, rather than the other way around. The relatively muted reaction of other "risk gauges" such as junk bonds, EM stocks, and gold prices over the past few days is consistent with this thesis. Chart 1Volatility Is Back Chart 2Monday's VIX Spike Was Abnormally Large Cyclical Outlook Still Solid It is impossible to know if today's rebound will persist or if the correction still has further to run. What we do know is that the cyclical underpinnings for the bull market remain intact. Leading economic data remain buoyant (Chart 3). Corporate earnings continue to come in above expectations (Chart 4). Chart 3Global Economic Backdrop Remains Buoyant Chart 4Optimism Over 2018 Earnings Growth None of our recession-timing indicators are flashing red (Chart 5). The Conference Board's LEI is rising at a healthy 5.5% y/y pace. Historically, a decisive break below zero in the year-over-year change in the LEI has been a reliable recession indicator. Likewise, while the U.S. 2/10-year Treasury curve has flattened, it has not inverted yet. Moreover, even once the yield curve inverts, the lags can be quite long before the recession begins. For example, in the last cycle, the yield curve inverted in early 2006, but the recession did not begin until December 2007. This does not mean that everything will be smooth sailing from here. Monday's sell-off marked an inflection point in the low-volatility world that has prevailed over the past few years. The VIX Humpty-Dumpty has been irrevocably broken. Going forward, volatility will remain elevated relative to what investors have come to expect. As the experience of the 1990s shows, stocks can still go up when volatility is trending higher (Chart 6), but this is going to make for a much more challenging investment environment. Chart 5No Signs Of An Imminent End To This Business Cycle Chart 6Volatility Can Increase As Stock Prices Rise The Powell Put? How the Fed and other central banks react to this new world will be critical. It is perhaps not a complete coincidence that Monday's crash occurred on the first day that Jay Powell took over the helm of the Fed. Investors are increasingly worried that the Fed will turn from friend to foe. The faster-than-expected increase in average hourly earnings in January put those fears in stark relief. Accelerating wage growth suggests supply-side constraints are beginning to bite. This, in turn, means that the runway for low inflation and easy monetary policy may not be as long as some had hoped. As BCA editors discussed in our 2018 Outlook, "Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," central banks are in the process of winding down the extraordinary stimulus that investors have gotten used to.3 Whether this undermines the case for holding stocks and other risk assets depends on how quickly the adjustment occurs. On the plus side, we continue to think the adjustment will be fairly gradual, at least for the time being. Core CPI inflation outside of shelter is still running at 0.7% (Chart 7). This gives the Fed plenty of wiggle room. Just like Janet Yellen, Jay Powell will seek to build a consensus among his colleagues. Granted, the composition of the FOMC is likely to shift in a somewhat more hawkish direction. However, the evolution will be slow. In the meantime, the recommendations of career Fed staff will represent an important, and often underappreciated, source of continuity. As in the past, the Fed will continue to monitor incoming economic and financial data and react accordingly. The stock market rout has led to some tightening in financial conditions, but FCIs in the U.S. and most other countries remain more expansionary than they were six months ago (Chart 8). Chart 7Core Inflation Outside Housing Is Still Low Chart 8Financial Conditions Have Tightened Recently, But Are Still Easier Than They Were Last Year Just as importantly, the implosion of volatility funds is unlikely to reverberate across the financial system in the same way as it did during the financial crisis. What made the mortgage crisis so toxic was that the losses were concentrated in the books of highly leveraged financial institutions. In the case of volatility funds, that does not appear to be the case. Investment Implications Global bond yields remain quite low by historic standards and this should continue to support stocks. Indeed, even after the recent bond sell-off, average global bond yields are still close to half of what they were in 2011 - a time when global excess capacity was much greater than it is today (Chart 9). In keeping with our structurally bearish view on bonds, which we first articulated on July 5, 2016 in a note entitled "The End of 35-Year Bond Bull Market," we expect global bond yields to grind higher.4 However, in rate-of-change terms, the swift repricing of yields over the past few months has likely run its course. Chart 10 shows that market expectations of where the funds rate will be at the end of 2018 and 2019 have almost converged with the Fed dots. This convergence helped our short December-2018 fed funds futures trade, which we closed at our stop for a gain of 70 bps last Friday. A sustained move above 3% on the 10-year Treasury yield will require a more durable increase in inflation. Ultimately, we do expect core inflation to move above 2%, forcing the Fed to lift interest rates into restrictive territory. However, this is likely to be a story for 2019 rather than 2018. Stocks tend to peak about six months before the start of recessions (Table 1). If the next recession occurs in late 2019, as we expect, the equity bull market could last a while longer. A modest overweight on global risk assets is warranted for now, but investors should consider reducing risk exposure later this year. Chart 9Yields Are Still Low By Historic Standards Chart 10Market Pricing Has Almost Caught Up To The Fed's Dots Table 1Too Soon To Get Out Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Take Out Some Insurance," dated February 2, 2018. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Bitcoin Be DeFANGed?" dated January 12, 2018. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated November 20, 2017. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016. Strategy & Market Trends* Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed In 2015-2018

Highlights Market participants should be asking why yields are higher, and not worry about how much they have climbed. While the bond market has begun to price in higher inflation (via the move in the TIPS breakeven rate), wage and price inflation remains muted for now. Sentiment has deteriorated more than valuations or technicals as the S&P 500 climbed to fresh all-time highs in December and January. Our U.S. Equity Strategy service downgraded small caps to neutral from overweight. Feature Chart 1The January Jobs Report Keeps The Fed##BR##On Track For Gradual Hikes This Year Last week marked Janet Yellen's final FOMC meeting and the first week in many years that the U.S. Treasury and equity markets worried about inflation. The strongest year-over-year reading in average hourly earnings in 9 years (+2.9% in January) added to the market's inflation concerns (Chart 1). The 10-year Treasury yield climbed 15 bps to 2.84%, while the S&P 500 moved lower by 2.5% as of midday on Friday, February 2. It was the worst week for the stock market since September 2016. Individual investor sentiment on the equity market has surged recently, and valuations are at extremes. However, BCA's technical indicator for U.S. stocks is not at an extreme. BCA's stance is that while the risk/reward for stocks over bonds has narrowed, it is too soon to call an end to the bull market. However, we are monitoring real yields closely. At 2.13% on Friday morning, February 2, the 10-year TIPS breakeven yield was still below the 2.4 to 2.5% range where markets should begin to worry about the Fed falling behind the curve. While the acceleration in average hourly earnings in January cements the case for continued gradual Fed rate hikes this year, inflation is not about to spiral higher. Wage inflation remains muted, and patience is still required as market participants await signs of a pickup in broader measures of consumer price inflation. The market is now fully priced for three rate hikes this year. Also, longer-term rate expectations have moved close to the Fed's estimate of the terminal rate. It would be reasonable to expect some short-term pause to recent near-relentless uptrend in rate expectations. For the market to price tightening beyond the Fed's dots, the economy and inflation would need to outperform the Fed's forecasts (which are 2.5% GDP growth, 1.9% core inflation and 3.9% unemployment for 2018). For now at least, it's not clear that is the case. Why Rates Are Rising Matters The relentless increase in 10-year Treasury yields spooked investors early last week, but it is too soon for equity investors to worry about an overly aggressive Fed. At 2.84%, the 10-year Treasury yield is above the FOMC's view of the neutral Fed funds rate, and has moved nearly 80 bps higher since early September. Market participants should be asking why yields are higher, and not worry about how much they have climbed. Chart 2Breaking Down The Rise In Yields BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service noted in mid-January1 that in the current environment, it is useful to split the nominal 10-year yield into its two main components - the compensation for inflation protection and the real yield (Chart 2). The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has moved from 1.66% last June to 2.13% late last week, but is still too low. Historically, the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate has traded in a range between 2.4 and 2.5% when inflation is well-anchored near the Fed's 2% target. BCA's stance is that inflation will move back to the Fed's target soon. The implication is that there is still another 25 to 35 bps of upside in the 10-year breakeven rate. The reason why this threshold is important is because a rise in inflation expectations to that level would be a signal that the FOMC will need to become more aggressive in slowing economic growth. This could occur even if actual inflation is below the 2% target, as long as it is rising toward the target. This will be especially true if the unemployment rate is heading to 3.5%, as we suspect. BCA's U.S. Bond strategists' model of real yields2 projects that real yields will rise 4 bps by the end of the year to 0.61%, but it could be more depending on how quickly the Fed wants to slow growth. Bottom Line: BCA expects that the nominal Treasury yield should move into a range between 3.0 and 3.25% by the time inflation reaches the Fed's target. BCA's stance is that risk assets will get into trouble once inflation expectations rise above 2.4%. Bond yields will presumably be moving higher along with inflation expectations. However, investors should not ignore higher Treasury yields rates. That said, equity investors do not need to be too concerned until inflation expectations hit that 2.4% threshold. Inflation itself may not be at 2% as this occurs, but if inflation is climbing and the unemployment rate is still falling, then the market will believe that the Fed is behind the curve. That is a bearish environment for equities. Inflation: Still A Waiting Game While the bond market has begun to price in higher inflation (via the move in the TIPS breakeven rate), wage and price inflation remains muted for now. Chart 3 illustrates various measures of wage inflation. Panel 1 shows that the Employment Cost Index (ECI) is in a clear uptrend. The acceleration in the wages and salaries component of ECI is broad-based across geography and industry (Chart 4, panel 1). Moreover, at 86%, the percentage of states reporting unemployment rates below NAIRU suggests that wage gains are imminent (Chart 4, panels 2 and 3). Chart 3Most Wage Metrics Are Rolling Over Chart 4The Employment Cost Index Is In A Definitive Uptrend... Although the year-over-year increase in average hourly earnings accelerated to 2.9% in January, many other wage indicators have stalled out recently (Chart 3, panel 4). The Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker rolled over recently along with weekly usual earnings (Chart 3, panels 2 and 3). In short, despite a robust global economy, a U.S. economy running above its long term potential and the unemployment rate (4.1% in January) below NAIRU (4.6%), labor shortages are not yet strong enough to push up wage inflation. Chart 5Shift Towards Service Economy Led##BR##To Shift Away From Capacity Utilization That said, the historical evidence suggests that once the labor market tightens, inflation eventually does accelerate. However, wages do not always lead inflation at bottoms and may be a lagging indicator in this cycle.3 In long economic cycles (1980s and 1990s), wage inflation was a lagging indicator. BCA recommends that investors should monitor a broad range of inflation indicators. Most of these indicators show that inflation pressures are building, but only gradually. The low readings on manufacturing capacity utilization suggest low odds of a rapid acceleration in inflation. Furthermore, the shift in composition of the U.S. economy in the past three decades suggests that the metric is no longer an accurate measure of wage or price bottlenecks in the economy (Chart 5, panels 1 and 2). Manufacturing capacity utilization hit a post WWII low in mid-2009 at 63.5%, before recovering to a well below average 75%-76% range for the past half-decade. In December 2017, utilization hit a 9-year high at 77%. Chart 5, (panels 3 and 4) shows that prior to 1980, inflation accelerated and the output gap closed as utilization breached 80%. Since early 1990s, the relationship is not as clear. Is 5% The Magic Number On Rates? History suggests that rising rates are not an impediment to higher stock prices, as long as rates remain below 5%. Chart 6 is a reminder that the 10-year yield and stock prices climbed together in the 1950s. The rise in yields in the 50s primarily reflected better economic growth rather than fears of inflation. Nonetheless, investors are concerned that a rise in yields will flip the positive correlation between bond yields and stock prices. Table 1 shows that since 1980, long treasury yields and stock prices move in the same direction until the 10-year moves above 5%. Chart 7 shows the relationship between the level of nominal bond yields and stock to bond yield correlations back to 1874. Moreover, since 1980, a move from 2 to 3% on the 10-year is accompanied by an average gain for the S&P 500 of 1.2%, with a median move of 1.8%. On average, the S&P 500 posts a modest decline (24 bps) as the 10-year Treasury elevates from 3 to 4%, but the median return (98 bps) is still positive. Our July 2016 Special Report provides an in-depth discussion of the impact of rates and inflation on equity prices. Historically, even the move from 4 to 5% on the 10-year is not an impediment to higher stock prices.4 Moreover, in a 2016 report our Global ETF Strategy service provides a detailed overview of equity returns in various phases of the Fed cycle.5 Chart 6Stock Can Rise##BR##With Bond Yields Table 13-Year Correlation* Between Stock Prices##BR##And Bond Yield Level (1980-2018) BCA's stance is that the stock-to-bond ratio will climb this year. However, the risk/reward embedded in that stance has shifted given the move in both bond yields and stock prices in the past few months. Our U.S. bond strategists peg fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 3.0%, just 18 bps above the yield last Friday morning. Chart 8 illustrates this point across three time horizons given our view of fair value on the 10-year Treasury yield (3.0%). Our analysis assumes a 1.75% annualized dividend yield on the S&P 500. Panel 1 illustrates that the ratio between now and mid-year will remain positive if stocks are flat. The same holds true though September 2018 and year end. Just a 5% drop in the S&P 500 by year-end 2018 signals a localized peak in the stock-to-bond ratio. Declines of 10 or 20% indicate a reversal of the uptrend in stocks versus bonds that has been in place since early 2016. Chart 7Stock To Bond Correlations Remain Positive With Nominal Yields Below 4.25% Chart 8Scenarios For Stock-To-Bond Ratio Bottom Line: BCA's view is that Treasury yields will top out at around 3 to 3.25% in this cycle, as inflation returns to the Fed's 2% target. Our base case is that stocks will do well in 2018, and will not be subject to concerns over an aggressive Fed until 2019. However, investors should closely monitor the 10-year TIPs spread, as noted above. We do not expect to breech 2.4% this year, but the timing is unclear. Moreover, we may take profits on our overweight stance well before the market senses the Fed is behind the curve, earlier than that, especially given stretched valuation and stretched market sentiment. Seismic Sentiment Shift Rising rates are not the only concern for U.S. equities. In late November, we noted6 that our technical and sentiment indicators are not flashing red as in previous bear markets, but neither are they giving an all-clear for U.S. equity investors. Sentiment levels are a bigger concern than technical indicators, and investors should monitor both for signs of an equity sell-off. These indicators have become even more stretched since we highlighted them in November and more clearly since the most recent equity market lull in late August 2017. BCA's technical indicator deteriorated since our late November report, but remains below levels that, in the past, have preceded bear markets (Chart 9, panel 1). The S&P 500 is testing the top end of the recovery trend channel in place since 2009 (Panel 2). A break above that level suggests more upside to stocks. However, a definitive failure to breakout may signal a period of consolidation for equities. BCA's equity valuation metric pushed further into extreme overvalued territory. Stretched valuations say more about medium- and long-term returns than near-term performance.7 However, the shift in the equity sentiment indicators we track is notable. BCA's investor sentiment composite index is at an all-time high (Chart 10, panel 1). Moreover, the surge in sentiment is led by individual investors and advisors who serve them (panels 2 and 4). Traders are a bit more complacent. Furthermore, individuals' optimism toward stocks is at an all-time high in surveys conducted by the Conference Board and the University of Michigan (Chart 11, panels 1 and 2). Chart 9Technical Picture For##BR##Equities Still Looks OK Chart 10Investor Sentiment##BR##Is Flashing Red Chart 11Surge In Consumer Optimism##BR##Toward Year Ahead Returns For Equities A similar survey from Yale University suggests that consumers' expectations about future equity market returns remains subdued. However, this may be due to the fact that the Yale survey is only available to December, and thus misses the equity 'melt up' in January that followed the news of the U.S. tax cuts. The other surveys mentioned are up to January. Notably, the Yale panel includes wealthy individual investors and a sample of institutions. The respondents in the Michigan and Conference Board surveys are more representative of the average U.S. household. Despite elevated attitudes toward equities, readings from the Fed's Flow of Funds on household ownership of stocks suggest that individuals may still have room in their portfolios for equities. Chart 12 shows that as of Q3 2017, equity holdings as a share of total household financial assets remains below prior peaks. As the U.S. stock market soared in the late 1990s, equities accounted for 31% of assets at the peak. Just before the global financial crisis, the figure was 23%. Today, equities account for just 25% of households' financial portfolios. The bottom panel of Chart 12 illustrates that individuals have allocated away from debt securities in the past half-decade. Chart 12Household Holdings Of Equities Still Below Prior Peaks Bottom Line: Sentiment has deteriorated more than valuations or technicals as the S&P 500 climbed to fresh all-time highs in December and January. While we are sticking with our stance that stocks will beat bonds in 2018, we are concerned about small caps. BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy service notes8 that rising interest rates and a flattening yield curve, coupled with increasing relative indebtedness and lack of relative profit growth, signal that the time is right to shift from overweight to neutral on U.S. small caps. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "The Long And Short Of It", published January 23, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Ill Placed Trust?", published December 19, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's The Bank Credit Analyst "Monthly Report", published September 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "Stock-To-Bond Correlation: When Will Good News Be Bad News?", published July 6, 2015. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Global ETF Strategy Special Report "Equity Factors And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle", published December 21, 2016. Available at getf.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Technically Speaking", published November 27, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Research's Global Asset Allocation Special Report "What Returns Can You Expect?", published November 15, 2017. Available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Too Good To Be True?", published January 22 , 2018. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Even though our baseline scenario calls for four rate hikes out of the Fed this year - more than markets have priced in - gold will be supported by increasing inflation and inflation expectations, heightened geopolitical risks, and greater volatility in equity markets. Further out, we expect gold will provide a good hedge against a likely equity downturn, as the bull market turns into a bear market in 2H19. For now, keep gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. Energy: Overweight. After popping above $70 and $66/bbl last week, Brent and WTI prices retreated ~ $2.00/bbl on the back of a stronger USD and increased rig counts in the U.S. shales, particularly in the prolific Permian Basin, where 18 rigs were added. We continue to expect Brent and WTI prices to average $67 and $63/bbl this year. Base Metals: Neutral. Spot copper continues to trade on either side of $3.20/lb on the COMEX. We remain neutral, given our view upside risk - chiefly supply-side disruptions at the mine and refined levels - will be balanced on the downside by a stronger USD and a slowdown in China. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold will draw support from rising inflation and inflation expectations this year and next (see below). Ags/Softs: Underweight. NAFTA negotiations ended this week in Montreal with the U.S. rejecting proposals from Canada to advance the talks. However, the U.S. side stated it would seek "major breakthroughs" at the next round of negotiations in Mexico City beginning February 26, according to agriculture.com. Feature Gold Price Risks Skewed To The Upside Price risk in gold will remain skewed to the upside this year, even as our base case scenario calls for limited gains from here. Higher inflation and inflation expectations, which normally would be bullish for gold, will be countered by Fed policy-rate hikes, which will boost the USD and lift real rates in our base case (Chart of the Week). Inflation's Revival Would Support Gold ... Despite above-trend global growth last year, subdued inflation limited the Fed's willingness to proceed with interest rate normalization in earnest. However, we do not put this down to structural forces, and instead expect core inflation to be near its bottom.1 In fact, inflation's soft readings are typical of the expected 18-month lag between U.S. economic growth and a pick-up in inflation, and as our Global Investment Strategists point out, several key indicators including the ISM manufacturing index, the New York Fed's Inflation Gauge, as well as BCA's proprietary pipeline inflation index are already moving in this direction (Chart 2).2 Chart of the WeekInflation And U.S. Financial Variables Matter Chart 2Signs Of Life In U.S. Inflation Inflation tends to pick up once the unemployment rate falls below the 5% mark. With the latest unemployment reading coming in at 4.1%, the U.S. economy has reached the steep end of the Phillips Curve - a workhorse model used by the Fed, which depicts the trade-off between unemployment and inflation. Indeed, BCA's Global Investment Strategists expect the U.S. unemployment rate to continue falling to a 49-year low of 3.5% by year-end. These further declines in the unemployment rate will push up wages, pressuring service inflation (Chart 3). At the same time, we expect the lagged impact of the weak USD will begin to show up in goods price inflation, along with higher energy prices. While some components of the Fed's preferred inflation gauge may face a slowdown in price pressure - most notably rent - this will likely be mitigated by accelerating prices in other components, such as health care, which we expect will return to its historic trend. In fact, U.S. inflation expectations - supported by higher energy prices and a strong December core CPI reading - have already started to increase (Chart 4). As our U.S. Bond Strategists point out, by the time core inflation returns to the Fed's target, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will be between 2.4% and 2.5%.3 Chart 3At The Steep End Of The Philips Curve Chart 4A Breakout In Inflation Expectations Thus the 2018 inflation outlook is showing signs that it is in the process of bottoming, and will soon begin its ascent. We expect core PCE inflation, the Fed's preferred gauge, to reach the central bank's 2% target by year-end. This pick-up in inflation and inflation expectations is positive for gold, which we've shown to be an attractive hedge against rising prices. However, inflation's comeback will likely embolden the Fed to proceed more aggressively with its hiking cycle. ... But A Hawkish Fed Counters Inflation ... While our modelling showcases an inverse relationship between real rates and gold prices, what is crucial to our outlook is our expectation of how the Fed will proceed with its interest rate normalization process this year. Given that gold's correlation with inflation is strengthened during periods of low real rates, the ideal condition for gold would be for the Fed to stay behind the inflation curve. But we are not expecting that just yet.4 Rather than waiting to see the "whites of inflation's eyes," our expectation is the Fed will tighten ahead of inflation. This has in fact already materialized with three hikes in 2017 amid muted inflation. Upward surprises in U.S. growth, coupled with an upward trend in inflation will keep the Fed on its normalization path with greater confidence. We expect four rate hikes in 2018 - above both market expectations and what is implied by the "dot plot". Net, the pre-emptive Fed rate hikes we expect will lead to higher real rates, and will limit gold's upside this year. ... As Does A Stronger Greenback An increase in U.S. real rates vis-à-vis other economies, as well as a shift in the composition of global growth to favor the U.S., will support the USD. In addition to higher real rates, this would also limit gold's upside in 2018. Stronger growth ex-U.S. last year weakened the USD. This year, we expect the U.S. economy to outperform. Financial conditions have eased in the U.S. relative to the rest of the world, while fiscal policy is expected to be comparatively more favorable in the U.S. The U.S. surprise index has reflected this shift in comparative growth, outperforming most regions (Chart 5).5 While the Euro has been exceptionally resilient, the fallout from a stronger currency will eventually begin to show up in slower growth. The EUR/USD cross has diverged from the spread in expected policy rates, leaving the euro looking expensive (Chart 6). Since the beginning of the year, spreads have widened in favor of the dollar, while the USD has weakened. Although we do not expect the ECB to hike until mid-2019, our expectation of four Fed rate hikes this year will support the greenback. This will push spreads back in line. Such decoupling is not the norm, and we expect a 5% appreciation in the dollar in broad trade weighted terms.6 Chart 5Economic Surprises Favor The U.S. Chart 6EUR Looks Expensive Still, The Fed Could Surprise, And Tilt Dovish Chart 7A Policy Change Would##BR##Tolerate Higher Inflation A risk to our base case outlook is a change in the Fed's monetary policy framework. Here we note an increasing number of statements advocating the exploration of an alternative policy framework have been emerging from the Fed. This line of attack observes the Fed's current 2% inflation target is unsatisfactory, as it is too close to the zero-lower bound on interest rates, thus constraining the Fed's ability to exercise expansionary monetary policy when rates are low.7 Alternative policy proposals include price-level targeting, as well as an increase in the inflation target. Additionally, former Fed Chair Bernanke recently proposed a temporary price level target be implemented during low-rate periods.8 The net effect of these alternatives would be a higher inflation rate - above the current 2% target (Chart 7). If the Fed were to adopt a new monetary policy framework, it will likely occur before the next recession - in order to allow it to better respond to economic weakness. While we do not expect a regime change this year, these discussions and an eventual shift, may make the Fed more dovish this year, and more likely to tolerate higher inflation in the future. This would be an upside risk to gold, as it would assume its role as a store-of-value against higher inflation. The net effect of such a policy change - were it to occur - would be higher inflation expectations, lower real rates, and a weaker USD, all of which would bid up the gold market. Bottom Line: The revival of U.S. inflation and inflation expectations will bolster gold. However, our expectation that the Fed will continue hiking ahead of a realized uptick in inflation, and more aggressively than is currently priced in the market, will increase real rates and limit gold's upside potential. A stronger USD on the back of higher real rates, as well as a shift in global growth in favor of the U.S., will work against gold this year. Geopolitical Risks: Understated In 2018 We expect geopolitical risks to support gold prices this year. Gold's safe-haven attributes will be highlighted by a combination of events spread across the calendar year, which we believe will put a floor under the metal's price (Chart 8).9 Political and economic policy uncertainty will remain elevated this year (Chart 9). Our Geopolitical Strategists see this year's gold-relevant risks stemming from two main factors: (1) U.S. political risks, and (2) Exogenous tail risks. The former is likely to be a more significant source of upside pressure. Chart 8Gold Outperforms During##BR##Geopolitical Crises Chart 9Elevated Policy Uncertainty##BR##Supports Gold U.S. Foreign Strategy Risks Will Keep Gold Bid U.S. political risks are rooted in President Trump's strategic decisions, and boil down to two mutually exclusive schemes ahead of the midterm elections: Domestic Strategy or Foreign Strategy (Table 1). Our Geopolitical strategists note: "... policymakers often play "two-level games," with the domestic arena influencing what is possible in the international one. As Donald Trump loses political capital on the domestic front, his options for affecting policy will become constrained. However, the U.S. constitution places almost no constraints on the president when it comes to foreign policy."10 Trump's propensity to take on a more aggressive stance in foreign policy - which would be boosted by an unfavorable outcome in the immigration bill - will set the stage for a volatile year, supporting gold via its ability to hedge against geopolitical risks (Chart 10). Table 1Trump's Two-Level Game Chart 10Trump Will Look To Revive His Political Capital In addition to the U.S. political risks, many low-probability high-impact risks will keep volatility elevated this year and could support gold as a strategic portfolio hedge in 2018. Most notable are the following: A meaningful slowdown in China would have a negative impact on the global economy, as well as increase the risk of a monetary policy mistake in the U.S. The Fed's monetary policy decision is important for EM growth, while EM growth contributes to U.S. inflation, this feedback system makes the expected slowdown in Chinese growth relevant to the U.S. monetary stance. If China slows more than expected, this would reduce the global demand for commodities and goods, diminishing U.S. inflation expectations, potentially forcing the Fed to reassess its rate hike pace. If no adjustments are made, the Fed risks overshooting the equilibrium interest rate, increasing the risk of an equity correction. A downward rate hike adjustment, would keep the USD and real rates at low levels. A global oil-supply disruption caused by a collapse of the Venezuelan economy would lead to a short-lived spike in oil prices (Chart 11). In low-spare-capacity environments - as we are in today - oil prices become more responsive to supply shocks. Based on our simulations, a 600k b/d drop in Venezuelan oil supply in 2018 could spike oil prices by ~$10/bbl, leading to higher cost-push inflation. Our modelling shows U.S. CPI is highly responsive to oil price variation. This spike in headline inflation would push gold prices higher. Chart 11Cost-Push Inflation Risk From Venezuela Collapse In addition to U.S.-Iran tensions, we see other potential catalysts to instability in the Middle East - mainly regarding a severe deterioration of the U.S.-Turkish relationship, and Iraqi-Kurdish clashes ahead of Iraqi elections. Lastly, Europe: Italian elections and Euro-skepticism are a longer-term risk; however, news around the Italian elections in March has the potential to fuel talk of a potential breakup, which could lift gold.11 Bottom Line: Increased tensions due to Trump's controversial foreign strategy (China and Iran), as well as exogenous tail risks throughout the year will keep risks elevated in 2018, supporting gold prices. In fact our geopolitical strategists believe risks are understated this year, increasing the utility of gold's ability to hedge against political turmoil. Gold Outperforms In Equity Bear Markets In addition to its ability to hedge against rising inflation and increased geopolitical risks, gold outperforms during equity downturns and amid market volatility.12 Specifically, during periods of negative equity returns, gold outperformed the S&P500 79% of the time, with an average excess return of 3.7%. Furthermore, gold outperforms equities 60% of the time in periods of rising VIX with an average excess monthly return of 1.6% in these periods, and only 30% of the time in decreasing VIX periods with an average monthly excess return of -1.8% (Chart 12).13 We expect the equity bull market to remain intact throughout 2018. An equity downturn is not expected before 2H19. Nevertheless, we expect volatility to increase this year as investors fret about the sustainability of the bull market, and amid heightened geopolitical tensions. Moreover, domestic U.S. developments - e.g., the evolution of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation; a larger-than-expected Democrat win in the midterm elections or a Fed policy mistake - could affect investor sentiment and trigger a rise in volatility and a temporary sell-off in S&P 500. In our view, consumer confidence is a key contributor to the current equity bull market and currently stands at very elevated levels (Chart 13). Thus, any meaningful disappointment could derail this high-confidence environment. Chart 12Gold Outperforms Amid##BR##Volatility & Equity Downturns Chart 13High Confidence##BR##Environment At Risk Therefore, we believe the larger-than-expected tail risks and the monetary and political risks in the U.S. are not fully reflected in the gold market (Chart 14). The above risks assessment would suggest a fatter right tail in out-of-the-money gold options. Chart 14Rising Volatility Will Support Gold Chart 15Understated Geopolitical Risks This Year Bottom Line: While geopolitical risks were overstated in 2017, they are understated this year (Chart 15). Thus we do not expect a repeat of last year's low-VIX high-confidence environment. Rather gold will gain support from increased equity volatility this year. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report titled "The Impact of Robots on Inflation," dated January 25, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Three Tantalizing Trades - Four Months On," dated January 19, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report titled "It's Still All About Inflation," dated January 16, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Go Long Gold As A Strategic Portfolio Hedge," dated May 4, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Four Key Questions On The 2018 Global Growth Outlook," dated January 5, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "The Indefatigable Euro," dated January 26, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see "Fed Officials See Benefits In Letting Inflation Run Above Target," dated January 19, 2018, available at Bloomberg.com. 8 Please see https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2017/10/12/temporary-price-level-targeting-an-alternative-framework-for-monetary-policy/ 9 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Balance Of Risks Favors Holding Gold," dated October 12, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report titled "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 For a comprehensive analysis of this issue, please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Go Long Gold As A Strategic Portfolio Hedge," dated May 4, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 13 Excess returns = (Gold - S&P 500) monthly returns. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights U.S. equities 'melted up' in January as tax cuts made the robust growth/low inflation sweet spot even sweeter. Ominously, recent market action is beginning to resemble a classic late cycle blow-off phase. The fundamentals supporting the market will persist through most of the year, before an economic downturn in the U.S. takes hold in 2019. The repatriation of overseas corporate cash will also flatter EPS growth this year via buyback and M&A activity. The S&P 500 could return 14% or more this year. Unfortunately, the consensus now shares our upbeat view for 2018. Valuation is stretched and many indicators suggest that investors have become downright giddy. This month we compare valuation across the major asset classes. U.S. equities are the most overvalued, followed by gold, raw industrials and EM assets. Oil is still close to fair value. Long-term investors should already be scaling back on risk assets. Investors with a 6-12 month horizon should stay overweight equities versus bonds for now, but a risk management approach means that they should not try to squeeze out the last few percentage points of return. In terms of the sequencing of the exit from risk, the most consistent lead/lag relationship relative to previous tops in the equity market is provided by U.S. corporate bonds. For this reason, we are likely to take profits on corporates before equities. EM assets are already at underweight. We still see a window for the U.S. dollar to appreciate, although by only about 5%. A lot of good news is discounted in the euro, peripheral core inflation is slowing and ECB policymakers are getting nervous. Monetary policy remains the main risk to a pro-cyclical investment stance, although not because of the coming change in the makeup of the FOMC. The economy and inflation should justify four Fed rate hikes in 2018 no matter the makeup. The bond bear phase will continue. Feature Chart I-1Investors Are Giddy U.S. equities 'melted up' in January as tax cuts made the robust growth/low inflation sweet spot even sweeter. Ominously, though, recent market action is beginning to resemble the classic late cycle blow-off phase. Such blow-offs can be highly profitable, but also make it more difficult to properly time the market top. Our base case is that the fundamentals supporting the market will persist through most of the year, before an economic downturn in the U.S. takes hold in 2019. Unfortunately, the consensus now shares our upbeat view for 2018 and many indicators suggest that investors have become downright giddy (Chart I-1). These indicators include investor sentiment, our speculation index, and the bull-to-bear ratio. Net S&P earnings revisions and the U.S. economic surprise index are also extremely elevated, while equity and bond implied volatility are near all-time lows. From a contrarian perspective, these observations suggest that a lot of good news is discounted and that the market is vulnerable to even slight disappointments. It is also a bad sign that our Revealed Preference Indicator moved off of its bullish equity signal in January (see Section III for more details). Meanwhile, central banks are beginning to take away the punchbowl as global economic slack dissipates. This is all late-cycle stuff. Equity valuation does not help investors time the peak in markets, but it does tell us something about downside risk and medium-term expected returns. The Shiller P/E ratio has surged above 30 (Chart I-2). Chart I-3 highlights that, historically, average total returns were negligible over the subsequent 10-year period when the Shiller P/E was in the 30-40 range. Granted, the Shiller P/E will likely fall mechanically later this year as the collapse of earnings in 2008 begins to drop out of the 10-year EPS calculation. Nonetheless, even the BCA Composite Valuation indicator, which includes some metrics that account for extremely low bond yields, surpassed +1 standard deviations in January (our threshold for overvaluation; Chart I-2, bottom panel). An overvaluation signal means that investors should be biased to take profits early. Chart I-2BCA Valuation Indicator Surpasses One Sigma Chart I-3Expected Returns Given Starting Point Shiller P/E As we highlighted in our 2018 Outlook Report, long-term investors should already be scaling back on risk assets. We recommend that investors with a 6-12 month horizon should stay overweight equities versus bonds for now, but we need to be vigilant in terms of scouring for signals to take profits. A risk management approach means that investors should not try to get the last few percentage points of return before the peak. U.S. Earnings And Repatriation Before we turn to the timing and sequence of our exit from risk assets, we will first update our thoughts on the earnings cycle. Fourth quarter U.S. earnings season is still in its early innings, but the banking sector has set an upbeat tone. S&P 500 profits are slated to register a 12% growth rate for both Q4/2017 and calendar 2017. Current year EPS growth estimates have been aggressively ratcheted higher (from 12% growth to 16%) in a mere three weeks on the back of Congress' cut to the corporate tax rate.1 U.S. margins fell slightly in the fourth quarter, but remain at a high level on the back of decent corporate pricing power. A pick-up in productivity growth into year-end helped as well. Our short-term profit model remains extremely upbeat (Chart I-4). The positive profit outlook for the first half of the year is broadly based across sectors as well, according to the recently updated EPS forecast models from BCA's U.S. Equity Sector Strategy service.2 The repatriation of overseas corporate cash will also flatter EPS growth this year via buyback and M&A activity. Studies of the 2004 repatriation legislation show that most of the funds "brought home" were paid out to shareholders, mostly in the form of buybacks. A NBER report estimated that for every dollar repatriated, 92 cents was subsequently paid out to shareholders in one form or another. The surge in buybacks occurred in 2005, according to the U.S. Flow of Funds accounts and a proxy using EPS growth less total dollar earnings growth for the S&P 500 (Chart I-5). The contribution to EPS growth from buybacks rose to more than 3 percentage points at the peak in 2005. Chart I-4Profit Growth Still Accelerating Chart I-5U.S. Buybacks To Lift EPS We expect that most of the repatriated funds will again flow through to shareholders, rather than be used to pay down debt or spent on capital goods. Cash has not been a constraint to capital spending in recent years outside of perhaps the small business sector, which has much less to gain from the tax holiday. A revival in animal spirits and capital spending is underway, but this has more to do with the overall tax package and global growth than the ability of U.S. companies to repatriate overseas earnings. Estimates of how much the repatriation could boost EPS vary widely. Most of it will occur in the Tech and Health Care sectors. Buybacks appear to have lifted EPS growth by roughly one percentage point over the past year. We would not be surprised to see this accelerate by 1-2 percentage points, although the timing could be delayed by a year if the 2004 tax holiday provides the correct timeline. This is certainly positive for the equity market, but much of the impact could already be discounted in prices. Organic earnings growth, and the economic and policy outlook will be the main drivers of equity market returns over the next year. We expect some profit margin contraction later this year, but our 5% EPS growth forecast is beginning to look too conservative. This is especially the case because it does not include the corporate tax cuts. The amount by which the tax cuts will boost earnings on an after-tax basis is difficult to estimate, but we are using 5% as a conservative estimate. Adding 2% for buybacks and 2% for dividends, the S&P 500 could provide an attractive 14% total return this year (assuming no multiple expansion). Timing The Exit Chart I-6Timing The Exit (I) That said, we noted in last month's Report and in BCA's 2018 Outlook that this will be a transition year. We expect a recession in the U.S. sometime in 2019 as the Fed lifts rates into restrictive territory. Equities and other risk assets will sniff out the recession about six months in advance, which means that investors should be preparing to take profits sometime during the next 12 months. Last month we discussed some of the indicators we will watch to help us time the exit. The 2/10 Treasury yield curve has been a reliable recession indicator in the past. However, the lead time on the peak in stocks was quite extended at times (Chart I-6). A shift in the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate above 2.4% would be consistent with the Fed's 2% target for the PCE measure of inflation. This would be a signal that the FOMC will have to step-up the pace of rate hikes and aggressively slow economic growth. We expect the Fed to tighten four times in 2018. We are likely to take some money off the table if core inflation is rising, even if it is still below 2%, at the time that the TIPS breakeven reaches 2.4%. We will also be watching seven indicators that we have found to be useful in heralding market tops, which are summarized in our Scorecard Indicator (Chart I-7). At the moment, four out of the seven indicators are positive (Chart I-8): State of the Business Cycle: As early signals that the economy is softening, watch for the ISM new orders minus inventories indicator to slip below zero, or the 3-month growth rate of unemployment claims to rise above zero. Monetary and Financial Conditions: Using interest rates to judge the stance of monetary policy has been complicated by central banks' use of their balance sheet as a policy tool. Thus, it is better to use two of our proprietary indicators: the BCA Monetary Indicator (MI) and the Financial Conditions Indictor. The S&P 500 index has historically rallied strongly when the MI is above its long-term average. Similarly, equities tend to perform well when the FCI is above its 250-day moving average. The MI is sending a negative signal because interest rates have increased and credit growth has slowed. However, the broader FCI remains well in 'bullish' territory. Price Momentum: We simply use the S&P 500 relative to its 200-day moving average to measure momentum. Currently, the index is well above that level, providing a bullish signal for the Scorecard. Sentiment: Our research shows that stock returns have tended to be highest following periods when sentiment is bearish but improving. In contrast, returns have tended to be lowest following periods when sentiment is bullish but deteriorating. The Scorecard includes the BCA Speculation Indicator to capture sentiment, but virtually all measures of sentiment are very high. The next major move has to be down by definition. Thus, sentiment is assigned a negative value in the Scorecard. Value: As discussed above, value is poor based on the Shiller P/E and the BCA Composite Valuation indicator. Valuation may not help with timing, but we include it in our Scorecard because an overvalued signal means investors should err on the side of getting out early. Chart I-7Equity ScoreCard: Watch For A Dip Below 3 Chart I-8Timing The Exit (II) We demonstrated in previous research that a Scorecard reading of three or above was historically associated with positive equity total returns in subsequent months. A drop below three this year would signal the time to de-risk. Table I-1Exit Checklist To our Checklist we add the U.S. Leading Economic index, which has a good track record of calling recessions. However, we will use the LEI excluding the equity market, since we are using it as an indicator for the stock market. It is bullish at the moment. Our Global LEI is also flashing green. Table I-1 provides a summary checklist for trimming equity exposure. At the moment, 2 out of 9 indicators are bearish. Cross Asset Valuation Comparison Clients have asked our view on the appropriate order in which to scale out of risk assets. One way to approach the question is to compare valuation across asset classes. Presumably, the ones that are most overvalued are at greatest risk, and thus profits should be taken the earliest. It is difficult to compare valuation across asset classes. Should one use fitted values from models or simple deviations from moving averages? Over what time period? Since there is no widely accepted approach, we include multiple measures. More than one time period was used in some cases to capture regime changes. Table I-2 provides out 'best guestimate' for nine asset classes. The approaches range from sophisticated methods developed over many years (i.e. our equity valuation indicators), to regression analysis on the fundamentals (oil), to simple deviations from a time trend (real raw industrial commodity prices and gold). Table I-2Valuation Levels For Major Asset Classes We averaged the valuation readings in cases where there are multiple estimates for a single asset class. The results are shown in Chart I-9. Chart I-9Valuation Levels For Major Asset Classes U.S. equities stand out as the most expensive by far, at 1.8 standard deviations above fair value. Gold, raw industrials and EM equities are next at one standard deviation overvalued. EM sovereign bond spreads come next at 0.7, followed closely by U.S. Treasurys (real yield levels) and investment-grade corporate (IG) bonds (expressed as a spread). High-yield (HY) is only about 0.3 sigma expensive, based on default-adjusted spreads over the Treasury curve. That said, both IG and HY are quite expensive in absolute terms based on the fact that government bonds are expensive. Oil is sitting very close to fair value, despite the rapid price run up over the past couple of months. This makes oil exposure doubly attractive at the moment because the fundamentals point to higher prices at a time when the underlying asset is not expensive. Sequencing Around Past S&P 500 Peaks Historical analysis around equity market peaks provides an alternative approach to the sequencing question. Table I-3 presents the number of days that various asset classes peaked before or after the past major five tops in the S&P 500. A negative number indicates that the asset class peaked before U.S. equities, and a positive number means that it peaked after. Table I-3Asset Class Leads & Lags Vs. Peak In S&P 500 Unfortunately, there is no consistent pattern observed for EM equities, raw industrials, U.S. cyclical stocks, Tech stocks, or small-cap versus large-cap relative returns. Sometimes they peaked before the S&P 500, and sometime after. The EM sovereign bond excess return index peaked about 130 days in advance of the 1998 and 2007 U.S. equity market tops, although we only have three episodes to analyse due to data limitations. Oil is a mixed bag. A peak in the price of gold led the equity market in four out of five episodes, but the lead time is long and variable. The most consistent lead/lag relationship is given by the U.S. corporate bond market. Both investment- and speculative-grade excess returns relative to government bonds peaked in advance of U.S. stocks in four of the five episodes. High-yield excess returns provided the most lead time, peaking on average 154 days in advance. Excess returns to high-yield were a better signal than total returns. This leading relationship is one reason why we plan to trim exposure to corporate bonds within our bond portfolio in advance of scaling back on equities. But the 'return of vol' that we expect to occur later this year will take a toll on carry trades more generally. We are already underweight EM equities and bonds. This EM recommendation has not gone in our favor, but it would make little sense to upgrade them now given our positive views on volatility and the dollar. An unwinding of carry trades will also hit the high-yielding currencies outside of the EM space, such as the Kiwi and Aussie dollar. Base metal prices will be hit particularly hard if the 2019 U.S. recession spills over to the EM economies as we expect. We may downgrade base metals from neutral to underweight around the time that we downgrade equities, but much depends on the evolution of the Chinese economy in the coming months. Oil is a different story. OPEC 2.0 is likely to cut back on supply in the face of an economic downturn, helping to keep prices elevated. We therefore may not trim energy exposure this year. As for equity sectors, our recommended portfolio is still overweight cyclicals for now. Our synchronized global capex boom, rising bond yield, and firm oil price themes keep us overweight the Industrials, Energy and Financial sectors. Utilities and Homebuilders are underweight. Tech is part of the cyclical sector, but poor valuation keeps us underweight. That said, our sector specialists are already beginning a gradual shift away from cyclicals toward defensives for risk management purposes. This transition will continue in the coming months as we de-risk. We are also shifting small caps to neutral on earnings disappointments and elevated debt levels. The Dollar Pain Trade Market shifts since our last publication have largely gone in our favor; stocks have surged, corporate bonds spreads have tightened, oil prices have spiked, bonds have sold off and cyclical stocks have outperformed defensives. One area that has gone against us is the U.S. dollar. Relative interest rate expectations have moved in favor of the dollar as we expected at both the short- and long-ends of the curve. Nonetheless, the dollar has not tracked its historical relationship versus both the yen and euro. The Greenback did not even get a short-term boost from the passage of the tax plan and holiday on overseas earnings. Perhaps this is because the lion's share of "overseas" earnings are already held in U.S. dollars. Reportedly, a large fraction is even held in U.S. banks on U.S. territory. Currency conversion is thus not a major bullish factor for the U.S. dollar. The recent bout of dollar weakness began around the time of the release of the ECB Minutes in January which were interpreted as hawkish because they appeared to be preparing markets for changes in monetary policy. The European debt crisis and economic recession were the reasons for the ECB's asset purchases and negative interest rate policy. Neither of these conditions are in place now. The ECB is meeting as we go to press, and we expect some small adjustments in the Statement that remove references to the need for "crisis" level accommodations. Subsequent steps will be to prepare markets for a complete end to QE, perhaps in September, and then for rates hikes likely in 2019. The key point is that European monetary policy has moved beyond 'peak stimulus' and the normalization process will continue. Perhaps this is partly to blame for euro strength although, as mentioned above, interest rate differentials have moved in favor of the dollar. Does this mean that the dollar has peaked and has entered a cyclical bear phase that will persist over the next 6-12 months? The answer is 'no', although we are less bullish than in the past. We believe there is still a window for the dollar to appreciate against the euro and in broader trade-weighted terms by about 5%. First, a lot of euro-bullish news has been discounted (Chart I-10). Positive economic surprises heavily outstripped that in the U.S. last year, but that phase is now over. The euro appears expensive based on interest rate differentials, and euro sentiment is close to a bullish extreme. This all suggests that market positioning has become a negative factor for the currency. Chart I-10Euro: A Lot Of Bullish News Is Discounted Second, the chorus of complaints against the euro's strength is growing among European central bankers, including Ewald Nowotny, the rather hawkish Austrian central banker. Policymakers' concerns may partly reflect the fact that peripheral inflation excluding food and energy has already weakened to 0.6% from a high of 1.3% in April last year (Chart I-10, fourth panel). Third, U.S. consumer price and wage inflation have yet to pick up meaningfully. The dollar should receive a lift if core U.S. inflation clearly moves toward the Fed's 2% target, as we expect. The FOMC would suddenly appear to have fallen behind the curve and U.S. rate expectations would ratchet higher. Chart I-10, bottom panel, highlights that the euro will weaken if U.S. core inflation rises versus that in the Eurozone. The implication is that the Euro's appreciation has progressed too far and is due for a pullback. As for the yen, the currency surged in January when the Bank of Japan (BoJ) announced a reduction in long-dated JGB purchases. This simply acknowledged what has already occurred. It was always going to be impossible to target both the quantity of bond purchases and the level of 10-year yield simultaneously. Keeping yields near the target required less purchases than they thought. The market interpreted the BoJ's move as a possible prelude to lifting the 10-year yield target. It is perhaps not surprising that the market took the news this way. The economy is performing extremely well; our model that incorporates high-frequency economic data suggests that real GDP growth will move above 3% in the coming quarters. The Japanese economy is benefiting from the end of a fiscal drag and from a rebound in EM growth. Nonetheless, following January's BoJ policy meeting, Kuroda poured cold water on speculation that the BoJ may soon end or adjust the YCC. Recent speeches by BoJ officials reinforce the view that the MPC wants to see an overshoot of actual inflation that will lower real interest rates and thereby reinforce the strong economic activity that is driving higher inflation. Only then will officials be convinced that their job is done. Given that inflation excluding food and energy only stands at 0.3%, the BoJ is still a long way from the overshoot it desires. On the positive side, Japan's large current account surplus and yen undervaluation provide underlying support for the currency. Balancing the offsetting positive and negative forces, our foreign exchange strategists have shifted to neutral on the yen. The Euro remains underweight while the dollar is overweight. Similar to our dollar view, we still see a window for U.S. Treasurys to underperform the global hedged fixed-income benchmark as world bond yields shift higher this year. European government bonds will also sell off, but should outperform Treasurys. JGBs will provide the best refuge for bondholders during the global bond bear phase, since the BoJ will prevent a rise in yields inside of the 10-year maturity. Our global bond strategists upgraded U.K. gilts to overweight in January. Momentum in the U.K. economy is slowing, as a weaker consumer, slower housing activity, and softer capital spending are offsetting a pickup in exports. With the inflationary impulse from the 2016 plunge in the Pound now fading, and with Brexit uncertainty weighing on business confidence, the Bank of England will struggle to raise rates in 2018. FOMC Transition Monetary policy remains the main risk to a pro-cyclical investment stance, although not because of the coming change in the makeup of the FOMC. An abrupt shift in policy is unlikely. There was some support at the December 2017 FOMC meeting to study the use of nominal GDP or price level targeting as a policy framework, but this has been an ongoing debate that will likely continue for years to come. The Fed will remain committed to its current monetary policy framework once Powell takes over. Table I-4 provides a summary of who will be on the FOMC next year, including their policy bias. Chart I-11 compares the recent FOMC makeup with the coming Powell FOMC (voting members only). The hawk/dove ratio will not change much under Powell, unless Trump stacks the vacant spots with hawks. Table I-4Composition Of The FOMC Chart I-11Composition Of Voting FOMC Members 2017 Vs. 2018 In any event, history shows that the FOMC strives to avoid major shifts in policy around changeovers in the Fed Chair. In previous transitions, the previous path for rates was maintained by an average of 13 months. Moreover, Powell has shown that he is not one to rock the boat during his time on the FOMC. It will be the evolution of the economy and inflation, not the composition of the FOMC, that will have the biggest impact on markets at the end of the day. Recent speeches reveal that policymakers across the hawk/dove spectrum are moving modesty toward the hawkish side because growth has accelerated at a time when unemployment is already considered to be below full-employment by many policymakers. The melt-up in equity indexes in January did little to calm worries about financial excesses either. The Fed is struggling to understand the strength of the structural factors that could be holding down inflation. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 21, focusses on the impact of robot automation. While advances on this front are impressive, we conclude that it is difficult to find evidence that robots are more deflationary than previous technological breakthroughs. Thus, increased robot usage should not prevent inflation from rising as the labor market continues to tighten. The macro backdrop will likely justify the FOMC hiking at least as fast as the dots currently forecast. The risks are skewed to the upside. The median Fed dot calls for an unemployment rate of 3.9% by end-2018, only marginally lower than today's rate of 4.1%. This is inconsistent with real GDP growth well in excess of its supply-side potential. The unemployment rate is more likely to reach a 49-year low of 3.5% by the end of this year. As highlighted in last month's Report, a key risk to the bull market in risk assets is the end of the 'low vol/low rate' world. The selloff in the bond market in January may mark the start of this process. Conclusions We covered a lot of ground in this month's Overview of the markets, so we will keep the conclusions brief and focused on the risks. Our key point is that the fundamentals remain positive for risk assets, but that a lot of good news is discounted and it appears that we have entered a classic blow-off phase. This will be a transition year to a recession in the U.S. in 2019. Given that valuation for most risk assets is quite stretched, and given that the monetary taps are starting to close, investors must plan for the exit and keep an eye on our timing checklist. The main risk to our pro-cyclical portfolio is a rise in U.S. inflation and the Fed's response, which we believe will end the sweet spot for risk assets. Apart from this, our geopolitical strategists point to several other items that could upset the applecart this year:3 1. Trade China has cooperated with the U.S. in trying to tame North Korea. Nonetheless, President Trump is committed to an "America First" trade policy and he may need to show some muscle against China ahead of the midterm elections in November in order to rally his base. It is politically embarrassing to the Administration that China racked up its largest trade surplus ever with the U.S. in Trump's first year in office. A key question is whether the President goes after China via a series of administrative rulings - such as the recently announced tariffs on solar panels and white goods - or whether he applies an across-the-board tariff and/or fine. The latter would have larger negative macroeconomic implications. 2. Iran On January 12, President Trump threatened not to waive sanctions against Iran the next time they come due (May 12), unless some new demands are met. Pressure from the U.S. President comes at a delicate time for Iran. Domestic unrest has been ongoing since December 28. Although protests have largely fizzled out, they have reopened the rift between the clerical regime, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and moderate President Hassan Rouhani. Iranian hardliners, who control part of the armed forces, could lash out in the Persian Gulf, either by threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz or by boarding foreign vessels in international waters. The domestic political calculus in both Iran and the U.S. make further Tehran-Washington tensions likely. For the time being, however, we expect only a minor geopolitical risk premium to seep into the energy markets, supporting our bullish House View on oil prices. 3. China Last month's Special Report highlighted that significant structural reforms are on the way in China, now that President Xi has amassed significant political support for his reform agenda. The reforms should be growth-positive in the long term, but could be a net negative for growth in the near term depending on how deftly the authorities handle the monetary and fiscal policy dials. The risk is that the authorities make a policy mistake by staying too tight, as occurred in 2015. We are monitoring a number of indicators that should warn if a policy mistake is unfolding. On this front, January brought some worrying economic data. The latest figures for both nominal imports and money growth slowed. Given that M2 and M3 are components of BCA's Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, and that nominal imports directly impact China's contribution to global growth, this raises the question of whether December's economic data suggest that China is slowing at a more aggressive pace than we expect. For now, our answer is no. First, China's trade numbers are highly volatile; nominal import growth remains elevated after smoothing the data. Second, China's export growth remains buoyant, consistent with a solid December PMI reading. The bottom line is that we are sticking with our view that China will experience a benign deceleration in terms of its impact on DM risk assets, but we will continue to monitor the situation closely. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst January 25, 2018 Next Report: February 22, 2018 1 According to Thomson Reuters/IBES. 2 Please see U.S. Equity Sector Strategy Special Report "White Paper: Introducing Our U.S. Equity Sector Earnings Models," dated January 16, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3 For more information, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Also see "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018. II. The Impact Of Robots On Inflation Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. Technological advance in the past has not prevented improving living standards or led to ever rising joblessness over the decades, but pessimists argue that recent advances are different. The issue is important for financial markets. If structural factors such as automation are holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. We see no compelling evidence that the displacement effect of emerging technologies is any stronger than in the past. Robot usage has had a modest positive impact on overall productivity. Despite this contribution, overall productivity growth has been dismal over the past decade. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale as some claim, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Periods of strong growth in automation have historically been associated with robust, not lackluster, wage gains, contrary to the consensus view. The Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. This and other evidence suggest that it is difficult to make the case that robots will make it tougher for central banks to reach their inflation goals than did previous technological breakthroughs. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. Recent breakthroughs in technology are awe-inspiring and unsettling. These advances are viewed with great trepidation by many because of the potential to replace humans in the production process. Hype over robots is particularly shrill. Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. In the first in our series of Special Reports focusing on the structural factors that might be preventing central banks from reaching their inflation targets, we demonstrated that the impact of Amazon is overstated in the press. We estimated that E-commerce is depressing inflation in the U.S. by a mere 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points. This Special Report tackles the impact of automation. We are optimistic that robot technology and artificial intelligence will significantly boost future productivity, and thus reduce costs. But, is there any evidence at the macro level that robot usage has been more deflationary than technological breakthroughs in the past and is, thus, a major driver of the low inflation rates we observe today across the major countries? The question matters, especially for the outlook for central bank policy and the bond market. If structural factors are indeed holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. However, if low inflation simply reflects long lags between wages and the tightening labor market, then inflation may suddenly lurch to life as it has at the end of past cycles. The bond market is not priced for that scenario. Are Robots Different? A Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service suggested that the "robot revolution" could be as transformative as previous General Purpose Technologies (GPT), including the steam engine, electricity and the microchip.1 GPTs are technologies that radically alter the economy's production process and make a major contribution to living standards over time. The term "robot" can have different meanings. The most basic definition is "a device that automatically performs complicated and often repetitive tasks," and this encompasses a broad range of machines: From the Jacquard Loom, which was invented over 200 years ago, on to Numerically Controlled (NC) mills and lathes, pick and place machines used in the manufacture of electronics, Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), and even homicidal robots from the future such as the Terminator. Our Technology Sector report made the case that there is nothing particularly sinister about robots. They are just another chapter in a long history of automation. Nor is the displacement of workers unprecedented. The industrial revolution was about replacing human craft labor with capital (machines), which did high-volume work with better quality and productivity. This freed humans for work which had not yet been automated, along with designing, producing and maintaining the machinery. Agriculture offers a good example. This sector involved over 50% of the U.S. labor force until the late 1800s. Steam and then internal combustion-powered tractors, which can be viewed as "robotic horses," contributed to a massive rise in output-per-man hour. The number of hours worked to produce a bushel of wheat fell by almost 98% from the mid-1800s to 1955. This put a lot of farm hands out of work, but these laborers were absorbed over time in other growing areas of the economy. It is the same story for all other historical technological breakthroughs. Change is stressful for those directly affected, but rising productivity ultimately lifts average living standards. Robots will be no different. As we discuss below, however, the increasing use of robots and AI may have a deeper and longer-lasting impact on inequality. Strong Tailwinds Chart II-1Robots Are Getting Cheaper Factory robots have improved immensely due to cheaper and more capable control and vision systems. As these systems evolve, the abilities of robots to move around their environment while avoiding obstacles will improve, as will their ability to perform increasingly complex tasks. Most importantly, robots are already able to do more than just routine tasks, thus enabling them to replace or aid humans in higher-skilled processes. Robot prices are also falling fast, especially after quality-adjusting the data (Chart II-1). Units are becoming easier to install, program and operate. These trends will help to reduce the barriers-to-entry for the large, untapped, market of small and medium sized enterprises. Robots also offer the ability to do low-volume "customized" production and still keep unit costs low. In the future, self-learning robots will be able to optimize their own performance by analyzing the production of other robots around the world. Robot usage is growing quickly according to data collected by the International Federation of Robotics (IFR) that covers 23 countries. Industrial robot sales worldwide increased to almost 300,000 units in 2016, up 16% from the year before (Chart II-2). The stock of industrial robots globally has grown at an annual average pace of 10% since 2010, reaching slightly more than 1.8 million units in 2016.2 Robot usage is far from evenly distributed across industries. The automotive industry is the major consumer of industrial robots, holding 45% of the total stock in 2016 (Chart II-3). The computer & electronics industry is a distant second at 17%. Metals, chemicals and electrical/electronic appliances comprise the bulk of the remaining stock. Chart II-2Global Robot Usage Chart II-3Global Robot Usage By Industry (2016) As far as countries go, Japan has traditionally been the largest market for robots in the world. However, sales have been in a long-term downtrend and the stock of robots has recently been surpassed by China, which has ramped up robot purchases in recent years (Chart II-4). Robot density, which is the stock of robots per 10 thousand employed in manufacturing, makes it easier to compare robot usage across countries (Chart II-5, panel 2). By this measure, China is not a heavy user of robots compared to other countries. South Korea stands at the top, well above the second-place finishers (Germany and Japan). Large automobile sectors in these three countries explain their high relative robot densities. Chart II-4Stock Of Robots By Country (I) Chart II-5Stock Of Robots By Country (II) (2016) While the growth rate of robot usage is impressive, it is from a very low base (outside of the automotive industry). The average number of robots per 10,000 employees is only 74 for the 23 countries in the IFR database. Robot use is tiny compared to total man hours worked. Chart II-6U.S. Investment In Robots In the U.S., spending on robots is only about 5% of total business spending on equipment and software (Chart II-6). To put this into perspective, U.S. spending on information, communication and technology (ICT) equipment represented 35-40% of total capital equipment spending during the tech boom in the 1990s and early 2000s.3 The bottom line is that there is a lot of hype in the press, but robots are not yet widely used across countries or industries. It will be many years before business spending on robots approaches the scale of the 1990s/2000s IT boom. A Deflationary Impact? As noted above, we view robotics as another chapter in a long history of technological advancements. Pessimists suggest that the latest advances are different because they are inherently more threatening to the overall job market and wage share of total income. If the pessimists are right, what are the theoretical channels though which this would have a greater disinflationary effect relative to previous GPT technologies? Faster Productivity Gains: Enhanced productivity drives down unit labor costs, which may be passed along to other industries (as cheaper inputs) and to the end consumer. More Human Displacement: The jobs created in other areas may be insufficient to replace the jobs displaced by robots, leading to lower aggregate income and spending. The loss of income for labor will simply go to the owners of capital, but the point is that the labor share of income might decline. Deflationary pressures could build as aggregate demand falls short of supply. Even in industries that are slow to automate, just the threat of being replaced by robots may curtail wage demands. Inequality: Some have argued that rising inequality is partly because the spoils of new technologies over the past 20 years have largely gone to the owners of capital. This shift may have undermined aggregate demand because upper income households tend to have a high saving rate, thereby depressing overall aggregate demand and inflationary pressures. The human displacement effect, described above, would exacerbate the inequality effect by transferring income from labor to the owners of capital. 1. Productivity It is difficult to see the benefits of robots on productivity at the economy-wide level. Productivity growth has been abysmal across the major developed countries since the Great Recession, but the productivity slowdown was evident long before Lehman collapsed (Chart II-7). The productivity slowdown continued even as automation using robots accelerated after 2010. Chart II-7Productivity Collapsed Despite Automation Some analysts argue that lackluster productivity is simply a statistical mirage because of the difficulties in measuring output in today's economy. We will not get into the details of the mismeasurement debate here. We encourage interested clients to read a Special Report by the BCA Global Investment Strategy service entitled "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians." 4 Our colleague Peter Berezin makes the case that the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, radio, indoor plumbing and air conditioning. He argues that the real reason that productivity growth has slowed is that educational attainment has decelerated and businesses have plucked many of the low-hanging fruit made possible by the IT revolution. Cyclical factors stemming from the Great Recession and financial crisis are also to blame, as capital spending has been slow to recover in most of the advanced economies. Some other factors that help to explain the decline in aggregate productivity are provided in Appendix II-1. Nonetheless, the poor aggregate productivity performance does not mean that there are no benefits to using robots. The benefits are evident at the industrial level, where measurement issues are presumably less vexing for statisticians (i.e., it is easier to measure the output of the auto industry, for example, than for the economy as a whole). Chart II-8 plots the level of robot density in 2016 with average annual productivity growth since 2004 for 10 U.S. manufacturing industries (robot density is presented in deciles). A loose positive relationship is apparent. Chart II-8U.S.: Productivity Vs. Robot Density Academic studies estimate that robots have contributed importantly to economy-wide productivity growth. The Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) estimated that labor productivity growth rises by 0.07 to 0.08 percentage points for every 1% rise in the rate of robot density.5 This implies that robots accounted for roughly 10% of the productivity growth experienced since the early 1990s in the major economies. Another study of 14 industries across 17 countries by the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) found that robots boosted annual productivity growth by 0.36 percentage points over the 1993-2007 period.6 This is impressive because, if this estimate holds true for the U.S., robots' contribution to the 2½% average annual U.S. total productivity growth over the period was 14%. To put the importance of robotics into historical context, its contribution to productivity so far is roughly on par with that of the steam engine (Chart II-9). It falls well short of the 0.6 percentage point annual productivity contribution from the IT revolution. The implication is that, while the overall productivity performance has been dismal since 2007, it would have been even worse in the absence of robots. What does this mean for inflation? According to the "cost push" model of the inflation process, an increase in productivity of 0.36% that is not accompanied by associated wage gains would reduce unit labor costs (ULC) by the same amount. This should trim inflation if the cost savings are passed on to the end consumer, although by less than 0.36% because robots can only depress variable costs, not fixed costs. There indeed appears to be a slight negative relationship between robot density and unit labor costs at the industrial level in the U.S., although the relationship is loose at best (Chart II-10). Chart II-9GPT Contribution To Productivity Chart II-10U.S.: Unit Labor Costs Vs. Robot Density In theory, divergences in productivity across industries should only generate shifts in relative prices, and "cost push" inflation dynamics should only operate in the short term. Most economists believe that inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon in the long run, which means that central banks should be able to offset positive productivity shocks by lowering interest rates enough that aggregate demand keeps up with supply. Indeed, the Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. Also, note that inflation is currently low across the major advanced economies, irrespective of the level of robot intensity (Chart II-11). From this perspective, it is hard to see that robots should take much of the credit for today's low inflation backdrop. Chart II-11Inflation Vs. Robot Density 2. Human Displacement A key question is whether robots and humans are perfect substitutes. If new technologies introduced in the past were perfect substitutes, then it would have led to massive underemployment and all of the income in the economy would eventually have migrated to the owners of capital. The fact that average real household incomes have risen over time, and that there has been no secular upward trend in unemployment rates over the centuries, means that new technologies were at least partly complementary with labor (i.e., the jobs lost as a direct result of productivity gains were more than replaced in other areas of the economy over time). Rather than replacing workers, in many cases tech made humans more productive in their jobs. Rising productivity lifted income and thereby led to the creation of new jobs in other areas. The capital that workers bring to the production process - the skills, know-how and special talents - became more valuable as interaction with technology increased. Like today, there were concerns in the 1950s and 1960s that computerization would displace many types of jobs and lead to widespread idleness and falling household income. With hindsight, there was little to worry about. Some argue that this time is different. Futurists frequently assert that the pace of innovation is not just accelerating, it is accelerating 'exponentially'. Robots can now, or will soon be able to, replace humans in tasks that require cognitive skills. This means that they will be far less complementary to humans than in the past. The displacement effect could thus be much larger, especially given the impressive advances in artificial intelligence. However, Box II-1 discusses why the threat to workers posed by AI is also heavily overblown in the media. The CEP multi-country study cited above did not find a large displacement effect; robot usage did not affect the overall number of hours worked in the 23 countries studied (although it found distributional effects - see below). In other words, rather than suppressing overall labor input, robot usage has led to more output, higher productivity, more jobs and stronger wage and income growth. A report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI)7 takes a broader look at automation, using productivity growth and capital spending as proxies. Automation is what occurs as the implementation of new technologies is incorporated along with new capital equipment or software to replace human labor in the workplace. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending, and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Indeed, the report demonstrates that occupational employment shifts were far slower in the 2000-2015 period than in any decade in the 1900s (Chart II-12). Box II-1 The Threat From AI Is Overblown Media coverage of AI/Deep Learning has established a consensus view that we believe is well off the mark. A recent Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service dispels the myths surrounding AI.8 We believe the consensus, in conjunction with warnings from a variety of sources, is leading to predictions, policy discussions, and even career choices based on a flawed premise. It is worth noting that the most vocal proponents of AI as a threat to jobs and even humanity are not AI experts. At the root of this consensus is the false view that emerging AI technology is anything like true intelligence. Modern AI is not remotely comparable in function to a biological brain. Scientists have a limited understanding of how brains work, and it is unlikely that a poorly understood system can be modeled on a computer. The misconception of intelligence is amplified by headlines claiming an AI "taught itself" a particular task. No AI has ever "taught itself" anything: All AI results have come about after careful programming by often PhD-level experts, who then supplied the system with vast amounts of high quality data to train it. Often these systems have been iterated a number of times and we only hear of successes, not the failures. The need for careful preparation of the AI system and the requirement for high quality data limits the applicability of AI to specific classes of problems where the application justifies the investment in development and where sufficient high-quality data exists. There may be numerous such applications but doubtless many more where AI would not be suitable. Similarly, an AI system is highly adapted to a single problem, or type of problem, and becomes less useful when its application set is expanded. In other words, unlike a human whose abilities improve as they learn more things, an AI's performance on a particular task declines as it does more things. There is a popular misconception that increased computing power will somehow lead to ever improving AI. It is the algorithm which determines the outcome, not the computer performance: Increased computing power leads to faster results, not different results. Advanced computers might lead to more advanced algorithms, but it is pointless to speculate where that may lead: A spreadsheet from 2001 may work faster today but it still gives the same answer. In any event, it is worth noting that a tool ceases to be a tool when it starts having an opinion: there is little reason to develop a machine capable of cognition even if that were possible. Chart II-12U.S. Job Rotation Has Slowed The EPI report also notes that these indicators of automation increased rapidly in the late 1990s and early 2000s, a period that saw solid wage growth for American workers. These indicators weakened in the two periods of stagnant wage growth: from 1973 to 1995 and from 2002 to the present. Thus, there is no historical correlation between increases in automation and wage stagnation. Rather than automation, the report argues that it was China's entry into the global trading system that was largely responsible for the hollowing out of the U.S. manufacturing sector. We have also made this argument in previous research. The fact that the major advanced economies are all at, or close to, full employment supports the view that automation has not been an overwhelming headwind for job creation. Chart II-13 demonstrates that there has been no relationship between the change in robot density and the loss of manufacturing jobs since 1993. Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. Interestingly, despite a worsening labor shortage, robot density among Japanese firms is falling. Moreover, the Japanese data show that the industries that have a high robot usage tend to be more, not less, generous with wages than the robot laggard industries. Please see Appendix II-2 for more details. Chart II-13Global Manufacturing Jobs Vs. Robot Density The bottom line is that it does not appear that labor displacement related to automation has been responsible in any meaningful way for the lackluster average real income growth in the advanced economies since 2007. 3. Inequality That said, there is evidence suggesting that robots are having important distributional effects. The CEP study found that robot use has reduced hours for low-skilled and (to a lesser extent) middle-skilled workers relative to the highly skilled. This finding makes sense conceptually. Technological change can exacerbate inequality by either increasing the relative demand for skilled over unskilled workers (so-called "skill-biased" technological change), or by inducing companies to substitute machinery and other forms of physical capital for workers (so-called "capital-biased" technological change). The former affects the distribution of labor income, while the latter affects the share of income in GDP that labor receives. A Special Report appearing in this publication in 2014 focused on the relationship between technology and inequality.9 The report highlighted that much of the recent technological change has been skill-biased, which heavily favors workers with the talent and education to perform cognitively-demanding tasks, even as it reduces demand for workers with only rudimentary skills. Moreover, technological innovations and globalization increasingly allow the most talented individuals to market their skills to a much larger audience, thus bidding up their wages. The evidence suggests that faster productivity growth leads to higher average real wages and improved living standards, at least over reasonably long horizons. Nonetheless, technological change can, and in the future almost certainly will, increase income inequality. The poor will gain, but not as much as the rich. The fact that higher-income households tend to maintain a higher savings rate than low-income households means that the shift in the distribution of income toward the higher-income households will continue to modestly weigh on aggregate demand. Can the distribution effect be large enough to have a meaningful depressing impact on inflation? We believe that it has played some role in the lackluster recovery since the Great Recession, with the result that an extended period of underemployment has delivered a persistent deflationary impulse in the major developed economies. However, as discussed above, stimulative monetary policy has managed to overcome the impact of inequality and other headwinds on aggregate demand, and has returned the major countries roughly to full employment. Indeed, this year will be the first since 2007 that the G20 economies as a group will be operating slightly above a full employment level. Inflation should respond to excess demand conditions, irrespective of any ongoing demand headwind stemming from inequality. Conclusions Technological change has led to rising living standards over the decades. It did not lead to widespread joblessness and did not prevent central banks from meeting their inflation targets over time. The pessimists argue that this time is different because robots/AI have a much larger displacement effect. Perhaps it will be 20 years before we will know the answer. But our main point is that we have found no evidence that recent advances in robotics and AI, while very impressive, will be any different in their macro impact. There is little evidence that the modern economy is less capable in replacing the jobs lost to automation, although the nature of new technologies may be affecting the distribution of income more than in the past. Real incomes for the middle- and lower-income classes have been stagnant for some time, but this is partly due to productivity growth that is too low, not too high. Moreover, it is not at all clear that positive productivity shocks are disinflationary beyond the near term. The link between robot usage and unit labor costs over the past couple of decades is loose at best at the industry level, and is non-existent when looking across the major countries. The Fed was able to roughly meet its 2% inflation target in the 1990s and the first half of the 2000s, despite IT's impressive contribution to productivity growth during that period. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. The global output gap will shift into positive territory this year for the first time since the Great Recession. Any resulting rise in inflation will come as a shock since the bond market has discounted continued low inflation for as far as the eye can see. We expect bond yields and implied volatility to rise this year, which may undermine risk assets in the second half. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Brian Piccioni Vice President Technology Sector Strategy Appendix II-1 Why Is Productivity So Low? A recent study by the OECD10 reveals that, while frontier firms are charging ahead, there is a widening gap between these firms and the laggards. The study analyzed firm-level data on labor productivity and total factor productivity for 24 countries. "Frontier" firms are defined to be those with productivity in the top 5%. These firms are 3-4 times as productive as the remaining 95%. The authors argue that the underlying cause of this yawning gap is that the diffusion rate of new technologies from the frontier firms to the laggards has slowed within industries. This could be due to rising barriers to entry, which has reduced contestability in markets. Curtailing the creative-destruction process means that there is less pressure to innovate. Barriers to entry may have increased because "...the importance of tacit knowledge as a source of competitive advantage for frontier firms may have risen if increasingly complex technologies were to increase the amount and sophistication of complementary investments required for technological adoption." 11 The bottom line is that aggregate productivity is low because the robust productivity gains for the tech-savvy frontier companies are offset by the long tail of firms that have been slow to adopt the latest technology. Indeed, business spending has been especially weak in this expansion. Chart II-14 highlights that the slowdown in U.S. productivity growth has mirrored that of the capital stock. Chart II-14U.S. Capex Shortfall Partly To Blame For Poor Productivity Appendix II-2 Japan - The Leading Edge Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. The popular press is full of stories of how robots are taking over. If the stories are to be believed, robots are the answer to the country's shrinking workforce. Robots now serve as helpers for the elderly, priests for weddings and funerals, concierges for hotels and even sexual partners (don't ask). Prime Minister Abe's government has launched a 5-year push to deepen the use of intelligent machines in manufacturing, supply chains, construction and health care. Indeed, Japan was the leader in robotics use for decades. Nonetheless, despite all the hype, Japan's stock of industrial robots has actually been eroding since the late 1990s (Chart II-4). Numerous surveys show that firms plan to use robots more in the future because of the difficulty in hiring humans. And there is huge potential: 90% of Japanese firms are small- and medium-sized (SME) and most are not currently using robots. Yet, there has been no wave of robot purchases as of 2016. One problem is the cost; most sophisticated robots are simply too expensive for SMEs to consider. This suggests that one cannot blame robots for Japan's lack of wage growth. The labor shortage has become so acute that there are examples of companies that have turned down sales due to insufficient manpower. Possible reasons why these companies do not offer higher wages to entice workers are beyond the scope of this report. But the fact that the stock of robots has been in decline since the late 1990s does not support the view that Japanese firms are using automation on a broad scale to avoid handing out pay hikes. Indeed, Chart II-15 highlights that wage deflation has been the greatest in industries that use almost no robots. Highly automated industries, such as Transportation Equipment and Electronics, have been among the most generous. This supports the view that the productivity afforded by increased robot usage encourages firms to pay their workers more. Looking ahead, it seems implausible that robots can replace all the retiring Japanese workers in the years to come. The workforce will shrink at an annual average pace of 0.33% between 2020 and 2030, according to the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training. Productivity growth would have to rise by the same amount to fully offset the dwindling number of workers. But that would require a surge in robot density of 4.1, assuming that each rise in robot density of one adds 0.08% to the level of productivity (Chart II-16). The level of robot sales would have to jump by a whopping 2½ times in the first year and continue to rise at the same pace each year thereafter to make this happen. Of course, the productivity afforded by new robots may accelerate in the coming years, but the point is that robot usage would likely have to rise astronomically to offset the impact of the shrinking population. Chart II-15Japan: Earnings Vs. Robot Density Chart II-16Japan: Where Is The Flood Of Robots? The implication is that, as long as the Japanese economy continues to grow above roughly 1%, the labor market will continue to tighten and wage rates will eventually begin to rise. 1 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "The Coming Robotics Revolution," dated May 16, 2017, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 2 Note that this includes only robots used in manufacturing industry, and thus excludes robots used in the service sector and households. However, robot usage in services is quite limited and those used in households do not add to GDP. 3 Note that ICT investment and capital stock data includes robots. 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 Centre for Economic and Business Research (January 2017): "The Impact of Automation." A Report for Redwood. In this report, robot density is defined to be the number of robots per million hours worked. 6 Graetz, G., and Michaels, G. (2015): "Robots At Work." CEP Discussion Paper No 1335. 7 Mishel, L., and Bivens, J. (2017): "The Zombie Robot Argument Lurches On," Economic Policy Institute. 8 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Bad Information - Why Misreporting Deep Learning Advances Is A Problem," dated January 9, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Rage Against The Machines: Is Technology Exacerbating Inequality?" dated June 2014, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 10 OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 05 (2016): "The Best Versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence Across Firms and the Role of Public Policy." 11 Please refer to page 27. III. Indicators And Reference Charts As we highlight in the Overview section, the earnings backdrop for the U.S. equity market remains very upbeat, as highlighted by the rise in the net earnings revisions and net earnings surprises indexes. Bottom-up analysts will likely continue to boost after-tax earnings estimates for the year as they adjust to the U.S. tax cut news. Our main concern is that a lot of good news is now discounted. Our Technical Indicator remains bullish, but our composite valuation indicator surpassed one sigma in January, which is our threshold of overvaluation. From these levels of overvaluation, the medium-term outlook for equity total returns is negligible. Our speculation index is at all-time highs and implied volatility is low, underscoring that investors are extremely bullish. From a contrary perspective, this is a warning sign for the equity market. Our Monetary Indicator has also moved further into 'bearish' territory for equities, although overall financial conditions remain positive for growth. It is also disconcerting that our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) shifted to a 'sell' signal for stocks, following five straight months on a 'buy' signal. This occurred because investors may be buying based on speculation rather than on a firm belief in the staying power of the underlying fundamentals. For now, though, our Willingness-to-Pay indicator for the U.S. rose sharply in January, highlighting that investor equity inflows are very strong and are favoring U.S. equities relative to Japan and the Eurozone. This is perhaps not surprising given the U.S. tax cuts just passed by Congress. The RPI indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Our U.S. bond technical indicator shows that Treasurys are close to oversold territory, suggesting that we may be in store for a consolidation period following January's surge in yields. Treasurys are slightly cheap on our valuation metric, although not by enough to justify closing short duration positions. The U.S. dollar is oversold and due for a bounce. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Duration: The modest bond-bullish message from our technical indicators does not yet outweigh the bond-bearish forces we expect to prevail on a 6-12 month horizon. Maintain below-benchmark duration. 10-Year Yield: The 10-year Treasury yield has risen a lot, but still has considerable upside on a 6-12 month horizon. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is still 35 bps below its fair value range, and it is difficult to craft a realistic scenario where a higher cost of inflation protection is offset by lower real yields. Risk Premiums & Treasury Returns: Despite the recent increases in short-dated Treasury yields, Treasuries with 1-2 years remaining until maturity still do not offer adequate compensation for the likely future path of rate hikes. Negative risk premiums in 1-year and 2-year hold-to-maturity Treasury positions are also likely to coincide with very low Treasury index total returns during the next 1-2 years. Feature Chart 1The Long End Catching The Train The sell-off in U.S. bond markets continued last week with the 10-year yield breaking above its previous peak of 2.62%. Of course yields at the short end of the curve made new cyclical highs long ago and have increased even further during the past few weeks (Chart 1). In this report we look at both the long and short ends of the yield curve and ask whether yields are finally fairly priced. But first, a quick re-cap of our cyclical investment stance. In our prior two bulletins we noted that the cyclical outlook for bonds remains bearish, and this continues to be the case. The main reason is that, despite recent increases, the long-term cost of inflation protection is still below levels consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target. However, we have also warned that the message from some near-term technical indicators is starting to shift. Specifically, net speculative positions in 10-year Treasury futures are now 2% net short. Positioning at these levels has historically been consistent with a modest decline in the 10-year yield during the subsequent three months (Chart 2). Also, the U.S. Economic Surprise Index (ESI) sits at a lofty +65 and is poised to mean revert as investor expectations grow increasingly optimistic. Our simple auto-regressive model of the ESI projects that it will decline to +28 during the next month.1 A positive value on the ESI is consistent with a continued increase in Treasury yields (Chart 3), but we will be watching closely for signs that the ESI is about to break below zero. Chart 2Message From Our Near-Term Indicators (I) Chart 3Message From Our Near-Term Indicators (II) Taken together, the modest bond-bullish message from our technical indicators does not yet outweigh the bond-bearish forces we expect to prevail on a 6-12 month horizon. We therefore maintain our below-benchmark duration bias. We also maintain our overweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries. Though inflationary pressure in the economy is starting to build, it is still not sufficient to spur significant spread widening. We will elaborate further on our spread product views in next week's report. How High For The 10-Year? In the current environment we find it instructive to split the nominal 10-year yield into its two main components - the compensation for inflation protection and the real yield - and consider each in turn. Inflation Chart 4TIPS Breakevens Are Still Low As was mentioned in the first section of this report, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has risen a lot. From a trough of 1.66% last June to 2.05% as of last Friday. But this is still somewhat too low (Chart 4). Historically, the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate has traded in a range between 2.4% and 2.5% when realized inflation is well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target. With inflation almost certain to move back to the Fed's target before the end of the cycle, and indeed our Pipeline Inflation Indicator shows that inflationary pressures continue to build (Chart 4, bottom panel), there is still another 35 bps to 45 bps of cyclical upside in the 10-year breakeven rate. Real Yield As for the 10-year real yield, a simple model introduced in a report last month shows that it is driven by a combination of: The fed funds rate. The expected change in the fed funds rate during the next 12 months, as measured by our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter. Implied rate volatility as measured by the MOVE index. Included as a proxy for the term premium embedded in 10-year yields. The model is shown in Chart 5, where we also incorporate very conservative assumptions for each of the three independent variables. We assume that: The fed funds rate is raised three times this year, in line with the FOMC's median projection (Chart 5, panel 2). The 12-month discounter falls to 25 bps by year end. In other words, we assume that by then investors will only be looking for one rate hike only in 2019 (Chart 5, panel 3). The MOVE volatility index stays flat at historically low levels (Chart 5, bottom panel).2 Chart 5A Simple Model Of The Real 10-Year Treasury Yield The key message from Chart 5 is that it is very difficult to craft a reasonable scenario where the 10-year real yield has meaningful downside from current levels. Even using the benign assumptions described above, our model projects that the 10-year real yield will increase 4 bps in the next 11 months. From current levels that suggests a 10-year real yield of 0.61% by the end of the year. Summing it all up, on a cyclical horizon we project another 35 bps to 45 bps of upside in the inflation component of the 10-year Treasury yield, and at least 4 bps of upside in the real component. This suggests that the 10-year nominal Treasury yield should move into a range between 3.01% and 3.11% by the time that inflation reaches the Fed's target. Bottom Line: The 10-year Treasury yield has risen a lot, but still has considerable upside on a 6-12 month horizon. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is still 35 bps below its fair value range, and it is difficult to craft a realistic scenario where a higher cost of inflation protection is offset by lower real yields. Is The Front End Fairly Priced? At this time last year the 1-year Treasury yield was 0.84% and the fed funds rate was 0.66%. During the past 12 months the fed funds rate rose from 0.66% to 1.42%, equating to an average fed funds rate of 1.10% during this period (using monthly compounding). An investor who bought a 1-year Treasury note last year and held to maturity would have earned a risk premium of -26 bps relative to a position in cash. Not a great return by any means, but yields have moved a lot since then. The 1-year yield is now 1.79% and the 2-year yield is 2.05%. Is it possible that front-end yields now provide adequate compensation for the path of rate hikes during the next 1-2 years? And more importantly, does the risk premium earned on short-maturity notes tell us anything about the total returns we can expect to earn from the overall Treasury index? These are the two questions we consider in this section. Calculating The Ex-Ante Risk Premium In Short-Maturity Yields Table 1 shows three different scenarios for the path of Fed rate hikes during the next two years. The median FOMC scenario assumes that the funds rate rises in line with the Fed's median projection. That is, the rate is lifted three times this year and twice next year. The hawkish scenario assumes that the funds rate is raised once per quarter between now and mid-2019, and the dovish scenario assumes that after hiking rates in March and June of this year the Fed is forced to go on hold. Table 1Fed Rate Hikes Scenarios & The Implied Risk Premium We see that the 1-year yield is priced exactly in line with the FOMC's median projection. That is, if the fed funds rate is hiked three times in 2018, then 12 months from now an investor will have been indifferent between a position in a 1-year note and a position in cash. In this same scenario an investor holding a 2-year note to maturity will end up losing 4 bps relative to a position in cash. Unsurprisingly, the hawkish scenario leads to much more negative realized risk premiums for both 1-year and 2-year hold-to-maturity trades. The dovish scenario leads to a small positive risk premium on a 2-year horizon, but a small negative risk premium on a 1-year horizon. This is because our dovish scenario still assumes there are two rate hikes this year. Our initial conclusion is that despite the recent increases in short-dated Treasury yields, Treasuries with 1-2 years remaining until maturity do not offer adequate compensation for the likely future path of rate hikes. Especially since a position in a 1-year or 2-year note is somewhat riskier than a position in cash, due to the additional duration risk. Short-Maturity Risk Premiums And Treasury Returns But there is one more possible application for the above analysis. We calculated the actual risk premiums earned in 1-year and 2-year hold-to-maturity positions going back to 1973, and found that these risk premiums correlate quite well with changes in the average yield for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index for the same time horizon. In other words, 12-month periods in which an investor in a 1-year note would have earned a positive risk premium relative to an investor in cash tend to coincide with a falling Treasury index yield, and vice-versa (Chart 6). The correlation is even stronger on a 2-year horizon (Chart 7). Chart 61-Year Risk Premium & 12-Month Change ##br## In Treasury Index Yield Chart 72-Year Risk Premium & 24-Month Change ##br## In Treasury Index Yield Using the relationships from Charts 6 & 7 we are able to calculate the expected change in the average index Treasury yield in each of our three scenarios for Fed rate hikes. We can then translate those yield changes into expectations for total returns from the Treasury index. Those projected total return figures are shown in the final column of Table 1. Our calculation shows that the median FOMC scenario translates into a projected Treasury index 1-year total return of 2.7%, and an annualized 2-year return of 1.7%. The annualized 2-year return in the hawkish scenario is only 84 bps, while it is 2.3% in the dovish scenario. Chart 8Very Low Returns On The Horizon Of course, these figures come with a good deal of uncertainty. Nowhere in the calculation do we consider possible price changes in longer-maturity bonds, which of course are a significant part of the index. In fact, Chart 8 shows that while the total return projections derived from this exercise give a good sense of the general direction in Treasury index returns, there is still considerable variability from year to year. Perhaps the most accurate statement we can make is that with 1-year and 2-year risk premiums likely to be negative - or at least very close to zero - during the next 1-2 years, we should also expect very low total returns from the overall Treasury index. Bottom Line: Despite the recent increases in short-dated Treasury yields, Treasuries with 1-2 years remaining until maturity still do not offer adequate compensation for the likely future path of rate hikes. Negative risk premiums in 1-year and 2-year hold-to-maturity Treasury positions are also likely to coincide with very low Treasury index total returns during the next 1-2 years. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "How Much Higher For Yields?", dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Ill Placed Trust?", dated December 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification