Economy

Highlights There is more downside risk ahead as the geopolitical calendar is packed in May; Protectionism remains in play, but markets could also fall on Iran-U.S. tensions, military intervention in Syria, and Russia-West confrontation; Investors should expect volatility to go up as we approach a turbulent summer; We were wrong on Russia-West tensions peaking and are closing all of our Russian trades for now, but may look for new entry points soon; Go long a basket of NAFTA currencies versus the Euro and expect reflation to remain the "only game in town" in Japan. Feature "I'm not saying there won't be a little pain, but the market has gone up 40 percent, 42 percent so we might lose a little bit of it. But we're going to have a much stronger country when we're finished. So we may take a hit and you know what, ultimately we're going to be much stronger for it." President Donald Trump, April 6, 2018 Chart 1Teflon Trump There are times when conventional wisdom is spectacularly wrong. Last week was such a moment. Since Donald Trump became president, the "smart money" has believed that he was obsessed with the stock market. Therefore, the view went, none of his policies would threaten the bull market. We have pushed back against this assumption because our view is that geopolitical risks - specifically the lack of constraints on the executive branch in foreign and trade policy - would become investment relevant.1 This view has been correct thus far: we called the volatility spike and trade protectionism in 2018. Not only have President Trump's tariff pronouncements produced stock market drawdowns, but his popularity appears to be unaffected. Astonishingly, President Trump's approval rating collapsed as the stock market went up in 2017 and recovered as the stock market went in reverse this year (Chart 1)! It is therefore empirically incorrect that President Trump is constrained by the stock market. His actions over the past month, as well as his approval ratings, suggest that he is quite comfortable with volatility. There are two broad reasons why we never bought into the media hype. First, there is no real correlation, or only a weak one, between equity declines of 10% and presidential approval ratings (Chart 2). Generally, presidential approval rating does decline amidst market drawdowns of 10% or greater, but the effect on the presidency is only permanent if the momentum of the approval rating was already heading lower, otherwise the effect is minimal and temporary. Second, the median American does not really own stocks (Table 1). President Trump considers blue collar white voters his base and they care more about unemployment and wages, not their equity portfolios. At some point, equity market drawdowns will affect hard data and the real economy. This is the point at which President Trump will care about the stock market. Given that the market is already down 10% from the peak, we are not far away from this pain threshold. But in this way, President Trump is no different from any other president. Chart 2AThe Stock Market Mattered For Eisenhower, JFK, Bush Sr., And Obama... Chart 2B...But Not For Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, And Bush Jr. The pessimistic view on trade protectionism risk, that there is more downside to equities ahead, is therefore still in play. Investors should be careful not to overreact to positive developments, such as President Xi's speech at the Boao Forum where he largely reiterated previous Beijing promises to open up individual sectors to foreign investment. In fact, it is the investment community itself that is the target of President Trump's rhetoric. In order to convince Beijing that his threat of protectionism is credible, President Trump has to show that he is willing to incur pain at home, which explains the quote with which we began this report. Table 1Stock Ownership Is Concentrated Amongst The Wealthiest Households This is not dissimilar to President Trump's doctrine of "maximum pressure" which, when applied to North Korea, produced a significant bond rally last summer. The 10-year Treasury yield topped 2.39% on July 7 and then collapsed to a low of 2.05% in September.2 The vast majority of the yield decline, at the time, came from falling real yields as investors flocked into safe-haven assets amidst North Korean tensions and not lower inflation expectations. It is therefore dangerous to rely on conventional wisdom when assessing the limits of volatility or equity drawdowns. Any buoyant market reaction may in fact elicit a more aggressive policy from Washington. As if on cue, President Trump shocked the markets on April 7 by suggesting that he would impose another round of tariffs on a further $100bn worth of Chinese imports, bringing the total under threat to $160 billion. The announcement came after the market closed 0.89% up on April 6. Perhaps President Trump was irked that the market was so dismissive of his trade threats and decided to jolt it back to reality. In addition to trade, there are several other reasons to be bearish on risk assets as we approach May: Chart 3Inflation Will Pick Up In 2018 Chart 4Service Sector Wage Growth Is At A Cyclical Peak Inflation: Unemployment is low, with wage pressures starting to build (Chart 3). Meanwhile, teacher strikes in Red States like Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Arizona are signalling that public service sector wage pressures are building in the most fiscally prudent states. Service sector wages cannot be suppressed through automation or outsourcing and are therefore likely to add to inflationary pressures (Chart 4). The Fed remains in tightening mode, despite the mounting geopolitical risks. "Stroke of pen risk:" Another sign that President Trump is comfortable with market drawdowns is his increasingly aggressive rhetoric on Amazon. There is a rising probability that the current administration decides to up the regulatory pressure on the technology and retail giant, as well as a possibility that other technology companies like Facebook and Google face "stroke of pen" risks. Iran: This year's premier geopolitical risk is the potential for renewed U.S.-Iran tensions.3 Ahead of the all-important May 12 deadline - when the White House will decide whether to end the current waiver of economic sanctions against Iran - President Trump has staffed his cabinet with two hawks, new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton. Meanwhile, tensions in Syria are building with potential for U.S. and Iranian forces to be directly implicated in a skirmish. The U.S. is almost certain to militarily respond to the alleged chemical attack by the Syrian government forces against the rebel-held Damascus suburb of Douma. Throughout it all, investors appear to remain unfazed by the rising probability that Iran's 2 million barrels of oil exports come under renewed sanction risk, mainly because the media is ignoring the risk (Chart 5). Chart 5The Media Is Ignoring Iran As A Risk Russia: As we discuss below, tensions between the West and Russia appear to be building up anew. Particularly concerning is the aforementioned chemical attack in Syria, which Moscow considers a "false flag operation." The Russian government hinted in mid-March that precisely such an attack may occur and that the U.S. would use it as a pretext to attack Syrian government forces and structures.4 Our view that tensions have peaked, elucidated in a recent report, therefore appears to have been spectacularly wrong. Chinese reforms: Now that Xi Jinping has finished setting up his new government, his initiatives are starting to be implemented. While some slight tax cuts are on the docket, and interbank rates have eased significantly, there is no sign of broad policy easing or economic recovery (Chart 6). Rather, both Xi and his economic czar Liu He have continued to stress the "Three Battles" of systemic financial risk, pollution, and poverty - the first two requiring tighter policy. Xi has stated that deleveraging will focus on state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and local governments. SOEs will have debt caps and will not be allowed to lend to local governments. Instead, local governments will have to borrow through formal bond markets, giving the central government greater control. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Housing says property restrictions will remain in place. All in all, the risk of negative surprises in China this year remains significant, with a likely negative impact on global growth.5 There is also a fundamental reason for equity market weakness: the market is likely coming to grips with a calendar 2019 EPS growth of a more reasonable 10% annual rate compared with this year's near 20% peak growth rate. This transition, which our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou of BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy has highlighted in recent research, will be turbulent.6 In addition, Anastasios has pointed out that stocks are reacting to a more bearish mix of soft and hard data (Chart 7), suggesting that not all of the market volatility is due to headline risk. Chart 6China Will Slow Down Further In 2018 Chart 7Trade Is Not The Only Risk To The Market How should investors make sense of these budding risks? Going forward, we would fade any enthusiasm or narratives of "peak pessimism" on trade protectionism. It is in the interest of the Trump administration that investors take his threats seriously. President Trump literally needs stocks to go down in order to show Beijing that he is serious. The summer months could be volatile as market confusion grows amidst the upcoming event risk (Table 2). This may be a good time to be risk-averse, with the old adage "sell in May and go away" appropriate this year. Table 2Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch There are several reasons why protectionism is a much bigger deal than it was in the 1980s when investors last had to price a trade war between two major economies (Japan and the U.S. at the time): Chart 8This Time Is Different... Because Of Supply Chains... Chart 9...Globalization... Supply chains are a much bigger deal today than thirty years ago (Chart 8); The share of global exports as a percent of GDP is much higher today (Chart 9); Interest rates are much lower, leaving little room for policymakers to ease (Chart 10); Stock market valuations are higher, leaving stocks exposed to drawbacks (Chart 11); Unlike 1981-88, when Japan and the U.S. waged a nearly decade-long trade war while remaining allies in the Cold War, China and the U.S. are outright rivals. This increases the probability that Beijing's reprisal, given its constraints in retaliating against U.S. exports (Chart 12), could take a geopolitical turn. Chart 10...Policymaker Ammunition... Chart 11...And Valuations Chart 12China May Run Out Of U.S. Exports To Sanction Investors should therefore prepare for volatility of volatility. Amidst the confusion, there could be some not-so-positive news that the market overreacts to with optimism, and some not-so-negative news that the market reacts to with pessimism. In our six years of publishing geopolitically driven investment strategy, we have not seen a similar period where a confluence of risks and tensions are building up at the same time. May should therefore be a busy month. Mexico: A Silver Lining Amidst Mercantilism Risk? Mexico began the year with clouds over its head due to the Trump team's tough negotiating line on NAFTA. The third round of negotiations, in September 2017, ended on a bad note. The peso tumbled and headline and core inflation soared, portending both tighter monetary policy and weaker domestic demand.7 Today, however, the odds of renewing NAFTA have improved significantly. We have reduced our probability of Trump abrogating the trade deal from 50% to 20%. The administration appears to be focused on China and therefore looking to wrap up the NAFTA negotiations quickly over the summer. This would give time to send the new deal to the Mexican and U.S. congresses prior to the September changeover in Mexico's legislature and January changeover in the U.S. legislature. The U.S. has reportedly compromised on an earlier demand that NAFTA-traded automobiles have a U.S. domestic content of 50%.8 Meanwhile, inflation has peaked and the peso has firmed up (Chart 13), which will help buoy real incomes and boost purchasing power. Economic policy has been prudent, with central bank rate hikes restraining inflation and government spending cuts producing a primary budget surplus (and a much-reduced headline budget deficit of -1% of GDP) (Chart 14).9 Chart 13Mexico: Peso & Inflation Chart 14Mexico: Improved Macro Fundamentals In this more bullish context, the Mexican elections on July 1 are market-neutral. True, it is hard to present a strong pro-market outcome. The public is shifting to the left on the economic spectrum while the outgoing "pro-market" administration of Enrique Pena Nieto has lost credibility. The latest polling suggests that Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) is polling in the lower 30-percentile (around 33%), above his next competitors, Ricardo Anaya (PAN) at 26% and Jose Antonio Meade (PRI) at 14% (Chart 15). However, the latest data point of the admittedly volatile polling gives AMLO a much less commanding lead of 6-7% over Anaya than he had before. AMLO is polling around his performance in the 2006 and 2012 elections (35% and 32%, respectively), has increased his lead over the other candidates, and his National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) and "Together We'll Make History" coalition are also polling with double-digit leads (Chart 16). The general shift to the left is also apparent in the fact that Ricardo Anaya's PAN has been forced to combine with the left-wing PRD in order to garner votes. Chart 15AMLO's Lead Is Not Insurmountable Chart 16Likely No Majority In Congress Nevertheless, political risk is overstated for the following reasons: AMLO is not Hugo Chavez:10 True, he is a leftist, a populist, and has a reputation for egotism. He is Mexico's fitting anti-Trump. Nevertheless, he is also a known quantity, having run for president and engaged with the major parties for over a decade. While he elevates headline political risk, we would fade the risk based on the fact that Mexico is a relatively right-wing country (Chart 17), and his movement will probably not garner a majority in Congress (see next bullet). Notably, AMLO's rhetoric on Trump and NAFTA has been restrained, and his personnel decisions have been competent and orthodox. He has not suggested he will revoke new private Mexican oil concessions, under the outgoing government's privatization scheme, but only halt the auctions. AMLO will be constrained by Congress: The trend in Mexico is towards "pluralization" or fragmentation in Congress (see Chart 18), meaning that ruling parties will have to share power. This is not a negative development. As we recently pointed out, political plurality engenders stability by drawing protest parties into centrist coalitions and by allowing establishment parties to coopt protest narratives without having to actually protest or revolt.11 At this point in time, it is difficult to see how AMLO's MORENA garners enough support to get a majority in Congress. AMLO's closest challenger is right-wing and pro-market: If AMLO loses the election, Ricardo Anaya of PAN will not be scorned by financial markets. In 2006, AMLO looked like he would win the election but then lost to Felipe Calderon (PAN). Of course, a victory by Anaya is not very market positive either, as PAN is in an unstable coalition with the left-wing PRD and would also be constrained in Congress. Still, there would be a lower probability of reversing the outgoing PRI administration's policies than under AMLO. AMLO is unlikely to repeal NAFTA: Mexico's exports to NAFTA partners comprise 30% of GDP, and it would be exceedingly dangerous for a Mexican leader to provoke Trump on the issue. A plurality of the Mexican public (44%) supports the ongoing NAFTA negotiations as they have been handled by the current government (Chart 19), as of late February polling by the Wilson Center. The same polling shows that Mexicans are generally aware of how important NAFTA is for their economy. This is despite the polls showing that a majority of Mexicans have a negative view of the U.S., due largely to Trump's rhetoric (though that majority has fallen considerably since last year to 56%). In other words, anti-American sentiment is not turning the Mexican public against compromising on a new NAFTA deal. Chart 17Mexicans Lean Right Chart 18Mexico's Rising Political Plurality Finally, Mexico is more exposed to U.S. growth (which is charged with fiscal stimulus), and to BCA's robust outlook on oil prices (as opposed to our weaker metals outlook), while it is less exposed to weakening Chinese demand than other EMs (such as South Africa or Brazil).12 The peso looks particularly attractive relative to the latter two currencies (Chart 20). Chart 19Mexicans Want NAFTA To Survive Chart 20A Major Bottom In MXN's Cross? None of the above should suggest that the Mexican election will be a smooth affair. The rise of AMLO will create jitters in the marketplace, particularly as he faces off against Trump, who will continue to try to pressure Mexico over immigration and border security even once NAFTA negotiations are squared away. Nevertheless, the cyclical backdrop has improved while the major headwind of NAFTA abrogation seems to be abating. Bottom Line: Mexico's presidential campaign, election, and aftermath will give rise to plenty of occasion for volatility, particularly as President Trump and a likely President Obrador will not shy from a war of words. Nevertheless, Mexico's economic policy is stable and the NAFTA headwind is abating. We recommend going long Mexican local currency bonds relative to the EM benchmark. We also recommend that clients go long a NAFTA basket of currencies - the peso and the loonie - versus the euro. Our currency strategist - Mathieu Savary - has recently pointed out that the euro has moved ahead of long-term fundamentals and is ripe for a near-term correction.13 Japan: Abe Will Survive Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has come under rising public criticism in recent that is dragging down his approval ratings (Chart 21). Three separate scandals are weighing on his administration: one relating to the government's sale of land at knockdown prices to a nationalist school, Moritomo Gakuen, tied to Abe's wife; another relating to the discovery of "lost" journals of Japan Self-Defense Force activity during the Iraq war; another tied to the mishandling of statistics in promoting the government's new revisions to the labor law. Abe's popularity has tested lower lows in the past, but he is approaching the floor. And while Abe is still polling in line with the popular Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi at this stage in his term (Chart 22), nevertheless he is approaching his 65th month in office when Koizumi stepped down. Chart 21Abe's Approval Testing The Floor Chart 22Abe Holding At Koizumi's Levels Of Support More importantly, the all-important September leadership election is approaching. The challenges arising today are at least partly motivated by factions within the LDP that want to challenge Abe's leadership. Koizumi stepped aside in September 2006 because he could not contend for the LDP's leadership due to party rules that limited the leader to two consecutive three-year terms. Abe is not constrained on this front. He has already revised those rules to three terms, giving him until September 2021 to remain eligible as party leader. He wants to run again and incumbents are heavily favored in party elections. Abe also secured his second two-thirds supermajority in the House of Representatives, in October 2017. This was a remarkable feat and one that will make it difficult for contenders to convince the rank and file in Japan's prefectures that they can lead the party more effectively. While Abe's 38% approval is now slightly below the psychologically important 40% level, and below the LDP's overall approval rating (Chart 23), there is no alternative to the LDP heading into July 2019 elections for the House of Councillors. This is manifest from the October election result. Chart 23Still No Alternative To LDP What happens if Abe's popularity sinks into the 20-percentile range? Financial markets will selloff in anticipation that he will be ousted. He could conceivably survive a scrape with the upper 20% approval range, but markets will assume the worst once he dips beneath 30% in the average polling on a sustainable basis. Markets will also assume that the remarkably reflationary period in Japanese economic policy is coming to an end. Even when Abe's successor forms a government, investors may believe that the best of the reflationary push is over. We think that the market would be wrong to doubt Japan's inflationary push. First, if Abe is ousted, the LDP will remain in power: it has until October 2021 before it faces another general election that could deprive it of government control. (A loss in the upper house election in 2019 can prevent it from passing constitutional changes but not from running the country.) This ensures that policy will be continuous in the transition and that any changes in trajectory will be a matter of degree, not kind. Second, the phenomenon of "Abenomics" is not only Abe's doing but the LDP's answer to its first shocking experience in the political wilderness, from 2009-12. This experience taught the LDP that it needed to adopt bolder policies. The result was dovish monetary policy under Haruhiko Kuroda, who just began his second five-year term on April 9 and whose faction has the majority on the monetary policy board. Looser fiscal policy was another consequence - and ultimately it came to pass.14 It will be hard for a new LDP leader to tighten policy. Factions that are criticizing Abe or Kuroda today will find it harder to phase out stimulus once they are in office. Abe's successor will, like him, have to try policies that boost corporate investment, wages, the fertility rate, immigration, social spending and military spending.15 Without such initiatives, Japan will sink back into a deflationary spiral. As for BoJ policy, over the next 18 months the biggest challenges are meeting the 2% inflation target while the yen is rising due to both China's slowdown and trade war risks.16 Tokyo is also ostensibly required to hike the consumption tax in October 2019. This is more than enough to convince Kuroda to stand pat for the time being.17 In the meantime, Abe's push to revise the constitution is a significant factor in encouraging persistently loose monetary and fiscal policy. The national referendum on the matter could be held along with the early 2019 local elections or the July 2019 upper house election. It will be hard to win 50%+ of the popular vote and nigh impossible if the economy is failing. What should investors look for to determine if Abe's downfall is imminent? In addition to Abe's approval rating we will watch to see if the ongoing scandal probes produce any direct link to Abe, or if top cabinet ministers are forced to resign (like Finance Minister Taro Aso or Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera). It will also be a telling sign if Abe's "work-style" reforms to liberalize the labor market, which have received cabinet approval, wither in the Diet due to lack of party discipline (not our baseline view).18 But even granting Abe's survival, we would expect that China's slowdown and the U.S.-China trade war will keep the yen well bid. We are sticking with our tactical long JPY/EUR trade, which is up 2.6% thus far. Bottom Line: Shinzo Abe is likely to be re-elected as LDP leader in September and to lead his party in the charge toward the 2019 upper house election and constitutional referendum. Should he fall into the 20% of popular approval, the markets should sell off. His leadership and alliances have been remarkably reflationary and the policy tailwind could dwindle. We would fade this risk, but we still think the yen will remain buoyant due to China's internal dynamics and the U.S.-China trade war. We remain long yen/euro until we see signs that Washington and Beijing are able to defuse the immediate trade war. Russia: Tensions With The West Have Not Peaked Our view that tensions between Russia and the West would peak following President Putin's reelection has been spectacularly wrong.19 We still encourage clients to review the report, penned in early March, as it sets out the limits to Russia's aggressive foreign policy. The country is geopolitically a lot more constrained then investors think, and thus there are material limits to how far the Kremlin can take the rivalry with the West. What we did not account for is that such weakness is precisely the reason for the tensions. Specifically, the Trump administration - riding high following the success of its "maximum pressure" doctrine in the Korea imbroglio - smells blood. President Trump is betting that the view of Russian constraints is correct and therefore the time to pressure Putin - and prove his own anti-Kremlin credentials - is now. But has the market gotten ahead of itself? The expanded sanctions target specific individuals and companies - EN+ Group, GAZ Group, and Rusal - and yet the broad equity market in Russia has tumbled.20 Sberbank, which is nowhere mentioned in the sanctions, fell by an extraordinary 16% since the announcement. On one hand, there does appear to be a material step-up in sanctions. Despite being focused on specific companies, the new restrictions are designed to make the entire Russian secondary bond market "not clearable." The targeting of specific companies, therefore, was merely a shot-across-the-bow. The implication for the future - and the reason that Sberbank fell as much as it did - is that U.S. investors could be forbidden - or the compliance costs could rise by so much that they might as well be forbidden - from participating in Russian debt and equity markets in the future. On the other hand, our Russia geopolitical risk index has not priced in the renewed tensions (Chart 24). This means that either our currency-derived measure is wrong or the sell off in equity and debt markets is not translating into bearishness about the overall economy. Given our bullish oil outlook and our view of the limits of Russian aggression investors should expect, the index may actually be signaling that these tensions are an opportunity to buy Russian assets. Chart 24The Russia GPI Says No Risk That said, we have learned our lesson. There is no point in trying to catch a falling knife as the Kremlin and the White House square off over Syria and other geopolitical issues. As such, we are closing all of our Russia trades until we find a better entry point to capitalize on our structural view that there are material limits to geopolitical tensions between the West and Russia. The long Russia equities / short EM equities has been stopped out at 5% loss. Our buy South African / sell Russian 5-year CDS protection is down 20 bps and our long Russian / short Brazilian local currency government bonds is up 1.07 bps. Investment Implications In April 2017, we penned a report titled "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!," turning the old "sell in May and go away" adage on its head.21 At the time, investors were similarly facing a number of geopolitical risks, from the second round of French elections to concerns about President Trump's domestic agenda. However, we had a very high conviction view that these risks were overstated. This time around, we fear that the markets are mispricing constraints on President Trump. Geopolitical risks ahead of us are largely in the realm of foreign policy, where the U.S. Constitution gives the president large leeway. This includes trade policy. As such, it is much more difficult to have a high conviction view on how the Trump administration will act towards China, Iran, and Russia. Furthermore, the success of the "maximum pressure" doctrine has emboldened President Trump to talk tough, worry about consequences later. Investors have to understand that we are the target of President Trump's rhetoric. There is no better way for the White House to show China, Iran, and Russia that it is serious - that its threats are credible - than if it strongly counters the view that it will do nothing to harm domestic equities. We therefore expect further volatility in the markets. We propose that clients hedge the risks this summer with our "geopolitical protector portfolio" - equally-weighted basket of Swiss bonds and gold - which is currently up 1.46%, although adding 10-Year U.S. Treasurys to the mix may make sense as well. We would also recommend that clients expect both a spike in the VIX and a rise in the volatility of the VIX (volatility of volatility). Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com; and Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No," dated September 12, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "Russia says U.S. plans to strike Damascus, pledges military response," Reuters, dated March 13, 2018, available at reuters.com. 5 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. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Bumpier Ride," dated March 26, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see "US drops contentious demand for auto content, clearing path in NAFTA talks," Globe and Mail, March 21, 2018, available at www.theglobeandmail.com. 9 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Perched On An Icy Cliff," dated March 29, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Should Investors Fear Political Plurality?" dated November 29, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Euro's Tricky Spot," dated February 2, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan: Kuroda Or No Kuroda, Reflation Ahead," dated February 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see "Japan: Abe Is Not Yet Dead, Long Live Abenomics," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report; "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017; and "Japan: Abenomics Will Survive Abe," in Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Is King Dollar Back?" dated October 4, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018; and "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see Cory Baird, "BOJ Chief Haruhiko Kuroda Begins New Term By Vowing To Continue Stimulus In Pursuit Of 2% Inflation," Japan Times, April 9, 2018, available at www.japantimes.co.jp. 18 Please see "Work style reform legislation gets Abe Cabinet approval," Jiji Press, April 6, 2018, available at www.the-japan-news.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see Department of the Treasury, "Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations - 31 C.F.R. Part 589," dated April 7, 2018, available at treasury.gov. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Duration: The balance of risks does not suggest that we should abandon our cyclical below-benchmark duration stance. Positioning is stretched and global growth is no longer accelerating, but U.S. growth is firm and the Fed is less sensitive to tighter financial conditions than in the past. Inflation: The biggest risk for bond markets is that investors wake up to the fact that core inflation is trending quickly back to the Fed's 2% target. The re-anchoring of inflation expectations will pressure the 10-year Treasury yield higher by 23 - 43 basis points. Labor Market: A forecast for stronger wage growth at this stage of the cycle relies on relatively modest assumptions about future gains in employment. Feature Chart 1Bond Bear On Pause It's risky out there. Confronted with pain in the equity market, increasingly hawkish trade rhetoric from Washington and some moderation in global economic data, investors have hit pause on the bond bear market. Yields at the front-end of the curve have leveled-off during the past few weeks and the 10-year yield is refusing to take out its 2013 peak (Chart 1). But could any of these risks actually derail the cyclical bear market in bonds? This week we stress test our cyclical below-benchmark duration recommendation by re-considering the three risks we outlined in February, plus one additional risk for good measure.1 Risk 1: Positioning Investors have been overwhelmingly short bonds for the past few months and this consensus has not wavered even as yields declined. Whenever there is widespread consensus around a trade it is often a signal of overbought/oversold conditions. Case in point, since the financial crisis extreme net short bond positions have often coincided with lower Treasury yields during the subsequent three months (Chart 2). This has been particularly true for net speculative positions in 10-year Treasury futures and the All Clients portion of the J.P. Morgan duration survey. The Active Clients portion of the survey has not displayed as consistent a relationship with yield changes, but much like the other two positioning indicators in Chart 2, it currently sits deep in "net short" territory. Chart 2Bond Market Looks Oversold Interestingly, a survey of sentiment shows that investors have mostly been bullish on bonds since 2010, with only a few brief exceptions when more than 50% of respondents indicated that they were bearish. All of the cases when investors turned bearish coincided with a subsequent decline in yields, and sentiment is currently consistent with those prior episodes (Chart 2, bottom panel). In short, widespread consensus around the "short bond" trade was a risk that we flagged in February and it remains a risk today. Risk 2: Unrealistic Expectations Chart 3Data Surprises Still Positive Related to the widespread consensus around the "short bond" trade is the risk that investors might also be overly optimistic about the pace of U.S. economic growth. U.S. economic data have been consistently surprising to the upside since the middle of last year (Chart 3). The risk is that, in the face of strong data, investors start to revise up their expectations for future economic growth. Eventually those expectations become unrealistically high and the economic data are bound to disappoint. This is why the economic surprise index is mean-reverting. In prior research we showed that if the data surprise index is below zero it is very likely that Treasury yields fell during the prior 30 days, and vice-versa.2 At the moment, the surprise index is still deep in positive territory, and our simple auto-regressive model predicts that it will remain in positive territory for the next 30 days. For now, positioning is consistent with lower yields in the near-term but data surprises are consistent with higher yields. We would likely recommend a tactical above-benchmark duration positioning if we received a consistent bond-bullish message from both our positioning indicators and our data surprise model. Risk 3: Global Growth Slowdown Chart 4Global Growth Has Peaked While U.S. economic growth is on a firm footing, growth outside of the U.S. appears to be peaking. As evidence, we note that the fair value reading from our 2-factor Treasury model - a model of the 10-year Treasury yield based on the Global Manufacturing PMI and bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar - has fallen during the past few months and now sits at 2.78%, roughly consistent with the current 10-year yield (Chart 4).3 While the Global Manufacturing PMI fell back to 53.4 in March, down from its December peak of 54.5, it's important to note that the index is still elevated compared to recent history. Also, the U.S. contribution to the global index continues to rise, with the bulk of the decline concentrated in the Eurozone (Chart 4, panel 4). Even in the Eurozone we note that the PMI remains healthy, though not at the gaudy levels seen earlier in the year. Another important caveat about our 2-factor model is that it does not contain a variable to capture the degree of resource utilization in the economy.4 Logically, as slack dissipates in the economy and inflationary pressures mount, then the same level of global growth should be associated with a higher Treasury yield, all else equal. This means that at some point, as we approach the end of the cycle, we expect the model to break down and consistently produce fair value readings that are too low. It is unclear whether that point has been reached. Nevertheless, it is clear that global growth is no longer accelerating higher. For now the slowdown appears benign and consistent with continued economic recovery, but that could change if the Global PMI continues to fall in the coming months. Risk 4: Tighter Financial Conditions The decline in Treasury yields during the past few weeks is small potatoes compared to the steep drop in equity prices. This raises the possibility that continued weakness in the equity market will drive a flight-to-quality into bonds, leading to lower yields. Indeed, as we have often pointed out, the Fed has a strong track record of responding dovishly to periods of tightening financial conditions. This dynamic, which we have dubbed the Fed Policy Loop, explains why equity prices and bond yields are positively correlated when inflation is low, but also why this correlation reverses when inflation is high.5 When inflation is far below the Fed's target, the Fed needs the economic recovery to continue because it needs inflation to rise. Because the Fed also believes that sufficiently tight financial conditions lead to slower economic growth, it must respond dovishly whenever financial conditions tighten. This leads to a positive correlation between bond yields and equity prices - equity prices being a main driver of financial conditions. However, if we consider an environment where economic growth is strong and inflation is well above target, as was the case in the 1980s, then the Fed would actually encourage tighter financial conditions. In this instance you would expect a negative correlation between equity prices and bond yields (Chart 5). Chart 5The Fed's Reaction Function Explains The Stock/Bond Correlation With inflation still below target, the Fed cannot tolerate a severe tightening of financial conditions. But the Fed's tolerance for tighter financial conditions also increases as inflationary pressures mount. As of today our sense is that the correlation between bond yields and equity prices is still positive, though weaker than we have become accustomed to in recent years. Turning to the data, we see that the recent equity sell-off has caused the financial conditions component of our Fed Monitor to fall quite sharply, though it still suggests that financial conditions are "easy" on balance (Chart 6). This squares with Fed Chairman Jerome Powell's interpretation. He described financial conditions as "accommodative" in a speech last Friday.6 Chart 6Fed Monitor Still Suggests Tighter Money But most importantly, the top panel of Chart 6 shows that the recent tightening in financial conditions caused only a small tick down in our overall Fed Monitor. This is because tighter financial conditions have been offset by the accelerating economic growth and inflation components of our monitor (Chart 6, panels 3 & 4). This means that the Fed will need to see a more severe sell-off in the equity market or a slow-down in U.S. economic growth before it adopts a more dovish tilt. Unless this occurs, the impact of tighter financial conditions on bond yields will be relatively small. Bottom Line: As of yet we do not see the balance of risks as suggesting that we should abandon our cyclical below-benchmark duration stance. Positioning is stretched and global growth is no longer accelerating, but U.S. growth is on a firm footing and the Fed is less sensitive to tighter financial conditions than it has been in recent years. In fact, at the current juncture we think the biggest mispricing in the bond market is that yields do not adequately compensate investors for the risk of inflation. That could change very soon as inflation starts to print higher, as is explained in the next section. Inflation: The Biggest Risk Chart 7Higher Inflation Is Just Around The Corner As of last Friday, the compensation for inflation protection priced into the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.07%. The same measure for the 5-year/5-year forward yield was 2.13%. During periods when core inflation is well-anchored around the Fed's target, both measures tend to trade in a range between 2.3% and 2.5% (Chart 7). This means that the re-anchoring of inflation expectations will impart another 23 bps to 43 bps of upside to the nominal 10-year Treasury yield. We think this re-anchoring could occur relatively soon. The main reason we think this could play out soon is that investors do not seem to appreciate how strong inflation has been in recent months. The Bloomberg consensus economic forecast currently calls for year-over-year core PCE inflation of 1.84% by the end of this year and of 2% by the end of 2019. Given that year-over-year core PCE inflation is currently 1.6%, it seems like investors are forecasting a significant jump (Chart 7, panel 2). But we think these forecasts under-appreciate the impact that base effects will have on core inflation during the next few months. Core inflation dropped sharply in March 2017 (Chart 7, bottom panel), a decline caused by a one-off re-pricing of cellphone data plans. This large negative print will fall out of the year-over-year calculation when the March PCE inflation data are reported later this month. In fact, we calculate that even if core inflation rises only 0.1% in March - well below recent readings - year-over-year core PCE inflation will rise to 1.85%, already above the Bloomberg consensus forecast for the end of the year. If core PCE inflation rises 0.2% in March - a reading more consistent with recent trends - then year-over-year core PCE inflation will rise to 1.95%, almost back to the Fed's 2% target. Bottom Line: The biggest risk for bond markets is that investors wake up to the fact that core inflation is trending quickly back to the Fed's 2% target. The re-anchoring of inflation expectations will pressure the 10-year Treasury yield higher by between 23 bps and 43 bps. Wage Growth Near An Inflection Point Chart 8Wage Growth And Labor Market Slack Last week's employment report disappointed expectations with a nonfarm payroll gain of only 103k. The unemployment rate was flat at 4.1% for the sixth consecutive month, and the employment-to-population ratio for prime age (25-54) workers dropped one tick to 79.2%, from 79.3% in February. For bond investors, the main reason to track the monthly employment report these days is to get a read on the amount of slack remaining in the labor market and how that might translate into stronger wage growth and thus higher inflation and bond yields. This makes the prime age employment-to-population ratio particularly important because it has displayed the most consistent relationship with wage growth during the past 25 years (Chart 8). Based on the historical relationship and the current prime age employment-to-population ratio of 79.2%, the employment cost index for wages & salaries should be rising at a year-over-year pace of 2.8%. This is not too far from the current year-over-year wage growth rate of 2.61%, most recently updated for Q4 2017. Further, the historical relationship shown in Chart 8 suggests that we are quite close to an inflection point where smaller gains in the prime age employment-to-population ratio will lead to larger gains in wage growth. This is one reason why we think inflation will continue to surprise to the upside this year. The other advantage of tracking the prime age employment-to-population ratio instead of the headline unemployment rate is that it is easier to forecast because it does not depend on trends in labor force participation. As is shown in Chart 9, the labor force participation rate for the 25-54 age group has risen considerably since early 2016, suggesting that the headline unemployment rate overstated the tightness in the labor market in early 2016. While it is unclear how much further cyclical upside remains in prime age labor force participation, a focus on the prime age employment-to-population ratio allows us to set that question aside. For example, using demographic forecasts from the Census Bureau, we calculate that if nonfarm payrolls increase by 110k per month on average, then the prime age employment-to-population ratio will stay flat at its current level. With payroll gains currently averaging +211k on a trailing 6-month horizon and +188k on a trailing 12-month horizon (Chart 10), we think it is safe to assume that the prime age employment-to-population ratio will continue to rise in the coming months. Chart 9Prime Age Workers Are Re-Entering The Labor Force Chart 10Monthly Employment Growth Table 1 shows how different assumptions about monthly employment growth translate into the prime age employment-to-population ratio, and also how the prime age employment-to-population ratio translates into wage growth. For example, we see that if payroll gains average +160k or higher for the next 12 months, then we should see the employment cost index for wages & salaries grow by 2.94% during the next year. Table 1Mapping Employment Growth To Wage Growth Bottom Line: A forecast for stronger wage growth at this stage of the cycle relies on relatively modest assumptions about future gains in employment. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "How Much Higher For Yields?", dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.77%. 4 The model was originally conceived to capture the impact of both the magnitude and the breadth of global growth on U.S. bond yields. For further details please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Models", dated October 1, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Caught In A Loop", dated September 29, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20180406a.htm Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Q1 earnings season looks robust, but trade policy is an uncertainty. Sizeable shifts in equity technicals and sentiment since the start of the year; valuation still stretched. Global growth may have peaked but fiscal, monetary and legislative backdrop remains supportive. The market is coming to terms with President Trump's willingness to put his policies where his campaign rhetoric was, at least on trade policy. Feature Chart 1Despite Setback In March, ##br## U.S. Labor Market Remains Strong U.S. equity prices fell last week as trade policy remained on the front pages. Gold was one of the few beneficiaries of the tariff talk. Investors hope to turn the page this week as the Q1 2018 earnings season kicks into high gear, but trade-related market volatility is here to stay. The bar is high for 2018 earnings growth, and the focus may shift to the prospects for 2019 sooner rather than later. The modest selloff in the S&P 500 since late January led to a shift in sentiment, but the technical picture for U.S. equities is mixed. Global growth may be rolling over, but we find that risk assets perform well anyway, if fiscal, monetary and legislative policy is aligned. Trump's actions on tariffs do not mean that we are necessarily headed for a trade war. The tariffs proposed but both sides have not yet been implemented and there is still time for compromise. We do not see March's modest 103,000 increase in non-farm payrolls as signaling a weaker labor market. First, the monthly data can be volatile. The soft increase in March follows an outsized 326,000 gain in February. The 3-month average, more reflective of the underlying trend, is a solid 202,000. Second, average hourly earnings increased by 0.3% m/m, which nudged the annual wage inflation rate to 2.7% from 2.6%. Firming earnings growth is a sign of a strong labor market (Chart 1). Despite the soft increase in March payrolls, the U.S. labor market and economy are on a firm footing. Aggregate hours worked increased by 2.0% at a quarterly annualized rate in Q1. Such a pace is consistent with about 3% GDP growth. Firm growth will allow inflation to head back to the 2% target and allow the Fed to continue with its gradual rate hikes. S&P 500 Earnings: Q1 2018 The consensus expects an 18% year-over-year increase in the S&P 500's EPS in Q1 2018 versus Q1 2017, and 20% in 2018. Energy, materials, financials and technology will lead the way in earnings growth in Q1, while real estate and consumer discretionary will struggle. Excluding the energy sector, the consensus expects a stout 17% increase in profits. The robust profit environment for Q1 2018 and the year ahead reflects sharply higher oil prices compared with early 2017 and the impact of last year's Tax Cut and Jobs Act. Moreover, improved global growth and still modest labor costs will support the Q1 results. Trade policy will likely replace tax cuts as a key topic when corporate managements report Q1 outcomes and provide guidance for Q2 and beyond. While no tariffs have yet been imposed, analysts will want to understand the impact that the proposed actions will have on input costs and margins. Moreover, investors must gauge to what extent trade policy-related uncertainty is weighing on business sentiment (details below in "Trade Skirmish...Or Trade War?"). Market volatility, rising interest rates and the modest upswing in U.S. labor costs will also be discussed during the Q1 earnings calls. As always, guidance from corporate leaders for Q2 2018 and ahead are more important than the actual results for Q1 2018. The markets probably have already priced in a robust 2018 earnings profile due to the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, and are looking ahead to 2019 (Chart 2). Investors typically stay focused on the current calendar year's EPS through to at least Q3 before turning their attention to the next year. However, this year may be different. The consensus is looking for 10% EPS growth in 2019, a sharp deceleration from the 20% increase expected this year. Chart 2The Bar Is High For 2018 EPS, But The Focus Is On 2019 Chart 3 shows that elevated readings on the ISM provide a very favorable backdrop for EPS in 2018. As indicated in Chart 4, industrial production (IP), a proxy for S&P 500 sales, is poised to advance in 2018 and lift corporate profits. Industrial production growth may be peaking, but we don't expect it to soften much on a year-over-year basis. Chart 3Elevated ISM Good News For 2018 EPS Growth Chart 4Stout Readings On IP Support S&P 500 Revenue Gains Global GDP growth estimates for 2018 and 2019 continue to move steadily higher in sharp contrast with prior years when forecasters relentlessly lowered GDP estimates (Chart 5). Chart 5U.S. And Global Growth Estimates Are Still Accelerating... ##br## But For How Much Longer? Chart 6The Dollar Should Not Be A Big Concern ##br## In Q1 Earnings Season The greenback should not be an issue for corporate results in Q1 2018 based on minimal references to a robust dollar in the past six Beige Books. This significantly differs from 2015 and early 2016 when there were surges in Beige Book mentions (Chart 6). The last time that six consecutive Beige Books had so few remarks about a strong dollar was in late 2014. BCA's stance is that the dollar will move modestly higher in 2018. The appreciation would trim EPS growth by roughly 1 to 2 percentage points, although most of this would occur next year due to lagged effects. Movements in the U.S. dollar also explain the divergent paths of profits, sales and margins of domestically focused corporations versus globally oriented ones. In recent quarters, a modestly weaker dollar has allowed profit and sales gains of global firms to rebound and outpace those of domestic businesses (Chart 7). Margins for U.S. companies have been steady at record heights since 2014, while margins for global businesses dipped along with oil prices in 2014-2016, but rebounded last year and are higher than margins of domestic companies. Nonetheless, a slowdown in growth outside the U.S. may reverse these trends (Please read below, "Global Growth Has Peaked, Now What?"). Investors are skeptical that margins can advance in Q1 2018 for the seventh consecutive quarter. BCA's view is that we are in a temporary sweet spot for margins, which should continue for the next couple of quarters. However, the secular mean reversion of margins will resume beyond that time as wage pressures begin to percolate. Chart 7Global EPS, Margins Outpacing Domestic Chart 8Strong S&P Growth Ahead, Will Start To Slow Soon Bottom Line: BCA expects that the earnings backdrop will be supportive of equity prices in 2018 (Chart 8). However, investors may have already priced in the benefits of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act on corporate results and are focused on 2019 figures. EPS growth will be more of a headwind for stock prices as we enter 2019 (Chart 8). Stay overweight stocks versus bonds. Technical, Sentiment And Valuation Update BCA's Technical Indicator is not at an extreme (Chart 9, panel 1) and the 7.8% pullback in the S&P 500 since January 26, 2018 leaves the index in the middle of its recovery trend channel (panel 2). The failure of the index to break out of this channel earlier this year suggests that a period of consolidation for equities awaits. Moreover, the upward slope in the NYSE advance/decline line (panel 3) is in jeopardy. The final panel of Chart 9 shows that stocks are no longer extremely overvalued, but they remain overvalued nonetheless. Stretched valuations say more about medium- and long-term returns than near-term performance.1 Chart 9Technicals And Valuations For U.S. Equities Chart 10Bullish Sentiment Took A Hit In Early 2018 But Is Still Elevated The shift in the equity sentiment since the market top in January is notable. BCA's investor sentiment composite index, which hit an all-time high at the end January, has pulled back in the past few months (Chart 10, panel 1). However, this metric has not yet returned to its long-term average (solid line on top panel of Chart 10). The drop in sentiment is broadly based; individual investors and advisors who serve them (panels 2 and 4) along with traders (panel 3) have lately curtailed their bullishness. Recent shifts in several other sentiment surveys are also worth noting: The American Association of Individual Investors, a contrary indicator of sentiment, turned bullish in recent weeks. The percentage of respondents who were bearish moved above 30%, while the percentage of bulls dipped to 32%. Neither measure is at an extreme (Chart 11). The National Association of Active Investment Managers (NAAIM) says that active managers have reduced equity risk since the beginning of Q4 2017 (Chart 12). At 52%, the average equity exposure of institutional investors is at the lowest level since March 2016 and is nearly half the 102% exposure at the start of 2017. In contrast, the March 2017 reading was the highest since 2007, just before the S&P 500 peak in October 2007. As in previous bear markets, BCA's equity speculation index moved into "high speculation" territory in early 2017 and has remained there. The index is at its highest point since the 2000 market peak (Chart 13, panel 1). Moreover, net speculative positions of S&P 500 stocks are roughly in balance, but have turned net short in recent weeks. Nonetheless, this metric is not at an extreme (panel 3). Chart 11Individual Investors Have Turned More Bearish Chart 12Active Managers Still Overweight Equities... Chart 13Equity Speculation Is High... Chart 14Pullback Has Relieved Some Technical Pressure The S&P 500 is close to its 200-day moving average. In late 2017, this indicator was at the upper end of its post-2000 range (Chart 14, panel 1). BCA's composite technical measure is in the middle of the 2007-2017 range and is not a concern (Chart 14, panel 5). Moreover, the percentage of NYSE stocks above their 10- and 30-week highs are below average and at the low end of their recent ranges. Furthermore, new highs minus new lows is at neutral (panel 2). Bottom Line: The 7.8% pullback in the S&P 500 since January 26 has relieved some technical pressure on the market, and sentiment levels are less stretched than at the late January 2018 peak. Moreover, institutions have cut their equity exposures. Nonetheless, stock speculation is rampant and valuations are elevated, which suggests lower returns in the coming decade. Moreover, a slowdown in global growth in ongoing trade tensions suggest that the risk/reward balance for equities has deteriorated. Global Growth Has Peaked, Now What? Chart 15Is Global Growth Peaking? In last week's report we stated that while BCA expects global growth to be solid this year, there are signs that global growth may near a top.2 March's PMI data support that view. Chart 15 shows that the Markit Global PMI dipped to 53.4 in March from 54.1 in February; the 0.7 drop was the largest since February 2016 (panel 2). Last month,3 we discussed 5 episodes in the past 35 years when global growth surged and fiscal, monetary and regulatory policies were aligned to boost the U.S. economy. The current episode of synchronized policy commenced in January 2016. Risk assets perform well when these policy tailwinds are in place, but these assets tend to struggle for 12 months after the tailwinds abate. BCA expects the ongoing era of pro-growth policies to end next year as the Fed raises rates into restrictive territory. However, some investors wonder if the peak in global growth changes our view of how risk assets will perform during periods of harmonized policy. We do not expect the peak in global growth to lead to a recession this year or next. Chart 16 and Table 1 show the performance of U.S.-based financial assets, gold, oil, the dollar and S&P 500 earnings when Fed, fiscal and legislative policies are stimulative and global growth is rolling over but still positive. There has been only a handful of such episodes, so investors should be cautious when interpreting these results. The S&P 500 beats Treasuries, investment-grade and high-yield credit outperforms Treasuries, and small caps outpace large caps. Gold and oil perform well in these periods, perhaps aided by a weaker dollar. S&P 500 earnings are positive. Chart 16Positive Policy Backdrop As Global Growth Is Rolling OverTable 1Three Periods Where Global Growth Rolled Over But Policy Backdrop Was Stimulative Bottom Line: A peak in global growth reduces the risk/reward balance for risk assets, and provides another reason to be cautious. Equity valuation, although improved recently, is still stretched. Central banks are slowly removing the punchbowl, margins have limited upside and the economic cycle is at a late stage. Long-term investors should already be scaling back on risk. Short-term investors should stay overweight risk for now, on the view that fiscal stimulus will provide a tailwind for earnings for the remainder of the year. Trade Skirmish...Or Trade War? BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service notes4 that the market is coming to terms with President Trump's willingness to put his policies where his campaign rhetoric was, at least on trade policy. U.S. equities are down by 5.7% since the White House announced tariffs on steel and aluminum and 2.34% since it declared impending levies against China. Although we have cautioned clients since November 2016 that protectionism is a real risk to global growth and risk assets, the U.S. demands on China justify the moniker of a trade skirmish, rather than a full-on war. In view of our position, we think the 5.7% drawdown is appropriate, if a bit sanguine. President Trump remains unconstrained on trade policy, giving him leeway to be tougher than the market expects. Therefore, it is appropriate for the market to price in a 20%-30% probability of a trade war developing. Given that the market drawdown in such a scenario could be 20% or more, the market is appropriately discounting the risks. Why would a trade war between the U.S. and China elicit a bear market in U.S. equities when a similar confrontation in the 1980s between Japan and the U.S. did not? First, the overvaluation of stocks is much greater today. Secondly, interest rates are much lower, restricting how much policymakers can react to adverse risks. Thirdly, supply chains are much more integrated, both globally and between China and the U.S. The U.S. Administration's trade policy is not haphazard. President Trump and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer are on the same page: they have made China, and not NAFTA trade partners or South Korea, the target of U.S. protectionism (Chart 17). Chart 17China, Not NAFTA, In The Crosshairs Table 2U.S. Gradually Exempting Allies From Tariffs The rapid pace at which the Administration pivoted from global tariffs to targeting China is an indication of what lies ahead. The U.S. uses the threat of tariffs to cajole its allies into tougher trade enforcement against China (Table 2). This strategy can work, as outlined last week,5 but there is plenty of room for mistakes. Trump also wants to change the U.S. policy on immigration and he may use NAFTA negotiations to gain leverage over Mexico. Therefore, there is a slight probability that Trump may trigger Article 2205 to leave NAFTA, but we believe the risk has declined substantively since our 50% estimate in November 2017. Bottom Line: The Trump Administration has pursued a well-considered but tough trade policy toward China. Nonetheless, Trump's actions do not mean that we are necessarily headed for a trade war. The tariffs proposed by both sides have not yet been implemented and there is still time for compromise. The U.S. Treasury will release a list of exemptions on May 1. On May 21, Treasury will reassess its list of China's investments in the U.S. and China will likely retaliate. June 5 marks the end of a 60-day negotiation period when the Administration must decide whether to implement the announced tariffs. There still is a 30% chance that the trade skirmish will morph into a trade war. Trump could significantly escalate matters if he declares a national emergency on trade in June. Expect more trade-related volatility in U.S. financial markets until that time. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "What Returns Can You Expect?", dated November 15, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Global Growth Peaked?", dated April 2, 2018, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy Line Up", dated March 12, 2018, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China", dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan", dated March 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The capex upcycle, a soft U.S. dollar and improving end demand signal that it no longer pays to underweight the S&P tech sector. Lift exposure to neutral. Firming domestic and global final demand, the synchronized global capex upcycle, an overly pessimistic sell-side analyst community and cheap valuations compel us to upgrade the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index to overweight. Recent Changes S&P Technology - Upgrade to neutral today. S&P Tech Hardware, Storage & Peripherals - Boost to overweight and add to the high-conviction overweight list today. Table 1 Feature The S&P 500 seesawed last week, and continues to absorb the early February drawdown. While global growth cannot continue its breakneck pace indefinitely and a soft patch is inevitable, global output growth remains significant and above trend. Our constructive cyclical equity market view remains intact, premised upon the longevity of the business cycle, at least for the next 9-12 months. In the U.S. specifically, the ISM manufacturing survey is perched closer to 60 than to 50, unemployment insurance claims hover near 50-year lows and the muted 10-year Treasury yield moves all signal that generalized fear has yet to grip markets (Chart 1). In fact, if one looks back at the 2015, 2011 and 2010 global growth scares, investors took shelter in U.S. Treasuries as the SPX sold off, sending the 10-year UST yield lower by 50, 70 and 70 bps respectively in a very short time span. The fact that the 10-year yield is only 15 bps below its peak should cause us to question whether the recent equity drawdown is really about slowing global growth. On the monetary policy front, while the Fed is increasing the fed funds rate and decreasing the size of its balance sheet and volatility is making a comeback (please see Chart 1 from the March 5th Special Report), the real fed funds rate remains below the zero line and the real 10-year UST yield is also close to nil (Chart 2). Economic slack measures confirm that the Fed remains behind the curve. The output and unemployment gaps have been closed for a while now, and BCA's unemployment diffusion index and the Taylor rule both signal that monetary policy is extremely accommodative (Chart 3). Chart 1Macro Conditions... Chart 2...Remain Conducive... Chart 3...To A Rising SPX The implication is that macro conditions remain conducive to a rising equity market from a cyclical time horizon perspective. Meanwhile, sifting through the noise reveals that the market is likely coming to grips with a calendar 2019 EPS growth of a more reasonable 10% annual rate compared with this year's near 20% peak growth rate. This transition, as we highlighted in recent research, will be turbulent,1 and likely an earnings validation phase will pave the way higher for the broad equity market. In fact, dissecting the tax relief impact on different sectors is in order. Charts 4 & 5 show the calendar 2018 forward estimates on December 31st, 2017 and what analysts pencil in today, respectively. Charts 6 & 7 highlight the delta in absolute terms and percentage change terms. Chart 42018 EPS Growth On March 30, 2018 Chart 52018 EPS Growth On December 31, 2017 Chart 6Delta Chart 7Delta % Change Telecom services will likely benefit tenfold from the lower corporate tax rate (shown truncated, Chart 7), and consumer discretionary stocks are also prime beneficiaries. But this also means that 2018 after-tax profit data are masking the negative underlying trend growth rate for both of these sectors which also sport grim operating metrics. The S&P telecom services sector is a high-conviction underweight,2 and we reiterate our recent downgrade to a below benchmark allocation in the S&P consumer discretionary sector.3 Industrials, energy and financials, also benefit greatly from tax relief (Chart 7), but higher commodity prices along with improving industry operating metrics contribute to the EPS euphoria for these sectors. Nevertheless, we have identified three key risks to our sanguine equity market view: Escalating geopolitical/regulatory uncertainty Severe global growth slowdown U.S. dollar surge All three risks are intertwined and could infiltrate profit growth in the coming months. As we have posited in recent research, U.S. dollar softness begets higher global growth and the two feed off of each other in a virtuous cycle. A depreciating currency is a profit fillip for SPX constituents with heavy export exposure, the opposite is also true (Chart 8). Chart 8S&P 500: Aggregate Sector International Revenue Exposure (%) If the Trump Administration continues to slap on tariffs with China retaliating, as we experienced last week, eventually triggering a global trade war, then all bets are off on the sustainability of global growth (Chart 9). Such an outcome would weigh heavily on both market sentiment and profits, as our Geopolitical Strategists argued last week.4 Chart 9Don't Throw In The Towel On Global Growth Yet Finally, regulatory clampdown on the tech sector specifically is also on our radar screen, especially given the monopolistic powers that a handful of U.S. tech titans command. This is not only a U.S. risk, but also a global one. However, the 2000s Microsoft and recent Google precedents suggest that a corporate breakup is a low probability event à la "Ma Bell" in 1983, and heavy fines are the most likely outcome (we will be covering this regulatory risk in an upcoming Special Report in conjunction with our sister Geopolitical Strategy publication, stay tuned). Adding it up, we assign low probabilities to all three risks. This week we are taking advantage of recent market weakness and adding some cyclical exposure to our portfolio. Lift Tech To Neutral... We have been offside on tech sector positioning, but are not dogmatic and given recent market action and positive changes in a number of key drivers, we recommend acting on our mid-January upgrade alert, booking losses and lifting exposure to neutral.5 Before exploring our thesis on why we are becoming more constructive on the largest S&P sector in terms of market capitalization weight, it is instructive to look back and identify what we missed. Two reasons for the tech sector's outperformance stand out. First, BCA's constructive view on the U.S. dollar has weighed heavily on our underweight positioning in the tech sector, especially since the greenback's peak in level terms in December 2016. U.S. tech firms garner 60% of their total revenues from abroad - the highest among the GICS1 sectors (Chart 8) - and the positive P&L translation gain effects have been a tonic to EPS. Irrespective of where the dollar will end 2018, due to lagged effects, the U.S. dollar's significant depreciation will continue to boost tech sector EPS. Second, the lack of inflation at this stage of the cycle has perplexed economists and presented a goldilocks macro backdrop for the tech sector that thrives in deflation/disinflation. This benign inflation backdrop has also coincided with the V-shaped global growth recovery following the late-2015/early-2016 global manufacturing recession and propelled technology stocks. Nevertheless, in mid-September we lifted the S&P software index to a benchmark allocation and subsequently to a high-conviction overweight in late-November in order to capitalize on one of BCA's key themes for 2018: synchronized global capex upcycle. Building on this thesis, the broad tech sector also benefits from rising capex (Chart 10). In fact, there is still pent up demand for tech spending that is being unleashed following over a decade of severe underinvestment. Not only is the tech sector gaining capex market share, largely at the expense of basic resources (Chart 11), but also in absolute terms tech spending is on fire and vaulting to fresh all-time highs (Chart 10). Chart 10Prime Capex Beneficiary Chart 11Sector Capex % Of Total National accounts confirm the stock market-reported capital outlays data and tech investment is firing on all cylinders (middle panel, Chart 12). In addition, consumer spending on tech goods is also at the highest level since the history of the data, underscoring that end-demand is upbeat (fourth panel, Chart 12). The San Francisco Fed's Tech Pulse Index encapsulates all this tech optimism underpinning tech stocks (second panel Chart 12).6 On the global demand front, EM Asian exports are climbing at the fastest clip in ten years, despite the smart rebound in the ADXY. Historically, tech sales and EM Asian exports are joined at the hip and the current message is positive (bottom panel, Chart 12). Importantly, a rising revenue backdrop is necessary, especially in the context of rising capital outlays, as they sustain the virtuous upcycle. A simple final demand indicator combining tech exports and new orders is also flashing green (Chart 13). Tack on the sizable losses in the U.S. dollar over the past year and resurgent tech exports will be a boon to tech EPS (bottom panel, Chart 13). Chart 12Firm End-Demand Chart 13Soft U.S. Dollar Helps Our tech profit model does an excellent job capturing all of these positive forces and is pointing to healthy growth for the rest of 2018 (second panel, Chart 14). However, there are also a few headwinds that the tech sector has to contend with and that prevent us from lifting exposure all the way to overweight. First, any knee-jerk bounce in the U.S. dollar is a clear negative for technology stocks. Second, BCA's second key theme we are exploring calls for higher interest rates in 2018 on the back of rising inflation (Chart 15). Were the selloff in the bond market to gain steam in the coming months as inflation rears its ugly head, then tech stocks would come under intense pressure. Third, as we highlighted above, regulatory/political risks have been at the epicenter of the recent tech sector wobble, and heightened regulatory uncertainty will continue to muddy the tech waters. Finally, while tech stocks are nowhere near as overvalued as in late-1999/early 2000, they are more expensive than the broad market on a number of valuation measures (third panel, Chart 14). Chart 14Our Tech Profit Model Flashes Green... Chart 15...But Interest Rates Are A Big Headwind Netting it all out, we are compelled to lift exposure in the S&P information technology sector to neutral, by augmenting the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals (THSP) index to an overweight stance. ...Via Boosting Tech Hardware To Overweight The way we are executing the upgrade to neutral on the broad S&P tech sector is by lifting the S&P THSP index to an overweight stance. We are also adding this index to our high-conviction overweight list. Building on the capex upcycle theme, U.S. tech hardware manufacturers also benefit from improving animal spirits and rising capital expenditures. U.S. capex intentions are as good as they can get, hanging near multi-decade highs (second panel, Chart 16). Already, U.S. factories are humming trying to fulfill perky end-demand. Industry production is far outpacing capacity growth and this represents a boon to pricing power that has exited deflation for the first time ever (bottom panel, Chart 16). The implication is that S&P THSP profits will overwhelm. Beyond U.S. shores, global fixed capital formation is also climbing sharply. This synchronized global capex upcycle represents a tailwind for this industry and will continue to underpin U.S. computer exports (Chart 17). Add on the depreciating greenback and U.S. manufacturers are well positioned for export market share gains (third panel, Chart 17). Chart 16Capex To The Rescue Chart 17Enticing Global ... Importantly, global trade remains buoyant and signals that the global export pie is increasing in size. In particular, EM Asian exports are expanding at a healthy clip, in spite of rising EM currencies, underpinning S&P THSP net earnings revisions (middle panel, Chart 18). The tech-laden Korean and Taiwanese stock markets have positive momentum and are an excellent leading indicator of tech-heavy EM Asian exports. The current message is to expect a durable export growth phase in the coming months (Chart 18). All of this suggests that S&P THSP sales and profits will shine in 2018, easily surpassing the extremely low relative hurdles that sell-side analysts are penciling in for the coming 12 months (second & third panels, Chart 19). Meanwhile, this industry that generates excessive amounts of free cash flow and sports a net debt/EBITDA ratio below par (Chart 20) will continue to be extremely generous to shareholders by continuing to aggressively retire equity and boost dividend payouts. Return on equity is also probing all-time highs. Chart 18...Demand Backdrop Chart 19Unwarranted Pessimism... Chart 20...Given Pristine B/S And Sky-High ROE Finally on the relative valuation front, this tech sub-index trades at a 20% discount to the broad market (and below the S&P tech sector) both on a forward P/E and EV/EBITDA basis, offering an appealing entry point. Bottom Line: Boost the S&P THSP index to an overweight stance for a loss of 16% since inception, and add it to the high-conviction overweight list. This shift also lifts the overall S&P tech sector to a benchmark allocation for a loss of 18% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P THSP index are: BLBG: S5CMPE - HPQ, WDC, STX, XRX, AAPL, HPE, NTAP. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Bumpier Ride," dated March 26, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Manic-Depressive?" dated February 12, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Reflective Or Restrictive?" dated March 12, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "White Paper: Introducing Our U.S. Equity Sector Earnings Models," dated January 16, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 6 "The Tech Pulse Index is an index of coincident indicators of activity in the U.S. information technology sector. It can be interpreted as a summary statistic that tracks the health of the tech sector in a timely manner. The indicators used to compute the index are investment in IT goods, consumption of personal computers and software, employment in the IT sector, as well as industrial production of and shipments by the technology sector. The index extracts the common trend that drives these series." https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/indicators-data/tech-pulse/ Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth. Stay neutral small over large caps (downgrade alert).

Highlights R-star is higher in the U.S. than in most other large economies. This includes China, where an elevated savings rate has depressed the neutral rate of interest. Countries with relatively high neutral rates like the U.S. will tend to run structural current account deficits, whereas countries with relatively low neutral rates will tend to run surpluses. The failure of the Trump administration to understand this basic economic lesson could inflame the ongoing trade spat between the two countries, at a time when populism is on the rise and China is challenging the U.S. for global influence. Fortunately, trade protectionism is less attractive when jobs are plentiful, as is the case in the U.S. today. Thus, we continue to see a market-friendly resolution to the ongoing conflict. Our base case remains that another global recession is still about two years away, which should keep the bull market in global equities intact. However, with global growth decelerating, financial conditions tightening at the margin, and the near-term signal from our proprietary MacroQuant model stuck in bearish territory for the second month in a row, the tactical picture for stocks remains rather murky. Feature Blame It On The Neutral Rate If the world of macroeconomics were set in a superhero universe, the real neutral rate of interest, otherwise known as R-star, would undoubtedly be cast as an arch-villain. R-star is the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation. A depressed R-star has made the zero lower-bound constraint on nominal rates a vexing problem for central bankers. Not long after the Global Financial Crisis began, policy rates fell to ultra-low levels. But even this was not enough to engender a strong recovery. Most economies needed negative real rates. However, with inflation stuck at low levels, there was a limit to how far below zero real rates could go. Japan, of course, has been no stranger to this problem. Policy rates have been close to zero for over 20 years, yet inflation remains stubbornly low (Chart 1). Some commentators have dismissed this issue, noting that real per capita GDP has still managed to grow at a reasonably healthy clip. Unfortunately, this misguided optimism ignores the fact that Japan was only able to keep the economy from sinking into a depression by relying on massive budget deficits. With Japanese monetary policy rendered impotent, fiscal policy had to pick up the slack. High levels of excess private-sector savings were absorbed with continued government dissavings (Chart 2). The result is a gross government debt-to-GDP ratio of 240%. A low R-star has also been a major problem in the euro area. Before the European sovereign debt crisis erupted, Germany was able to export its excess savings to the peripheral countries, who were more than happy to load up on cheap debt so that they could live beyond their means (Chart 3). Chart 1Japan: Even Zero Interest Rates ##br##Were Not Enough To Spur Inflation Chart 2Japan Relied On Large Fiscal Deficits And Current Account Surpluses To Offset The Rise In Private-Sector Savings Chart 3The European Periphery Is No Longer ##br##Absorbing Germany's Excess Savings Those days are over. Today, Germany's current account surplus stands at a gargantuan 8% of GDP, but much of Germany's savings are exported to the rest of the world. Consequently, the euro area current account balance has gone from roughly breakeven in the pre-crisis period to a surplus of 3% of GDP. This likely means that the neutral rate in the euro area has fallen further. R-Star In China Chart 4China Saves A Lot What about China? One might think that China's fast trend GDP growth rate would translate into a high neutral rate. However, the neutral rate is not just a function of trend growth. Most economic models state that the savings rate also affects the neutral rate.1 The more income people wish to save at any given interest rate, the lower the neutral rate will be. For a variety of institutional and cultural reasons, the Chinese save a lot (Chart 4). The national savings rate has averaged 50% of GDP for the past decade. In fact, despite an investment-to-GDP ratio of 44%, China still manages to run a current account surplus (remember the current account balance is just the difference between savings and investment). A Simple Thought Experiment The earth does not trade with Mars. As a result, the global current account balance must be zero; current account surpluses in one set of countries must be offset by current account deficits in another set of countries. Interest rates and exchange rates play a vital role in ensuring that this identity is satisfied. Imagine a bunch of island economies - all with different neutral rates - that do not trade with one another. Now suppose a technological breakthrough occurs that permits free trade and capital mobility. What would you expect to happen? Standard economic theory says that capital will flow towards the islands with relatively high interest rates. As shown in Chart 5, the flood of capital will push down the interest rate in those economies. A lower interest rate, in turn, will discourage saving and encourage investment, leading to a current account deficit. Capital inflows will also drive up the currency, while higher spending will push up consumer prices. Such a "real appreciation" of the exchange rate is necessary to ensure that increased spending falls primarily on foreign-made goods.2 Chart 5Interest Rates And Current Account Balances In An Open Economy On the flipside, capital will flow out of economies with low neutral rates, putting upward pressure on interest rates. A higher interest rate will lead to more savings and less investment, translating into a current account surplus. Countries with relatively low neutral rates will also see a real depreciation of their exchange rates. If there is complete free trade and capital mobility, the final equilibrium will be one where interest rates are equalized across all islands and the current account deficits of the islands with relatively high neutral rates are exactly offset by the current account surpluses of the islands with low neutral rates. In addition, countries with relatively high neutral rates will end up with exchange rates that appear somewhat overvalued relative to their fair value, while those with low neutral rates will have exchange rates that appear somewhat undervalued. U.S.-China Trade Tensions: An Inevitable Conflict There are many structural reasons why the U.S. and China are at loggerheads over trade these days. We predicted that Trump would win the presidency largely because we thought the political/media establishment was underestimating the importance of the populist wave sweeping across the U.S. and much of the world. Our geopolitical analysts share this view. They have also argued that China's growing economic, military, and technological prowess will inevitably put it into conflict with the U.S., which has been the world's sole hegemon ever since the Soviet Union collapsed.3 This week's report adds another structural reason to the list. While R-star in the U.S. is fairly low by historic standards, it is higher than in most other countries, reflecting America's favorable demographics, large fiscal deficit, and relatively spendthrift culture. This means that the U.S. must run a structural current account deficit. This, of course, is at odds with the Trump administration's stated objectives. Efforts by China or any other country to "talk up" their currencies in the hopes of placating Trump will fail. The U.S. economy is already operating at close to full employment. A weaker dollar would only shift the composition of spending towards domestically-produced goods. The U.S., however, does not have enough spare labor to produce these additional goods. All that would happen is that inflation would rise, rendering U.S. exporters less competitive. More stimulative fiscal policy will further increase the neutral rate of interest in the United States. Chart 6 shows that the budget deficit is set to widen to nearly 6% of GDP by 2019 even if the unemployment rate continues to decline. A larger budget deficit will drain national savings, shifting the savings schedule in the savings-investment diagram discussed earlier to the left. This will result in a bigger current account deficit (Chart 7). Chart 6The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline Chart 7A Bigger U.S. Budget Deficit Will Cause The U.S. Neutral Rate To Rise, ##br## Leading To A Larger Current-Account Deficit Investment Considerations The specter of trade protectionism is here to stay, as is the prospect of escalating U.S.-China geopolitical tensions. Fortunately, beggar-thy-neighbor policies are less attractive when jobs are plentiful, as is the case in the U.S. today. Trump also remains constrained by the stock market's view of his actions. After all, this is a president who likes to measure the success of his economic agenda by the value of the S&P 500. As such, we expect both the U.S. and China to follow a two-pronged approach to trade issues over the coming months. Publicly, they will snipe at one another, threatening each other with tariffs and other trade barriers. Privately, they will seek out a compromise that avoids a full-out trade war. China's announcement this week that it will retaliate in kind to the U.S. decision to impose tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese imports should not have taken anyone by surprise. The Chinese government had repeatedly said that they would do precisely this. Importantly, U.S. tariffs do not kick in until June. Between now and then, negotiators from both sides will try to hammer out a deal. Just as with the steel and aluminum tariffs, the final set of tariffs will be a watered-down version of the original proposal. Political theatre will be the name of the game. As discussed in last week's Q2 Strategy Outlook, our base case remains that another global recession is still about two years away, which should keep the bull market in global equities intact.4 We warned investors to "Take Out Some Insurance" on February 2nd, one day before the VIX spike began.5 Now that the S&P 500 is 7% off its highs, our bet is that the path of least resistance for global equities over the next 12 months is up. Nevertheless, with global growth decelerating, financial conditions tightening at the margin, and the one-month ahead signal from the beta version of our forthcoming proprietary MacroQuant model stuck in bearish territory for the second month in a row, the tactical picture for stocks still looks rather murky (Chart 8). For the time being, short-term investors should sell the rallies and buy the dips. Chart 8MacroQuant Model: Tactical Picture For Stocks Still Looks Rather Challenging Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 2 The real exchange rate can be thought of as the volume of foreign goods and services that can be acquired by selling a basket of U.S. goods and services. Mathematically, the real exchange rate between two currencies is the product of the nominal exchange rate and the ratio of prices between the countries. A real appreciation tends to make a country less competitive, either through a nominal increase in its currency or through an increase in domestic prices relative to foreign prices. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II,” dated November 6, 2015; and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Looming Conflict In The South China Sea,” dated May 29, 2012. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Q2 Strategy Outlook, “It’s More Like 1998 Than 2000,” dated March 30, 2018. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Take Out Some Insurance,” dated February 2, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Trade wars have captured investors' imaginations, but slowing global growth is a more immediate risk for both asset prices and exchange rates. As reflationary forces ebb, slow global growth will help the dollar stage a rally. EUR/USD and GBP/USD could decline over the next two quarters. We are selling EUR/CHF. The AUD has more downside. It is too early to close short AUD/NZD or AUD/JPY. Short EUR/CAD with a first target at 1.44. Feature The growing trade skirmish between China and the U.S. has been blamed for much of the movements in risk assets this year. We do not deny that this has been a very important factor determining the price action of all assets globally; after all, market participants are trying to price in the probability that global supply chains as we currently know them will be forever impaired. If this were to happen, global growth and profits would suffer considerably. This warrants a risk premium, one that is currently being estimated by the market.1 As we have written in recent weeks, this will be a stop-and-go pattern, and behind-the-scene negotiations between China and the U.S. will remain intense until June, when the U.S. tariffs are in fact implemented. However, trade wars are not the only force impacting asset returns today. Global asset prices are also slowly adjusting to a world where reflation is ebbing and where growth may be dipping from its heightened state. This week, we examine the role of liquidity and how it is affecting growth,2 and the implications for various currency pairs. From Reflation To Less Growth Through most of 2016 and 2017, risk assets, EM plays, commodity prices and growth greatly benefited from a wave of global reflation implemented by monetary and fiscal authorities around the world in the wake of a market meltdown that culminated in January 2016. A great victim of this reflationary effort was the U.S. dollar. Once global growth and inflation perked up, the dollar sold off. The U.S. economy is not as levered to global growth as the rest of the world is, thus investors were attracted by greater shift in expected returns outside the U.S. than in the U.S. But how is this reflation story faring today? Global monetary policy is not as supportive as it once was as central banks are not adding to global base money as forcefully as before. For example, the Federal Reserve has begun the rundown of its balance sheet, and the real fed funds rate is closing in on the Laubach-Williams estimate of the neutral rate; the European Central Bank has begun tapering it asset purchases, the European shadow policy rate has increased by 400 basis points; and the Bank of Japan has not hit its JGB target of JPY80 trillion of purchases since mid-2016. Even the Swiss National Bank has not seen any increase in its sight deposits since mid-2017. We like to use excess money growth to measure the impact of these changes in base money growth. Excess money supply growth is measured as the difference between broad money supply growth and money demand as approximated by loan growth. As base money and deposits become scarcer in the banking system relative to the pool of existing loans, the liquidity position of commercial banks deteriorates. This deprives them of the necessary fuel to generate further loan growth down the road. Chart I-1 not only shows that excess money in the U.S., euro area and Japan has been decelerating sharply in recent months, but also that this decline points toward slowing global industrial activity, widening junk spreads and decline EM stock prices. Beyond quantity-based measures of liquidity, price-based measures are sending a similar signal. The widening in the LIBOR-OIS spread has now been well documented. It is true that technical factors such as the issuance of T-bills by the Treasury and the progressive move away from LIBOR as a key benchmark for the pricing of loans partly explain this phenomenon. However, this development is now spreading outside the U.S., with Australia in particular experiencing some especially sharp widening in the spread between deposit rates and the OIS. In fact, the LIBOR-OIS spread for the G-10 as a whole is now at its widest since 2012 (Chart I-2). This also portends a situation where liquidity is becoming scarcer than it once was. Chart I-1Deteriorating Liquidity Conditions Chart I-2Price Of Liquidity Is Increasing Growth is responding to these dynamics, and the softening in PMIs around the world was in full display this week. Interestingly, two bellwethers of global growth are showing especially clear signs of a slowing.3 In Korea, exports have greatly decelerated, industrial production is contracting and PMIs are well below 50 (Chart I-3). Taiwan is also showing some signs of weakness, as exports and export orders are both slowing sharply (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Korea: A Key Global Bellweather Is Slowing Chart I-4Taiwan Echoes Korea's Message This message is also being relayed by the Japanese economy. Japan's exports to Asia have been slowing sharply as well. As Chart I-5 illustrates, weak Japanese shipments to Asia correlate closely with a weak AUD/JPY, weak EM stock prices and widening junk spreads, suggesting that these specific shipments capture systematic developments behind global growth. Key growth-sensitive currencies are flashing a similar signal. As the top panel of Chart I-6 shows, NZD/JPY has historically rolled over and declined ahead of recessions, growth slowdowns or EM crashes. It has clearly weakened for eight months now. Meanwhile, the bottom panel of Chart I-6 shows the Swedish krona versus the euro. This cross is also a good leading indicator of global growth, and it is clearly pointing south. Chart I-5Japanese Exports Point To A Malaise Chart I-6NZD/JPY And EUR/SEK: Confirming The Risks Finally, one of our favorite gauges to measure the impact of reflation has substantially weakened: the combination of global growth and inflation surprises. This indicator clearly shows that after a massive upsurge in reflationary forces over the past two years, reflation is now waning (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Economic Surprises Are Declining If reflation is about pushing growth and prices upward, removing stimulus could have the opposite impact. While it is clear that global growth is slowing, what about inflation? We do not think that global inflation is set to slow significantly: global growth is unlikely to move back below trend, and the U.S. is experiencing increasingly potent domestic inflationary pressures supercharged by fiscal profligacy. That being said, the uptrend in global inflation is nonetheless set to flatten for now as our Global Inflation Diffusion Index based on consumer and producer prices across 27 economies has begun to fall, which normally points to lower global headline and core consumer prices (Chart I-8). Bottom Line: The market's attention has been captured by the dramatic flare-up in trade tensions between the U.S. and China, but a more imminent risk has been garnering less press: the decline of reflation. China sent the first salvo on this front; DM central banks have also slowly been either tightening outright or not expanding monetary aggregates as aggressively as before. As a result, global liquidity is tightening and global growth is slowing. Global inflation is also set to decelerate as well, suggesting the decline in economic activity will not be a real phenomenon only, but a nominal one as well. Key Currency Market Implications One of the key implications of lower global growth and ebbing inflationary pressures is likely to be a stronger dollar. As Chart I-9 illustrates, when our Global Inflation Diffusion Index declines and global inflationary pressures ebb, the dollar tends to strengthen. This makes sense: the dollar does best when global growth weakens, inflation slows and commodity prices soften. This time around, the case for a few quarters of dollar strength may be even better defined. U.S. inflation is unlikely to decelerate as much as non-U.S. inflation as U.S. capacity utilization is tighter, the U.S. labor market is at full employment and America is receiving an extraordinarily large amount of fiscal stimulus at this late stage of the business cycle. Chart I-8No Acceleration For Now In Global Inflation Chart I-9Ebbing Inflationary Pressures Will Help The Dollar Technical considerations suggest the dollar is well placed to take advantage of these dynamics. On a short-term basis, both our intermediate-term oscillator and 13-week rate-of-change measures have formed positive divergences with the DXY itself (Chart I-10). While the pattern does not look as bullish as the one registered in 2014, it evokes deep similarities with the 2011 formation. On a longer-term basis, the dollar is massively oversold, as measured by the 52-week rate of change measure. It is true that it managed to stay at similarly oversold levels for nearly a year in 2003, but back then the dollar was much more expensive than today: the U.S. current account deficit was 4.4% of GDP versus 2.4% today and the basic balance of payments deficit was at 3% of GDP versus 2% today (Chart I-11). It is reasonable that with these stronger fundamentals, the dollar will not need to hit as oversold levels as back then before staging a significant rebound. Chart I-10Positive Divergences For The Greenback Chart I-11Dollar Technicals And Valuations: 2003 Vs. Today With global growth slowing, especially in Asia, it is easy to paint a picture where the dollar only strengthens against EM and commodity currencies - the currencies most exposed to both global growth and this specific geographic area. However, while we do see downside in USD/JPY, we expect the greenback to rally against the euro toward EUR/USD 1.15. Our model for EUR/USD shows that the euro is trading 10% above its fair value determined by real rate differentials, the relative slope of yield curves and the price of copper relative to lumber (Chart I-12). In fact, since Europe is more levered to global economic activity than the U.S., these drivers are likely to deteriorate a bit further for the remainder of 2018. Chart I-12EUR/USD Is Vulnerable GBP/USD also looks set to experience a period of weakness against the greenback. Historically, GBP/USD and EUR/USD have been correlated. This is a simple reflection of the fact that the U.K. has a deeper economic relationship with the euro area than the U.S., and thus benefits from the same economic impulses as the eurozone. Chart I-13GBP/USD: ##br##Extremely Overbought Some pound-specific factors will also play against GBP/USD. As we argued last week, the British domestic economy is rather weak; this week's construction PMI confirmed this assessment.4 Additionally, the British basic balance of payments is in deficit anew. This is not only a reflection of the U.K.'s current account deficit of 4% of GDP, it also reflects the fact that FDI into the U.K. has been melting in response to uncertainty surrounding Brexit. This means the U.K. is dependent upon global liquidity to finance this large deficit. An environment where global growth is set to decelerate and where global liquidity is tightening will make it more expensive to finance this large hole. The fastest means to increase expected returns on British assets to attract foreigners' funds is to depreciate the pound today. Finally, the GBP's annual momentum has hit levels consistent with a reversal in cable (Chart I-13). Staying in Europe, another pair is currently interesting and devoid of taking on any USD risk: EUR/CHF. While we think EUR/CHF has more upside over the remainder of the economic cycle,5 this is unlikely to be the case in the second and third quarters of 2018. The Swiss franc tends to outperform the euro when reflationary forces retreat, when global growth slows and when FX volatility increases - all views we espouse for the coming quarters. Moreover, Switzerland's current account and basic balance-of-payment surpluses are 6.5% of GDP and 11.5% of GDP greater than that of the euro area, providing further attraction in a growth soft spot. Finally, EUR/CHF is massively overbought right now, pointing to heightened vulnerability to the economic risks highlighted above (Chart I-14). We are opening a short EUR/CHF trade this week. In the same vein, we remain bearish EUR/JPY. Finally, in previous reports, we highlighted the AUD as being the currency most at risk from any downshift in global growth.6 Despite its recent weakness, we think the AUD is likely to remain very vulnerable. We have been short AUD/NZD since last October, and we do believe this pair will retest 1.04 before forming a base. Australia is experiencing even less inflationary pressures than New Zealand, and is more exposed to slower global industrial production than its neighbor. Technically, AUD/NZD still has some downside. As Chart I-15 illustrates, the 13-week rate of change measure for AUD/NZD has not yet hit the kind of depressed levels associated with complete capitulation. In fact, the recent breakdown in momentum points toward such capitulation as being imminent. AUD/JPY too is not yet oversold enough to be a buy, especially in the context of slowing global growth. Thus, we continue to recommend investors stay short this pair. Chart I-14Technical Indicators Confirm ##br##The Fundamental Vulnerability Of EUR/CHF Chart I-15AUD/NZD Has A Little Bit More Downside Bottom Line: Ebbing reflationary forces suggest the trade-weighted dollar is likely to rally over the coming months. We do see upside for the USD against EM and commodity currencies, but against European currencies as well. Only the yen is anticipated to buck this trend. Within the commodity-currency complex, we foresee that the AUD will suffer the most, and the CAD the least. Within the European currency complex, we are selling EUR/CHF. We are not selling EUR/USD as we are already long the DXY. A Cyclical Opportunity To Sell EUR/CAD This trade is an attractive means to bet on global growth slowing, especially relative to the U.S. As we have argued, U.S. financial conditions have eased relative to the rest of the world, the U.S. is enjoying large injections of fiscal stimulus and it is less exposed to declining global growth. As a result, we anticipate the outperformance of the U.S. ISM to continue relative to global PMIs. Historically, this is an environment where EUR/CAD tends to depreciate (Chart I-16). This is because while 75% of Canadian exports go to the U.S., only 13% of euro area exports end up there. Thus, Canada is much more exposed to the U.S. business cycle than Europe, who is exposed to the rest of the world's. Domestic factor also argues in favor of shorting EUR/CAD. Canadian core inflation is in an uptrend, and at 2% is at the Bank of Canada's target. European core inflation meanwhile only stands at 1%. Moreover, Canada's unemployment's rate is already 0.5% below equilibrium, while the euro area's is 0.4% above such equilibrium (Chart I-17). Thus, European wages and service sector inflation is likely to continue to lag behind Canada's. As a result, we continue to expect the BoC to keep hiking in line with the Fed, or another three times this year. The same cannot be said for the ECB. Chart I-16EUR/CAD: A Play Global Vs. U.S. Growth Chart I-17No Slack In Canada, Plenty In Europe Making the trade even more attractive, EUR/CAD is currently trading at a premium on many metrics. First, our augmented interest rate parity models show that the EUR/CAD trades anywhere between 10-15% above fair value (Chart I-18).7 Relative productivity trends have been a reliable long-term indicator of the path for EUR/CAD. On this metric as well, EUR/CAD is trading at a significant 9% premium (Chart I-19). Finally, EUR/CAD has tended to trend in an inverse relationship with oil prices. Today, it is well above levels implied by various oil prices (Chart I-20). Chart I-18EUR/CAD Trades At A Premium To Rate Differentials... Chart I-19...At A Premium To Relative Productivity... In our view, a key factor explains these discounts: Fears regarding the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement. An abandonment of NAFTA would hurt Canadian growth and prompt the BoC to be much more dovish than we anticipate. However, while there will be some small tweaks to NAFTA, the probability of a major overhaul that deeply affects the North American supply chain has declined, as Canada and Mexico are being exempted from steel and aluminum tariffs and as the White House has softened its stance on the U.S. content of Canadian auto exports back to the U.S. Our Geopolitical team assesses that the probability of a major NAFTA overhaul has declined from 50% to less than 20%, especially as Trump now has bigger fish to fry with China. As a result of these improvements in negotiations, EUR/CAD is potentially set to decline toward 1.44 over the rest of 2018, especially as our oil strategists continue to expect Brent prices to average US$74/bbl this year. Meanwhile, the ratio of copper prices to oil prices, which has been a decent early directional indicator for this cross, suggests the timing is ripe to bet against euro/CAD (Chart I-21), especially as slowing global growth will further weigh on copper relative to oil. Chart I-20...And A Premium To Oil Chart I-21Where Copper-To-Oil Goes, So Does EUR/CAD Bottom Line: An attractive means to bet on slowing global growth while benefiting from the impact of the U.S.'s fiscal stimulus is to short EUR/CAD. Not only is this cross a play on the differential between international and U.S. growth, it is also currently trading at a large premium on various metrics. Dissipating risks that NAFTA will be abrogated in a major way are providing an attractive cyclical entry point to short EUR/CAD, with an initial target of 1.44. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Haaris Aziz, Research Analyst haarisa@bcaresearch.com 1 For more analysis on trade wars and the current China/U.S. spat, please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Are Tariffs Good or Bad For The Dollar?" dated March 9, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com as well as the Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China", dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 We have already gone over the role of China at length to explain the global growth slowdown. For detailed discussions on the topic, Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Return Of Macro Volatility", dated March 16, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 3 For more indicators pointing toward slower global growth, Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Canaries In the Coal Mine Alert: EM/JPY Carry Trades", dated December 1, 2017 and "Canaries In the Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth", dated December 15, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Do not Get Flat-Footed By Politics", dated March 30, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The SNB Doesn't Want Switzerland To Become Japan", dated March 23, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "From Davos To Sydney, With a Pit Stop in Frankfurt", dated January 26, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 7 EUR/CAD trades 15% above a fair value model, that does not encapsulate the trend in the cross. If the recent cross is taken into account through a model that incorporates mean-reversion, EUR/CAD trades at a more modest 10% above its fair value. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. has been mixed: ISM Manufacturing came in slightly weaker than expected at 59.3; However, ISM Prices Paid was a very strong number, 78.1, up from the previous 74.2; Services PMI and Non-Manufacturing ISM also disappointed expectations; The trade balance in February fell to US$ -57.6 bn; Initial jobless claims, however, came in much higher than expected at 242,000. The dollar is now up more than 2% from its February lows. This has been driven by slowing global growth, particularly in Korean and Taiwanese trade data. The greenback should fare well in this environment. Report Links: Do Not Get Flat-Footed By Politics - March 30, 2018 Are Tariffs Good Or Bad For The Dollar? - March 9, 2018 The Dollar Deserves Some Real Appreciation - March 2, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 European data was mixed: German retail sales disappointed, growing at a 0.7% monthly pace and a 1.3% annual pace; German Manufacturing PMI came in slightly lower than expected at 58.2; European unemployment dropped to 8.5% as expected; Headline inflation improved to 1.4% also as expected, but core inflation came in weaker than expected at 1%. The euro is set to experience a period of correction as inflation in the Eurozone remains weak and global growth is slowing, as Asian economic data increasingly shows. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro's Tricky Spot - February 2, 2018 From Davos To Sydney, With a Pit Stop In Frankfurt - January 26, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Housing starts yearly growth outperformed despite coming in at -2.6%. The Nikkei manufacturing PMI surprised on the strong side, coming in at 53.1 However, the Markit Services PMI underperformed expectations coming in at 50.9. USD/JPY has been relatively flat this week. Overall, we expect that the yen will continue to strengthen, given that the market will continue to be rattled by the increasing a weakening in global growth. This risk off environment should benefit the yen. However, given the slowdown in Japanese economic data, the BoJ will eventually have to intervene to make sure that the rise in the yen does not derail the economic recovery and particularly, its inflation objective. Report Links: The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues... For Now - February 16, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Markit Manufacturing PMI outperformed expectations, coming in at 55.1. It also increased slightly from last month's reading. However PMI construction underperformed expectations substantially, coming in at 47. This is the lowest level in more than 2 years. GBP/USD has been relatively flat this week. Overall the latest construction PMI number confirms our analysis: the uncertainty caused by Brexit is weighing heavily on Britain's housing market. This weakness in the housing sector, coupled with a strong pound, will likely limit how high British interest rates can go. Therefore GBP/USD has downside on a tactical basis. Report Links: Do Not Get Flat-Footed By Politics - March 30, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro's Tricky Spot - February 2, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was weak: The RBA's Commodity Index in SDR terms contracted by 2.1% annually, much more than the expected 0.1% contraction; Building permits contracted on a monthly basis at a rate of 6.2%, while also contracting at a 3.1% pace in annual terms; However, retail sales did pick up in monthly terms at a rate of 0.6%. At the monetary policy meeting on Tuesday, Governor Philip Lowe referenced the increase in short-term funding costs that have spilled over from the U.S. into foreign markets owing to higher volatility, particularly in Australia. An escalation of a trade war will also prove to be very damaging for the Australian economy, which is a large export-based and commodity-dependent nation. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 From Davos To Sydney, With a Pit Stop In Frankfurt - January 26, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD/USD has been flat this week. Overall we expect this cross to weaken going forward, given that New Zealand is one of the most open economies in the G10, and thus, it stands to risks the most from both an increasing risk of trade wars and slowing global growth. Moreover, there are also some negative aspects of New Zealand on a more structural basis, as the neutral rate is set to be lowered. This is because the populist government is looking to lower immigration while also implementing a dual mandate for the central bank. All of these factors will cause the kiwi to suffer on a long term basis. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Data out of Canada was mixed: Manufacturing PMI came in line with expectations of 55.7; Exports and Imports for February came in at CAD 45.94 bn and CAD 48.63 bn, respectively, sinking the trade balance to CAD -2.69 bn. The CAD received a fillip on Tuesday as President Trump hopes to conclude preliminary negotiations for NAFTA by the end of next week. While the outcome for these negotiations remains uncertain, the Canadian economy is still in great shape, with a tight labor market, high wage growth and a closing output gap. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: Headline inflation outperformed expectations, coming in at 0.8%. Real retail sales yearly growth outperformed expectations, coming in at -0.2%. However, the SVME PMI underperformed expectations, coming in at 60.3. EUR/CHF has been relatively flat this week. Overall, we expect EUR/CHF to have further upside on a long-term basis. The Swiss economy is still weak and inflationary pressures are tepid. This means that any further appreciation by the franc will weigh heavily on the SNB's goals. While for now EUR/CHF could suffer as global growth declines, the SNB will fight this trend in order for them to achieve their inflation target. Thus, any rally in the CHF will prove temporary. Report Links: The SNB Doesn't Want Switzerland To Become Japan - March 23, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK has been relatively flat this week. Overall, the krone should outperform most other commodity currencies given that oil should perform better than the rest of the commodity complex in the current environment. While all commodities would be affected by a possible slowdown in global growth and Chinese industrial production, oil will probably hold up the best given that advanced economies consume a greater proportion of oil than they do of other commodities, making oil less sensitive to gyrations in global industrial activity than metals. Moreover, the supply backdrop for oil remains more favorable than that of other commodities thanks to OPEC and Russia's production restrains. All of these developments should help the NOK outperform currencies like the NZD and the AUD. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Swedish data was disappointing: Manufacturing PM came in at 55.9, below last month's 59.9; New Orders increased annually only by 1.3% compared to 8.7% in January; Industrial production contracted in monthly terms by 0.5%, and grew annually by 5.7%, but it was still a deceleration relative to the previous 7.7% reading. The SEK has been weakening because of three factors: the talk of trade wars, the slowdown in the global manufacturing sector, and Sweden's housing bubble. While these risks are very real, Sweden's favorable macro backdrop of a cheap currency, a high basic balance of payments surplus and an economy operating above capacity mean that inflation will pick up meaningfully. This will prompt the SEK to rally once global growth can find its floor. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - December 15, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Feature Japan's economic experience in the post bubble era is often described as a fate to avoid at all costs. We would like to turn this common notion on its head. Rather than something to avoid, Japan's post bubble experience is a fate that other major economies should actively try to emulate, at least in parts. This report focusses on three specific lessons for European investors. Japan's so-called 'lost decades' describe the weak growth in its nominal GDP since the mid-1990s. But this emphasis on aggregate nominal income is grossly misleading. Standards of living do not depend on nominal GDP. What matters is real GDP per head combined with the absence of extreme income inequality. Real income must grow and this growth must benefit the majority, rather than a small minority. Since the late 1990s, the growth in Japan's real GDP per head has outperformed every other major economy (Chart Of The Week). And unlike other major economies, income inequality in Japan has not increased, remaining amongst the lowest in the developed world (Chart I-2). This is not surprising. Credit booms inflate bubbles in financial assets, which exacerbate income and wealth inequalities. Chart Of The WeekJapan Has Outperformed Everybody Chart I-2Income Inequality In Japan Has Not Increased Admittedly, the government has been running persistent deficits, but this is to counterbalance private sector de-levering. Total indebtedness as a share of GDP has not been rising. In the post credit boom era, Japan's real growth has come entirely from productivity improvements. Mankind's persistent ability to learn, experiment, and innovate produces more and/or better output from a fixed set of inputs. Unlike the unsustainable growth that is fuelled by credit booms and asset bubbles, real growth that comes from productivity improvements is sustainable. Genuine Price Stability: Something To Celebrate, Not Fear Japanese consumer prices are at the same level today as they were in 1992, meaning that Japan has experienced genuine price stability for two and a half decades (Chart I-3). But this is neither new, nor alarming - Britain enjoyed genuine price stability for two and a half centuries! At the height of the British Empire in 1914, consumer prices were little different to where they stood at the end of the English Civil War in 1651 (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Japan Has Experienced Genuine Price ##br## Stability For Two And A Half Decades... Chart I-4...But Britain Experienced Genuine Price Stability For Two And A Half Centuries! Nevertheless, central banks continue with the deception that price stability means an inflation rate of 2%. This is clearly nonsense. Think about it - if prices rise by 2% a year, then your money will lose a quarter of its purchasing power every decade. And after a typical working life, your money will have lost two-thirds of its value.1 How exactly does that qualify as price stability?2 Still, we frequently hear a strong counterargument - in a highly indebted economy, inflation and growth in nominal GDP do matter. As debt is a nominal amount, it is nominal incomes that determine the ability to service and repay the high level of debt. So given a free choice, policymakers would prefer to have inflation at 2% rather than at zero; and nominal GDP growth at 3.5% rather than at 1.5%. Unfortunately, policymakers do not have this free choice. Contrary to what central bankers promise, inflation and nominal GDP growth cannot be dialled up or down at will to hit a point target. As we explained a while back in The Case Against Helicopters, inflation is a non-linear phenomenon which is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to point target.3 Look at the standard identity of monetary economics: MV = PT M is the broad money supply, V is its velocity of circulation, P is the price level and T is the volume of transactions. PT is effectively nominal GDP. The big problem is that both the broad money supply M and its velocity V - whose product determines nominal GDP - are highly non-linear. Chart I-5The Money Multiplier Is Non-Linear M is non-linear because the commercial banking system money multiplier - the ratio of loans to bank reserves - is non-linear. At a tipping point of inflation, the onus suddenly flips from lending as little as possible to lending as much as possible (Chart I-5). Admittedly, the central bank (in cahoots with the government) could by-pass the commercial banking system to control the money supply M directly. But it can do nothing to change the extreme non-linearity of the other driver of nominal GDP, the velocity of money V. Again, at a tipping point, the onus suddenly flips to spending money - both newly created and pre-existing balances - as fast as possible. At this point, nominal GDP growth and inflation suddenly and uncontrollably phase-shift from ice to fire with little in between. What is the Japanese lesson for Europeans? Simply that just like the BoJ, the ECB will keep moving the 2% inflation goalpost further and further into the future, as it realises the impossibility of achieving and sustaining the 2% point target. So even with inflation in the 1-2% channel, the ECB will create a loophole to exit NIRP and ZIRP very soon after it exits QE. This will structurally support the euro. Do Not Own Banks For The Long Term (Or Now) Japanese financial sector profits stand at less than half their peak level in 1990. For euro area financial sector profits which peaked in 2007, the interesting thing is that they are tracking the Japanese experience with a 17-year lag. If euro area financial profits continue to follow in Japan's footsteps, expect no sustained growth through the next 17 years (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Euro Area Financial Profits May Experience No Sustained Growth In a post credit boom era, banks lose the lifeblood of their business: credit creation. This loss becomes a multi-decade headwind to financial sector profit growth and share price performance. Bank profits are dependent on two other drivers. One is operational leverage - the amount of equity held against the balance sheet. More stringent European regulation will make this a headwind too. Banks will have to hold more equity capital against assets, diluting their profitability. The other driver is the net interest margin - the difference between rates received on loans and rates paid on deposits, effectively a function of the yield curve slope. However, this is a cyclical driver, and as explained last week in Market Turbulence: What Lies Ahead? this driver is unlikely to be positive in the coming months.4 What is the Japanese lesson for Europeans? Simply that euro area financials is not a sector to buy and hold for the long term. Rather, it is a sector to play during periodic strong countertrend rallies, albeit now is not the time for such a cyclical play. A Surge In Female Participation Chart I-7Sales Of Personal Products Have Boomed Over the past twenty years, Japanese sales of skin cosmetics and beauty products have almost tripled (Chart I-7). This has helped the personal products sector to outperform very strongly. The personal products sector is dominated by female spending. So it is significant that in 1995, the Japanese government introduced a raft of policies to encourage women to join the labour force: paid maternity leave, subsidised childcare, and paid parental leave for both parents. Today in Japan, both mothers and fathers can take more than a year of paid parental leave at an average rate of 60% of earnings. The policies had their desired effect. The proportion of Japanese women in the labour force has surged from 57% to 67%, while the male labour participation rate has held at 85%. Therefore, all of the growth in the Japanese labour force through the past twenty years has come from women. Europe tells a similar tale. Through the past couple of decades, parental leave policies have become steadily more generous. Unsurprisingly, the proportion of European women in the labour force has also surged from 57% to 67%, while the male labour participation rate has held at 78%. So just as in Japan, all of the growth in European labour force participation through the past twenty years has come from women (Chart I-8). But for the ultimate end-point in the European trend, look to the Scandinavian countries which have had generous parental leave policies since the 1970s. As a result, labour force participation for Swedish women is almost identical to that for men: 80% versus 83%. If the EU eventually reaches the Scandinavian end-point, it would mean another 20 million women in the EU labour force. What is the Japanese lesson for Europeans? While Japanese financial profits have halved since 1990, Japanese personal products profits have quintupled. Once again, the useful thing is that euro area personal product profits are uncannily tracking the Japanese experience with a 17-year lag (Chart I-9). If euro area personal product profits continue to follow in Japan's footsteps, expect them to almost triple over the next 17 years. Stay overweight the European personal products sector. Chart I-8A Surge In Female Participation Chart I-9Personal Products Profits Set To Grow Very Strongly Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Assuming you work for 50 years. 2 Admittedly, measured inflation probably overstates true inflation. However, estimates put this measurement error at no more than 0.3-0.5 percentage points. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'The Case Against Helicopters' published on May 5 2016 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'Market Turbulence: What Lies Ahead?' published on March 29 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* This week’s trade recommendation is to go long the Australian dollar versus the Norwegian krone. The profit target is 2% with a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights The U.S. and China have a roughly 60-day period to prevent the current trade "skirmish" from metastasizing into a full-blown trade war; The revised U.S.-Korea trade deal suggests that Trump's trade negotiators are credible and are targeting China, not U.S. allies; The U.S. will demand that China's recent RMB appreciation is backed by a long-term reduction in foreign exchange intervention; Tariff reciprocity is not significant, but market access and investment reciprocity are; China will offer concessions first, and will only go to a trade war if Trump imposes sweeping tariffs anyway; Short Chinese technology stocks; remain short China-exposed S&P500 stocks in expectation of further volatility. Feature The market is coming to terms with the fact that President Trump is willing to put his policies where his campaign rhetoric was, at least on trade policy. U.S. equities are down 5.7% since the White House announced Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum and 2.34% since it announced forthcoming Section 301 tariffs against China. Although we have cautioned clients since November 2016 that protectionism is a real risk to global growth and risk assets,1 we believe that the current set of U.S. demands on China justify the moniker of a "trade skirmish," rather than a full-out war.2 That said, the 5.7% drawdown is appropriate, if a bit sanguine. Our "trade skirmish" view is low-conviction. President Trump remains unconstrained on trade policy, giving him leeway to be tougher than the market expects. As such, it is appropriate for the market to price a 20%-30% probability of a full-blown trade war. Given that the market drawdown in such a scenario could be 20% or more, the current market action is appropriately pricing the worst-case scenario. Why would a trade war between the U.S. and China elicit a bear market in U.S. equities if a similar confrontation between Japan and the U.S. did not in the late 1980s? For three reasons. First, the overvaluation of stocks is much greater today. Second, interest rates are much lower, restricting how much policymakers can react to adverse risks. Third, supply chains are much more integrated today, globally and between China and the U.S. Nearly every major S&P 500 multinational corporation is in some way exposed to these supply chains. As such, we think the current drawdown is appropriate. That said, the administration's policy is not haphazard. President Trump and U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer are on the same page, making China - and not NAFTA trade partners or South Korea - the main target of U.S. protectionism (Chart 1). The rapid pace at which the administration pivoted from global tariffs to targeting China gives a clear indication of what is afoot. The U.S. is using the threat of tariffs to cajole its allies into tougher trade enforcement against China (Table 1).3 We think this strategy can work, as outlined last week, but there is plenty of room for mistakes that could derail it. Chart 1China, Not NAFTA, In The Crosshairs Table 1U.S. Gradually Exempting Allies From Tariffs Trump also wants to change U.S. policy on immigration and could use the NAFTA negotiation to gain leverage over Mexico. There is therefore still some probability that Trump triggers Article 2205 to leave NAFTA, but we believe it has declined substantively since we put it at 50% in November, particularly given the U.S.-South Korea negotiations we discuss below.4 This week we take a look at the revised U.S.-Korea trade deal and what it suggests about the Trump administration's trade agenda more broadly. Then we update the status of the U.S.-China trade frictions, which are only temporarily subsiding, if at all. Lessons From The KORUS Talks The just-completed renegotiation of the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement (the "KORUS FTA") offers some clues to the Trump administration's trade tactics that may be relevant for future negotiations with NAFTA partners, China, and others. President Trump has repeatedly criticized the KORUS FTA, as the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea has ballooned since its implementation in March 2012 (Chart 2). Trump used the threat of withdrawing from the deal to pressure South Korean President Moon Jae-in not to ease sanctions on North Korea too rapidly. Chart 2Why Trump Likes Tariffs Now USTR Lighthizer and his South Korean counterpart, Hyun Chong-Kim, have agreed to the outlines of a revised deal.5 The key points are as follows: Steel tariff waiver for Korea: South Korea will receive a country-level exemption from the U.S.'s recently imposed steel tariffs.6 Going forward, Korean steel exports will be subject to quotas equivalent to 70% of the average annual import volume during 2015-17. Greater market access for U.S. autos: Korea will double the number of autos it imports on the basis of U.S. safety standards, from 25,000 to 50,000 per year from each U.S. carmaker. It can import more subject to its own safety standards. It will refrain from any new emissions-standards tests, will accept U.S. safety standards on auto parts, and will ease ecological policies and the customs process of verifying the origin of exports. Delayed market access for Korean trucks: The U.S. will retain the existing 25% tariff on Korean trucks through 2041, instead of 2021 (Chart 2, second panel). Fair treatment of U.S. pharmaceutical imports: Korea promises not to discriminate against U.S. drugs but to grant them fair treatment under KORUS provisions. Ancillary currency agreement: The two sides appended a "gentleman's agreement" on currency policies, which is not a formal part of the deal and not subject to legislative confirmation. South Korea agreed not to devalue the won competitively, or to manipulate it more broadly, and to provide greater transparency regarding its interventions in foreign exchange markets. There are three main takeaways from the above. First, the U.S. is obviously focusing on non-tariff barriers to trade, the main hindrance to trade in a world with already low tariff rates. The grievances with Korea were primarily due to safety standards, environmental policies, and burdensome administration that hindered U.S. exports despite the reduction of tariffs under the KORUS agreement. Second, USTR Robert Lighthizer - the seasoned negotiator of the historic 1980s trade disputes with Japan, and the man in charge of the current NAFTA and China negotiations - deserves his reputation as a competent policymaker. He apparently makes concrete demands and is capable of compromising to conclude deals. This reduces the risk, overstated by the media, that the inexperienced U.S. president is driving the trade negotiations. Third, the U.S. is not deliberately trying to punish its allies in pursuit of some mercantilist fantasy of closing every single trade imbalance. Strategic logic dictated that Washington and Seoul needed to conclude a deal quickly so as to better coordinate on North Korea, and they did so. It is highly unlikely that the concluded deal will end the U.S. trade imbalance with South Korea, but it will likely improve it substantively. Moon Jae-in continues to be a pragmatist in his dealings with Trump and Trump is joining Moon's "Moonshine" policy of engagement with North Korea. Talk of the U.S. abandoning its allies did not materialize. (Japan and Taiwan are likely to get deals soon.) Most importantly, this deal is a strong indication that the U.S. will continue to pressure China on its foreign exchange practices. It would make no sense for the U.S. to require its allies to disavow competitive devaluation and reduce currency interventions while not demanding similar assurances from China. On this front, China's recent appreciation of the yuan will not ultimately satisfy the U.S., as it is arbitrary. The U.S. will need to extract deeper guarantees, with the implicit threat of tariffs to prevent China from backsliding. Otherwise the U.S. would yield Chinese exporters a foreign exchange advantage relative to American trade partners who agree to stop intervening to preserve a favorable exchange rate with the USD. A simple comparison of these countries currency moves over the past eight years reveals how they have allowed less appreciation relative to the U.S. than in trade-weighted terms, and how China would benefit if the others were forced to stop this practice while it was left off the hook (Chart 3). Chart 3The U.S. Will Demand Currency Appreciation This last conclusion fits with our study of previous cases of U.S. trade protectionism, in which the end-game was dollar depreciation relative to key trade partners.7 The KORUS case can be considered alongside Lighthizer's and the Trump administration's handling of the Section 301 investigation into China's forced tech transfer and intellectual property theft. The Trump administration came out swinging with unilateral 25% tariffs on about $60 billion worth of goods, to be listed on April 6 and enacted sometime in June. But it also signaled that it would allow a consultation period, and initiated a case through the World Trade Organization, thus reinforcing (rather than undermining) the global trading system. These developments give some grounds for optimism in the NAFTA negotiations and (less so) in the China negotiations. While China is preempting U.S. demands on its currency policy, it will be averse to providing any permanent guarantees, or to painful structural demands. This is due to its concerns about overall stability and its suspicion that the U.S. is pursuing a broader strategic containment policy against it. We discuss these issues below. Bottom Line: The preliminary conclusions of the KORUS FTA negotiation suggest that the Trump administration's trade leadership is credible, while Trump himself is looking for quick and concrete trade "wins" that can be presented to his domestic voter base. This is a marginally market-positive sign. But its ramifications are limited with regard to China, where strategic tensions and geopolitical competition will make it much harder to strike a similar deal quickly. U.S.-China: Fade The "Mirror Tax," Focus On Market Access And Tech China announced tariffs on roughly $3-$3.5 billion worth of U.S. goods on April 2 - ranging from fruits and nuts to wine and pork - in retaliation for the steel and aluminum tariffs that the U.S. imposed in March under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. China used the exact same tariff rates as the U.S. - 25% and 10% - while selecting the product list so as to produce roughly the same net trade impact in USD terms (Chart 4). The implication is that China will retaliate in kind to deter the U.S., but does not wish to "up the ante." This is largely what we expected, but the implication is significant: the U.S. is about to release a preliminary list on April 6 of $50-$60 billion worth of goods on which it will slap tariffs. This second round of tariffs - which is China-specific - follows from the probe under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. China's recent decision suggests that if negotiations fail, it will respond with tariffs worth roughly the same amount, which is a much bigger exchange of fire for these two economies. The actual retaliatory action would most likely occur in June, when the U.S.'s list is finalized and implemented, though China may hint at its product list much sooner, adding to trade fears and market volatility.8 The Trump administration claims that its product list will be chosen by an algorithm to maximize the impact on Chinese exporters while minimizing the impact on the American consumer. Consistent with this aim, some reports indicate that the goods will be advanced technological products set to benefit from China's "Made in China 2025" plan, in which China has laid down aggressive domestic content requirements (Chart 5). Chart 4Tit For Tat Chart 5China's High-Tech Protectionism What is the Trump administration's goal? Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin declared at the G20 finance ministers' meeting that he did not want to penalize Chinese imports so much as promote U.S. exports. Is this a credible basis for assessing the administration's policy? Yes and no. We think Mnuchin is telling the truth, but not the whole truth. When it comes to blocking imports or boosting exports, Mnuchin is right: the U.S. goal is not simply to punish Beijing for past unfair trade practices by blocking imports of Chinese goods. True, the Trump administration has focused on a lack of reciprocity in tariff rates. But a "mirror tax" or "mirror tariff" with China, which Trump has referred to, would not make much of a difference to the trade balance: Chart 6AThe U.S. Exports Soybeans And Cars To China Chart 6BChina Exports Phones And Computers To The U.S. Taking a look at the top ten exports of the U.S. and China to each other (Chart 6 A&B), it is quite clear that China imposes higher tariffs on U.S. goods than the U.S. imposes on Chinese goods (Chart 7 A&B). This follows from World Trade Organization rules and the relative level of economic development of the two countries. Chart 7AAmerican Exports To China Face Higher Tariffs... Chart 7B... Than Chinese Exports To America If we equalize these tariffs by raising U.S. tariffs to the same level as their Chinese counterparts for the same good, we wind up with a very small $6.2 billion gain to the U.S. trade balance (Chart 8). If we focus only on the top ten goods that both countries export to each other, and impose a hypothetical mirror tax, we wind up with an even smaller gain for the U.S. of $3.9 billion (Chart 9). This is small fry and cannot be the administration's goal (at least not its main goal). The real goal is to gain greater market access for U.S. exports in China. Here the U.S. may have a case, as China lags both its developed and emerging market peers in sourcing its imports from the U.S. (Chart 10). While China comprises 24% of total EM imports, it comprises only 15% of U.S. exports to EM. Even in commodity exports, where the U.S. has made major inroads in China, Beijing has recently limited the American share (Chart 10, middle panel). Chart 8Equalizing Tariffs Has Little Impact Chart 9Equalizing Tariffs Has Little Impact (2) Chart 10U.S. Grievance Is About Market Access A simple, back-of-the-envelope comparison of the U.S.'s top exports to China and EM ex-China suggests that the U.S. can make a case that its exports are suffering unduly in China: China's share of top U.S. exports is lower than one might expect it to be relative to EM or EM-ex-China (Chart 11 A&B). The U.S.'s market share of China's imports in key goods is lower than it is in EM or EM-ex-China (Chart 12 A&B). The U.S. share of China's top imports is smaller than the DM-ex-U.S. share (Chart 13 A&B). Chart 11AChina Is Not A Large Enough Share Of U.S. Exports (Broad) Chart 11BChina Is Not A Large Enough Share Of U.S. Exports (Detailed) Chart 12AU.S. Is Not A Large Enough Share Of Chinese Imports (Broad) Chart 12BU.S. Is Not A Large Enough Share Of Chinese Imports (Detailed) Chart 13AU.S. Has Less Market Access In China Than Other Exporters Chart 13BU.S. Has Less Market Access In China Than Other Exporters China has granted the legitimacy of U.S. complaints by pledging several times in the last few months to open market access. The latest news from the negotiations suggests that some progress is being made.9 Clearly the above is a very rough measure. Chinese consumers may not want to buy as much stuff from the U.S. as from Europe and Japan. The U.S. doubtless needs to improve its global competitiveness, and even then it may not gain as much market share in China as its DM peers. Nevertheless, Washington sees itself as the power that brought China into the global economy and allowed it to join the WTO. If China wants the U.S. to allow it to play a greater role in running the world, the U.S. is demanding a beneficial economic relationship in return. One way China is offering to deal with the problem is by buying American goods at the expense of U.S. allies' goods. For instance, Beijing has offered to buy more semiconductors from the U.S. and fewer from Taiwan and South Korea. This would alleviate the U.S. trade deficit a little, but at a greater expense to U.S. allies (Table 2). It would open up an opportunity for China to make more strategic acquisitions in those weakened, neighboring industries. It is not clear that the Trump administration will accept such a "concession," unless it is coupled with much greater concessions as compensation for selling out the allies. Table 2China's Trade Concessions To The U.S. Could Impose Costs On U.S. Allies Similarly, China's concessions that have been offered so far - like lowering the 25% tariff on car imports - are tokens in the right direction but not sufficient to satisfy the U.S. at the current juncture. This means that the U.S. will demand structural changes that increase market access, from a stronger RMB to a more consumer-oriented economy, as part of what will be a drawn-out effort to encourage China to rebalance its macroeconomy. Of course, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin was only telling half the truth: the U.S. also wants to prevent China from stealing too much of America's market share too fast. When we look at China's comparative advantage - the goods categories in which China's export growth has been fastest in recent years, weighted by contribution to the total - the U.S. is the country that has the largest global market share in these very goods (Chart 14). For instance, telecoms equipment, car parts, TVs, electrical circuits, etc. The U.S.'s export mix is not as dependent on these goods as that of China's neighbors (Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea), but it is the chief exporter of these goods nevertheless. Because many of China's most competitive goods are still low value-added (toys, plastics, textiles, furniture), China is pursuing tech upgrades, innovation, and intellectual property: it would eat away at the U.S. share of more advanced goods. Chart 14China's Comparative Advantage Threatens U.S. Global Market Share The Trump administration is trying to slow China's advance and put a stop to China's aggressive poaching of foreign tech and IP.10 This will include restrictions on Chinese direct investment and acquisitions to be announced by Mnuchin on May 21. We expect him to intensify an inherently stringent vetting process. The administration has already taken a proactive stance by blocking Canyon Bridge Capital Partners from acquiring Lattice Semiconductor and Singaporean company Broadcom's attempted acquisition of Qualcomm.11 Rumor has it that the administration is now considering invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which authorizes the president to take actions "to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat." Trump would be able to cite China's use of state-backed companies, corporate espionage, and cyber-attacks in pursuit of technology and IP (Table 3). Table 3Trump Lacks Legal Constraints On Trade Issues... Especially When National Security Is Involved This is entirely aside from legislation pending in Congress, which the White House appears to support, that would provide the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) with the ability to block investments across entire industries, rather than on a case-by-case basis, and with a broader definition of national security and sensitive property and technologies.12 While American presidents have historically vetoed similar legislation against China, the Trump administration may not, depending on the outcome of talks. The key point is that the U.S. political establishment - across the spectrum - is alarmed about China's economic mercantilism. As Senator Elizabeth Warren recently declared to a group of top policymakers in Beijing: "Now U.S. policymakers are starting to look more aggressively at pushing China to open up the markets without demanding a hostage price of access to U.S. technology."13 Warren, a staunchly liberal senator from the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts, is entirely on the same page as Trump. The takeaway for investors? China's tit-for-tat response to Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs should not be dismissed out of hand. The market is sensitive to trade fears and there is a clear avenue for them to get worse if the 60-day consultation period lapses without any major Chinese concessions. True, negotiations are ongoing and Trump's trade team has been shown to be both credible and willing to pursue trade disputes through the WTO. Nevertheless there are substantial measures aimed at China coming down the pike and the usual restraints on U.S. policy, centered on the U.S. business establishment lobbying policymakers, are not as effective as in the past. Bottom Line: The U.S.'s primary economic goal in the China negotiations is not to equalize tariffs but to open market access. The strategic goal is much larger. The U.S. wants to see China's rate of technological development slow down. As such, Washington will expect robust guarantees to protect intellectual property and proprietary technology. Investment Conclusions Several clients have asked about the constraints on the different players if trade conflict should escalate over the coming months. On the surface the U.S. is in a stronger position because its outsized deficit with China means that measures constricting bilateral trade are inherently more damaging to China's output (Chart 15). Even some of China's best retaliatory options are difficult to put into practice, including selling U.S. treasuries or imposing sanctions on U.S. commodities (Table 4).14 Chart 15China More Exposed To Trade Than U.S. Table 4China's Retaliation Options Are Limited... Even In Agriculture The U.S. also faces a constraint in imposing measures on China because manufacturing value chains today sprawl across various countries and multinational corporations. Tariffs therefore punish countries, including U.S. allies, that provide inputs to China or American companies that profit from them - think Apple. Moreover, tariffs will not in themselves change the U.S.'s fundamental savings-investment balance, suggesting that demand for foreign goods will simply shift to other producers and the trade deficit will be unaffected. However, supply chain risk is ultimately not prohibitive for the U.S. China has long ranked among the most exposed to supply-chain disruptions, while the U.S. ranks among the least (Chart 16). Moreover, U.S. allies in Europe and ASEAN stand to benefit if supply chains are rerouted from China (Chart 17). While the U.S. and allies would suffer higher initial costs as a result, they would gain the strategic advantage of reducing China's centrality to global supply chains. The latter has given Beijing an advantage in acquiring technology and moving up the value chain. Chart 16China Most Exposed To Supply-Chain Risk Chart 17U.S. Allies Benefit If Supply Chains Move While the Xi Jinping administration is weaning China off export reliance and U.S. reliance, the country still employs 28% of its workers in the manufacturing sector, which leaves it more exposed to disruptions than the U.S. if trade frictions should spiral out of control and weaken overall demand (Chart 18). While American workers are intimately familiar with the boom-and-bust cycle of free labor markets, China has not struggled with significant unemployment since 2003 (Chart 19). Its middle class was much smaller then. Chart 18Employment Is A Constraint On China Chart 19China Unfamiliar With Large-Scale Job Loss In short, China will first attempt to appease the Trump administration through market access (and keeping the RMB strong) to maintain its supply-chain centrality and overall stability. If Trump accepts China's concessions, trade frictions will not spiral out of control - at least not this year. China will only accept a full-fledged trade war if Trump rejects its concessions and imposes punitive measures that threaten its stability. At that juncture, Xi would probably find it useful to demonize Trump and execute long-term changes to make China more self-sufficient, blaming the U.S.-initiated trade war for the painful consequences. This is why it matters if Trump's demands go beyond foreign exchange rates, improved market access, and IP enforcement - for instance, if they extend to capital account liberalization, the holy grail of American trade negotiations with China. Thus far, Trump's team has not raised this demand, but it is a subject we will revisit soon as it is likely to be China's red line, at least within the economic sphere. In light of our expectation for further trade-war related volatility, we would recommend shorting Chinese tech stocks15 and remaining short China-exposed U.S. stocks. The latter trade has been in the black by over 5% in just a week, but is currently up only 0.7%. It is a way to hedge the risk of further tensions between U.S. and China. Risks to this view are: if the U.S. reduces the Section 301 tariffs that it is threatening on or after April 6; if Treasury Secretary Mnuchin's investment restrictions due on May 21 are watered down; or if the U.S. makes no structural demands on China's economy but merely accepts temporary RMB appreciation and some big-ticket import orders. Otherwise the risk that trade tensions spiral out of control will remain elevated at least through the U.S. midterm elections on November 6. By then, Trump will need either to have cut a small-scale deal with China that he can tout for voters or to have taken more aggressive trade action pursuant to the Section 301 findings. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 A 60-day consultation period with both legislatures will follow but the deal will probably remain in more or less the same form. 6 Aluminum was not included, but South Korea is not a major source of aluminum products for the U.S. 7 Please see footnote 2 above. 8 Please see David Lawder, "Trump to unveil China tariff list this week, targeting tech goods," Reuters, April 2, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 9 Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin spoke with Politburo member Liu He, who is Xi Jinping's top economic policymaker, and they reportedly pledged that they are "committed" to a solution on reducing the U.S. trade deficit. The U.S. is asking for a $100 billion reduction to the trade deficit within the year, as well as some progress on intellectual property enforcement. Supposedly the specific demands involve reducing the Chinese tariff on car imports and raising the foreign ownership cap on Chinese financial companies, the latter of which China has previously promised to do. Please see Andrew Mayeda, "U.S. Pushes China On Cars And Finance In Tariff Talks," Bloomberg, March 26, 2018, available at www.bloomberg.com. 10 Please see the U.S. Trade Representative, "Findings of the Investigation into China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974," March 2018, available at ustr.gov. 11 In September 2017, the White House and Department of Treasury intervened in the attempt by a group of investors, including the state-owned China Venture Capital Fund, from acquiring Lattice, on the advice of CFIUS. Lattice makes computer chips that are highly versatile and can be used in military functions; the Chinese SOE was suspected of pursuing China's state-backed efforts to improve its semiconductor industry. Separately, in March 2018, President Trump blocked Singapore-based Broadcom's attempt to acquire Qualcomm, which would have been a hugely consequential tech merger due to the two companies' dominance in making processors. The Treasury Department feared that Chinese state entities might get access to Qualcomm's IP or that the merger might otherwise hinder Qualcomm's "technological leadership." Please see "CFIUS Case 18-036: Broadcom Limited (Singapore)/Qualcomm Incorporated," dated March 5, 2018, available at www.sec.gov. 12 Please see Andrew Mayeda, Saleha Mohsin, and David McLaughlin, "U.S. Weighs Use of Emergency Law to Curb Chinese Takeovers," March 27, 2018, available at www.bloomberg.com. 13 She was speaking with Liu He, seasoned diplomat Yang Jiechi, and Defense Minister Wei Fenghe. Please see Michael Martina, "Senator Warren, in Beijing, says U.S. is waking up to Chinese abuses," April 1, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 14 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio," dated March 15, 2018, and "Oil Price Forecast Steady, But Risks Expand," dated March 22, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "After The Selloff: A View From China," dated February 15, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

Highlights Hong Kong's leverage burden is a corporate sector rather than a household sector problem. But this corporate sector debt is highly concentrated in the finance and real estate industries, meaning that investors should be legitimately concerned over Hong Kong's extremely elevated debt service ratio. Our BCA Hong Kong Debt Risk Monitor serves as an important tool to help investors gauge the risk of a serious credit-driven downturn in the region. While the risk from excessive leverage is real, the current message from our DRM is that the odds of a deleveraging event over the coming year are low. Due to the importation of U.S. monetary policy, Hong Kong may "enjoy" easy monetary policy on a permanent basis. This suggests that Hong Kong's private sector may continue to leverage itself even in the face of rising interest rates, setting up the potential for a cataclysmic future recession. Stay neutral Hong Kong stocks versus the global benchmark over the coming 6-12 months. While equities may rise in relative terms if earnings momentum converges with that of the global benchmark, it is not a sufficiently compelling prospect to outweigh the significant structural risk facing the region. Feature Hong Kong has appeared in the headlines of the financial press for two reasons over the past few months. The first is due to the recent weakness in the Hong Kong dollar (HKD), a topic that we addressed last week.1 The second was prompted by the BIS' March 2018 Quarterly Review, which noted that mainland China, Hong Kong, and Canada stood out among 26 jurisdictions as being the most vulnerable to a banking crisis according to their research. The BIS's warning is rooted in the fact that Hong Kong is a highly leveraged economy, but there are two additional reasons for investors to be cautious about the region: China's industrial sector is slowing, and monetary policy is tightening due to the region's direct link to U.S. interest rates. While Hong Kong has avoided the full brunt of rising U.S. rates over the past year thanks to plentiful interbank liquidity (which has limited the rise in 3-month HIBOR), we noted in last week's report that the weakness in the HKD likely means that gap between interbank rates and the base rate cannot get much wider. This means that further Fed rate hikes over the coming year are likely to feed more fully into tighter Hong Kong monetary conditions. In this report we review the extent and disposition of Hong Kong's indebtedness, and develop an indicator for investors to monitor in order to gauge the risk of a serious private sector deleveraging event. We conclude that while it is too early to position aggressively against Hong Kong stocks, the risk from excessive leverage is real and is very likely to eventually cause a serious credit-driven downturn. For now, however, that appears to be a story for another day, and as we explain below, potentially a distant one. Breaking Down Hong Kong's Debt Chart 1 presents the basis for concern about Hong Kong's debt. The chart shows the BIS' nonfinancial private sector debt service ratio ("DSR", which includes both households and nonfinancial corporations) for the G10 countries alongside that of China, Hong Kong, and Canada. The chart shows that Hong Kong's DSR has risen nearly to 26%, a full 10 percentage points higher than the G10 average, and is now the highest among the 32 economies that the BIS has debt service data for. One important point to note is that among the three countries that the BIS recently singled out for concern, the disposition of Hong Kong's private sector debt is more similar to that of China than Canada. Chart 2 highlights that the private sector debt in China and Hong Kong is predominantly owed by the nonfinancial corporate sector, whereas in Canada the debt is more equally split among the two sectors, with households owing more in total. Chart 1Hong Kong's Debt Burden Hits##br## A New High Chart 2Unlike In Canada, Hong Kong's Leverage##br## Is A Corporate Sector Problem Normally we would be inclined to suggest that the skew in Hong Kong's debt towards the corporate sector makes it less risky than in other jurisdictions where elevated leverage is a household sector problem. The rationale is that while corporations can (and often do) misallocate their capital, firm borrowing is usually employed to acquire income-producing assets, with problems arising only when the value of those assets (or their potential to generate income) declines sharply. Household leverage problems, on the other hand, are almost always the result of a sharp rise in residential mortgage credit, and our view is that the purchase of residential property is fundamentally an act of consumption rather than a true investment. In addition, the past experiences of several countries have shown that housing-related leverage busts are particularly pernicious, in that the resulting recessions tend to be followed by long periods of subpar economic growth. But unlike in China where the majority of nonfinancial corporate sector debt is held on the balance sheets of state-owned enterprises, Hong Kong's corporate debt does not have de-facto state backing and appears to be enormously concentrated in the real estate and financial sector. Over 80% of Hong Kong's total nonfinancial sector debt (which includes households) is provided by domestic banks, and Chart 3 shows that among bank loans to firms, 35% have been granted to property building & construction companies and another 22% to "financial concerns" and stockbrokers. This high concentration of corporate sector debt in the real estate sector means that investors should be legitimately concerned over Hong Kong's extremely high DSR. On the household side, we have made the case in a previous report that a replay of another spectacular housing bust (similar to what occurred in 1997) is highly unlikely despite the fact that Hong Kong house prices have vastly outstripped income over the past decade2 (Chart 4). Chart 3Loans To Businesses Are Highly Concentrated ##br##And Exposed To Property Chart 4Lofty House Prices Are A Red Herring: ##br##The Risk Is On The Business Side This suggests that, despite extremely elevated residential property prices, investors should be more concerned about a shock that will destabilize the commercial real estate market. Hong Kong households would not likely escape the impact of such a shock, since commercial and residential real estate prices move strongly in tandem (Chart 5). But in terms of watching for a "tipping point" that could push Hong Kong's private sector into a balance sheet recession, the trigger seems more likely to occur in the market for the former, rather than the latter. Bottom Line: Hong Kong's leverage burden is a corporate sector rather than a household sector problem. But this corporate sector debt is extremely concentrated in the finance and real estate industries, meaning that investors should be legitimately concerned over Hong Kong's extremely high debt service ratio. Chart 5Still, Households Will Be Hurt##br## If CRE Prices Fall Chart 6The BIS' Warning Thresholds ##br##Don't Seem To Apply To Hong Kong Timing The Onset Of A Balance Sheet Recession Our analysis above supports the recent warnings from the BIS that the risk of a banking crisis / private sector deleveraging event in Hong Kong is nontrivial. This raises the obvious question of how to gauge the timing of such an event in order for investors to properly position their exposure towards Hong Kong's financial markets. The BIS has itself investigated this question, and has published several reports on its "Early Warning Indicator" (EWI) approach.3 Table 1 presents a list of these indicators for several countries, and highlights that the two of the most informative measures (the credit-to-GDP gap4 and the overall debt service ratio) are flashing red for Hong Kong. In fact, Table 1 served as the basis for the BIS' warning in their most recent Quarterly Review that we noted above. The BIS' EWI research has focused on identifying thresholds for these measures that can predict a banking crisis within a three-year window based on the historical record. But in the case of Hong Kong, it is not clear that these thresholds apply. Chart 6 shows the credit-to-GDP gap and overall private sector DSR along with the more stringent BIS threshold noted in Table 1, and highlights that these measures have been flashing red for 4-8 years. Based on this approach, Hong Kong should have experienced a banking crisis long ago. Table 1BIS Early Warning Indicators For Stress In Domestic Banking Systems Rather than relying on the BIS' framework, we have instead constructed our own private-sector debt risk monitor for Hong Kong. In contrast to the BIS' measures, which have been specifically constructed to predict a banking crisis, the goal of our indicator is to help predict a serious credit-driven downturn regardless of its character (i.e. we abstract from whether the result of the downturn is a full-blown financial crisis or simply a prolonged period of economic stagnation). Chart 7Low Risk Of A Serious Credit-Driven ##br##Downturn, For Now Chart 7 presents our BCA Hong Kong Debt Risk Monitor (DRM) and its five equally-weighted components, a summary of which is provided below. All series have been scaled such that an increase in the DRM represents higher risk. Alpha: We have highlighted the importance of examining the alpha as well as the beta of regional equity returns in a previous report,5 and we include a composite indicator of Hong Kong's rolling alpha versus the global benchmark as a measure of Hong Kong-specific stock performance that adjusts for Hong Kong's riskiness. While this component of our DRM was quite elevated in early-2016 (signaling weak Hong Kong stock performance), it is presently in line with its historical average, and thus is not flashing a warning sign. Property Prices: Given the high concentration of Hong Kong's corporate sector debt in the real estate sector, our DRM includes the deviation of office & retail property prices from their 9-month moving average. Similar to the first component of our indicator, Hong Kong property prices are roughly in line with their trend and are not signaling serious economic weakness. Credit Impulse: The third component of our DRM is a simple bank credit impulse, calculated as the flow of credit over the past year as a percent of GDP. While this component has fallen well into "low risk" territory, over the past year, there are some tentative signs of a reversal that investors should monitor. Monetary Policy Stance: The fourth component of our DRM is a structural variable that attempts to measure whether U.S. (and thus Hong Kong) interest rates are either consistent or out of alignment with economic conditions in Hong Kong. This component is an average of two measures of the stance of monetary policy: 1) the difference between U.S. 10-year government bond yields and Hong Kong nominal GDP growth, and 2) the difference between the base rate and a Taylor Rule estimate for the region (with the latter acting purely as an estimate of the cyclical equilibrium interest rate).6 The chart shows that despite the onset of tighter monetary policy in the U.S. over the past few years, our gauge of Hong Kong's policy stance suggests that conditions are still easy, and that material further increases would likely be required in order to see this component rise to +1 sigma territory. Debt Service Ratio: The final component of our DRM is the BIS' total private sector DSR shown in Chart 6, acting as a second structural variable that captures the underlying debt servicing risk that the BIS has warned about. We extent the BIS' series back to the early-1990s on a best efforts basis, by adjusting the product of Hong Kong's prime rate and the total private sector debt-to-GDP ratio to best align with the official DSR series over the course of its history. Our extended series suggests that Hong Kong's debt servicing burden is indeed the highest that it has been over the past three decades, underscoring that our DRM is likely to rise materially if the cyclical factors included in the indicator deteriorate. The overall message of our DRM is that a threat to Hong Kong's economy from excessive debt does not appear to be imminent, despite the underlying risks highlighted by the BIS. While the risk from excessive leverage is real and is very likely to eventually cause a serious credit-driven downturn, the odds of this occurring over the coming 6-12 months appear to be low. Bottom Line: Our BCA Hong Kong Debt Risk Monitor serves as an important tool to help investors gauge the risk of a serious credit-driven downturn in the region. While the risk from excessive leverage is real, the message from our DRM is that the odds of a deleveraging event over the coming year are low. The Spooky Implications Of The Natural Interest Rate Gap Interestingly, at least part of the benign reading of our DRM is due to the fourth component of the indicator, our gauge of Hong Kong's monetary policy stance, which suggests that there is ample room for further rate increases. In fact, in our view this observation carries much deeper significance than many may initially perceive, as it may explain why the BIS' early warning indicator thresholds have not worked in the case of Hong Kong, and why the region may avoid a debt crisis for a further significant period (but ultimately experience a much more painful collapse when it finally arrives). At root, the reason that U.S. 10-year Treasury yields remain exceedingly low relative to U.S. nominal GDP growth is because investors believe that real U.S. policy rates are likely to be much lower on average over the next 10-years than they have been historically (Chart 8). Abstracting from calendar-based cyclical considerations (such at the timing of the next U.S. recession), this fundamentally reflects the prevalent view among fixed-income investors that the U.S. natural rate of interest (or "r-star") has likely permanently declined. If true, this is of enormous importance for Hong Kong, as it suggests that the region will permanently "enjoy" easy monetary policy. This is because the substantial leveraging that has occurred in Hong Kong in response to low interest rates implies that there has been no impairment (yet) to Hong Kong's natural rate of interest (Chart 9). Chart 8A Low Estimate Of R-Star Has Depressed##br## U.S. Bond Yields Chart 9No Evidence Of A Low R-Star##br## In Hong Kong In some ways the dynamic we are describing is not new: the importation of easy monetary policy from the U.S. via competitive currency devaluation over the past decade has been a well-known phenomenon that was quite prominent during the early phase of the global economic recovery. But the fixed exchange rate regime in Hong Kong means that this process cannot be avoided without abandoning the peg, an event that itself could trigger a deleveraging event via a sharp decline in asset prices. The key point for investors is that if the U.S. natural rate of interest has indeed fallen materially and permanently below potential GDP growth, then Hong Kong will not experience tight monetary conditions even once the Fed has normalized short-term interest rates, unless it raises them well above equilibrium levels. This suggests that Hong Kong's private sector may perpetually leverage itself until debt service burdens reach some, as yet, unknown maximum level, precipitating what would likely become a cataclysmic recession. The fact that no crisis erupted in late-2015/early-2016 when the cyclical components of our DRM deteriorated significantly suggests that this level may be materially higher than is presently the case. Bottom Line: Due to the importation of U.S. monetary policy, Hong Kong may "enjoy" easy monetary policy on a permanent basis. This suggests that Hong Kong's private sector may continue to leverage itself even in the face of rising interest rates, setting up the potential for a cataclysmic future recession. Investment Implications: Stay Neutral, For Now Chart 10Room For A Rise In Relative Earnings Momentum The picture painted by our above analysis suggests that a benign cyclical outlook for Hong Kong is arrayed against a negative (and potentially horrific) structural outlook. How should investors position towards Hong Kong equities in response? First, as noted above, our Debt Risk Monitor does not signal that there is an imminent threat facing the Hong Kong economy that would herald the potential for a major deleveraging event over the near-term. Second, while Hong Kong's earnings momentum is stretched in absolute terms, Chart 10 highlights there is room for a catchup versus global stocks, which could boost relative performance over the coming year. Third, relative valuation and technical conditions are at neutral levels (Chart 11), and thus do not provide any compelling basis to avoid Hong Kong stocks. But to us, the weight of this modestly positive assessment over the coming year is overshadowed by the structural outlook, meaning that we continue to recommend a neutral allocation towards Hong Kong stocks over the coming 6-12 months. The most investment-relevant conclusion from our analysis is that investors will one day be able to earn significant risk-adjusted returns from underweighting / shorting Hong Kong stocks once a serious credit-driven downturn begins. As an example, Chart 12 shows the impact of the Asian financial crisis on Hong Kong's relative performance, a period where our DRM rose sharply and persistently into "high risk territory". It took 12½ years for Hong Kong to rise to a new high in relative total return terms, and it has yet to do so in price terms. Chart 11Neutral Relative Valuation And ##br##Technical Conditions Chart 12One Day, Shorting Hong Kong Stocks##br## Will Be Enormously Profitable So while the economic and financial market conditions are not yet in place to act on a bearish structural view, we will be closely watching our Debt Risk Monitor over the coming months and years for signs of a significant deterioration, as it will likely provide a major opportunity for investors to earn outsized returns. Stay tuned! Bottom Line: Stay neutral Hong Kong stocks versus the global benchmark over the coming 6-12 months. While equities may rise in relative terms if earnings momentum converges with that of the global benchmark, it is not a sufficiently compelling prospect to outweigh the significant structural risk facing the region. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Stocks: Trade Frictions Make For A Tenuous Overweight", dated March 28, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Hong Kong Housing Bubble: A Replay Of 1997?", dated June 29, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 For example, please see "Evaluating early warning indicators of banking crises: Satisfying policy requirements" by Mathias Drehmann and Mikael Juselius, BIS Working Paper No. 421, August 2013. 4 The BIS defines the credit-to-GDP gap as the difference between the credit-to-GDP ratio and its long-run trend, derived using a one-sided (i.e. backward-looking) Hodrick-Prescott (HP) filter. 5 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "China: No Longer A Low-Beta Market", dated January 11, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Our Taylor Rule estimate for Hong Kong is constructed in a fashion similar to what we showed for China in our January 18 Weekly Report, using a neutral policy rate estimate of 5%. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations