UK

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

Feature The BCA Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) - designed to assess the financial well-being of companies - is one of our most reliable indicators that is also extremely popular with our clients. That is no surprise, as the CHMs have a solid track record in signaling broad turning points in company credit quality. This makes them useful in determining asset allocation recommendations on Investment Grade (IG) and High-Yield (HY) corporate bonds. Chart 1U.S. Corporates Outperforming, ##br##Despite Worsening Credit Quality In this Weekly Report, we present the "top-down" CHMs based on corporate data from national income (i.e. "GDP") accounts for the U.S., Euro Area and the U.K. We also show the "bottom-up" CHMs constructed using the actual reported financial data of individual companies in the U.S., Euro Area and Emerging Markets (EM). The CHMs are shown in a chartbook format that allows for quick visual analysis and comparisons. Going forward, we will publish this CHM Chartbook on a quarterly basis as a regular part of Global Fixed Income Strategy. The broad conclusion from looking at the CHMs is that corporate credit quality has been steadily improving in Europe, the U.K. and in the EM universe over the past couple of years, in sharp contrast to the worsening financial health of highly-levered U.S. companies. Bond investors seem to be ignoring the relative message sent by our CHMs, however, as U.S. corporate debt has outperformed other developed credit markets since the beginning of 2016 (Chart 1). An Overview Of The BCA Corporate Health Monitors The BCA Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is an indicator designed to assess the underlying financial strength of the corporate sector for a country. The Monitor is an average of six financial ratios similar to those used by credit rating agencies to evaluate individual companies. However, we calculate our ratios using top-down (national accounts) data for profits, interest expense, debt levels, etc. The idea is to treat the entire corporate sector as if it were one big company, and then look at the credit metrics that would be used to assign a credit rating to it. Importantly, only data for the non-financial corporate sector is used in the CHM, as the metrics used to measure the underlying health of banks and other financial firms are different than those for the typical company. The six ratios used in the CHM are shown in Table 1 below. To construct the CHM, the individual ratios are standardized, added together, and then shown as a deviation from the medium-term trend. That last part is important, as it introduces more cyclicality into the CHM and allows it to better capture major turning points in corporate well-being. Largely because of this construction, the CHM has a very good track record at heralding trend changes in corporate credit spreads (both for Investment Grade and High-Yield) over many cycles. Top-down CHMs are now available for the U.S., Euro Area and U.K. The CHM methodology was extended in 2016 to look at corporate health by industry and by credit quality.1 The financial data of a broad set of individual U.S. and Euro Area companies was used to construct individual "bottom-up" CHMs using the same procedure as the more familiar top-down CHM. Some of the ratios differ from those used in the top-down CHM (see Table 1), largely due to definitional differences in data presented in national income accounts versus those from actual individual company financial statements. The bottom-up CHMs analyze the health of individual sectors, and can be aggregated up into broad CHMs for Investment Grade and High-Yield groupings to compare with credit spreads. An EM version of the bottom-up CHM was introduced by the BCA Emerging Markets Strategy team last September, which extends the CHM analysis to EM hard-currency corporate debt.2 Table 1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs U.S. Corporate Health Monitors: Still Deteriorating Chart 2Top-Down U.S. CHM: Still Deteriorating Our top-down CHM for the U.S. has been flashing a deteriorating state of corporate health since mid-2014 (Chart 2). That trend had been showing signs of stabilization last year, but the Q1/2017 data worsened on the back of lower profit margins and returns on capital. The latter now sits just above 5% - a level last seen during the 2009 recession. Corporate leverage, as measured in our top-down CHM using the value of debt versus equity, does not look to be a problem. The story is quite different when using alternative measures like net debt/EBITDA, however, with U.S. leverage exceeding the highs from the Telecom bubble of the early 2000s. While booming equity values certainly flatter the leverage ratio in our top-down CHM, a strong stock market should, to some degree, reflect a better backdrop for growth in corporate profits and creditworthiness. Even against this positive backdrop, however, other credit indicators are flashing some warning signs that leave our top-down CHM in the "deteriorating health" zone. Interest coverage and debt coverage ratios, while still above the lows seen during past recessions, are steadily falling. This does raise concerns for U.S. corporate health if U.S. bond yields begin to climb again, as we expect. However, given the historically low interest rate backdrop for corporate debt, a bigger threat to interest coverage ratios and overall credit quality would come from an economic slump that damages company profits. That is not going to be a problem for the rest of this year, but weaker growth is a more likely outcome in 2018 as the Fed continues its monetary tightening cycle. Our bottom-up CHMs for U.S. IG (Chart 3) and U.S. HY (Chart 4) have shown a bit of improvement in recent quarters relative to the signal from our top-down CHM. This is likely related to the growing gap between corporate profits as reported in the U.S. national accounts data, which are slowing, compared to the reported earnings of publicly traded companies, which are accelerating. Also, leverage in the bottom-up CHMs uses the book value of equity, which is more readily reported by individual companies, and is thus much higher than the measure used in our top-down CHM. Return on capital is at multi-decade lows for both IG and HY corporates, although profit margins look to be in much better shape for IG names relative to HY issuers. HY margins have enjoyed a cyclical improvement, however, largely due to better earnings from HY energy companies (Chart 4, panel 4). Interest coverage and debt coverage are depressed, with HY issuers in much worse shape than IG. Chart 3Bottom-Up U.S. Investment Grade CHM: ##br##Deteriorating Chart 4Bottom-Up U.S. High-Yield CHM: ##br##Some Cyclical Improvement The cumulative message from our top-down and bottom-up U.S. CHMs is that U.S. corporate health has enjoyed some cyclical improvement over the past few quarters, but the state of balance sheets is slowly-but-steadily worsening. High corporate leverage will become a major problem during the next U.S. recession, but is not a major factor weighing on credit spreads at the moment (Chart 5). We are maintaining our overweight stance on U.S. IG and higher-rated U.S. HY, both of which should continue to outperform Treasuries over the next few months, but a repeat performance is far less likely next year. Chart 5No Signs Of Concern##br## In U.S. Corporate Credit Spreads Chart 6Top-Down Euro Area CHM:##br## Improving Euro Area Corporate Health Monitors: Solid Improvement Our top-down Euro Area CHM has been showing steady improvement since 2013, driven by strong profit margins and rising interest and debt coverage ratios (Chart 6). The ultra-stimulative monetary policies of the European Central Bank (ECB) have likely played a large role in helping lower corporate borrowing costs and boosting the interest coverage ratio. The average coupon on bonds in the Bloomberg Barclays Euro-Aggregate Investment Grade corporate index is now down to a mere 2.3% - a far cry from the 5% level that prevailed during the peak of the 2011 Euro Debt crisis or the 3.5% level just before the ECB began its asset purchase program in 2015. Return on capital has fallen over the past decade and now sits at 8%, although profit margins remain quite strong on our top-down CHM measure. Short-term liquidity is at a record high, suggesting no imminent problems for European corporate borrowers. Our bottom-up CHMs for Euro Area IG (Chart 7) and HY (Chart 8) are telling a broadly similar story to the top-down CHM. The bottom-up CHMs have steadily improved in the past couple of years, most notably for domestic issuers of Euro-denominated debt.3 Some improvement in the bottom-up aggregates for operating margins and interest coverage ratios is providing a boost to European credit quality. Chart 7Bottom-Up Euro Area Investment Grade CHMs Chart 8Bottom-Up Euro Area High-Yield CHMs The bottom-up measure of leverage for domestic IG issuers has been steadily declining since the 2009 recession, a sign that European companies have been much more cautious in managing their balance sheet risk than their U.S. counterparts. The same cannot be said for Euro Area domestic HY issuers, where all the individual ratios are at weak absolute levels. When splitting our bottom-up Euro Area IG company list into issuers from core Europe versus countries on the Periphery (Chart 9), the "regional" European CHMs tell broadly similar stories of improving credit quality. The fact that even Peripheral issuers are seeing rising interest coverage and liquidity ratios, despite much higher levels of leverage than in the core, is an indication of how the ECB's low interest rate policies and asset purchase programs (which include buying corporate debt) have helped support the European corporate sector. Net-net, our Euro Area CHMs are sending a signal that there are no immediate stresses on corporate balance sheets or profitability. This is already reflected in the current low level of corporate bond yields and spreads, though (Chart 10). A bigger threat to Euro Area corporates comes from monetary policy. The ECB is under increasing pressure to consider announcing a tapering of its asset purchases - likely to include slower buying of corporates - starting in 2018. There is a risk of a negative market reaction that could undermine future Euro Area corporate bond performance. Because of this, we continue to prefer U.S. corporate debt over Euro Area equivalents, despite the large gap between the U.S. and European top-down CHMs (Chart 11). Chart 9Bottom-Up Euro Area IG CHMs: ##br##Core Vs. Periphery Chart 10Euro Area Corporate Bonds ##br## Have Had A Great Run Chart 11Relative CHMs Starting ##br##To Turn Less Favorable For U.S. Credit U.K. Corporate Health Monitor: Solid Balance Sheet Fundamentals The top-down U.K. CHM has steadily improved over the past couple of years, led by rising profit margins, higher interest coverage and very robust liquidity (Chart 12). Return on capital is low relative to its history, which is consistent with the trends seen in the U.S. and Euro Area and likely reflects the global low productivity backdrop. Fundamental analysis of U.K. corporates may not be of much use at the moment given the extremely accommodative monetary policy environment provided by the Bank of England (BoE). Low interest rates, combined with BoE asset purchases (which include a small amount of corporate debt) and a steep fall in the Pound in the aftermath of the Brexit-driven political uncertainty, are all helping keep the U.K. economy afloat. The BoE is now having to deal with a currency-driven climb in U.K. inflation, with three members of the BoE policy committee even calling for a rate hike at the latest policy meeting. The political backdrop after last year's Brexit vote and this month's closer-than-expected U.K. election result remains too volatile for the BoE to seriously consider any imminent tightening of monetary policy. While it can be debated how much the Brexit uncertainty is truly weighing on the U.K. economy, the BoE is unlikely to take any risks on triggering a growth slowdown by becoming too hawkish, too soon - even with the relatively high level of currency-driven inflation. A combination of a strong CHM and a dovish BoE will allow U.K. corporate debt, both IG and HY, to continue to outperform Gilts. We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to U.K. corporates even though, as in the other countries shown in this report, valuations are not cheap (Chart 13). We have not yet constructed bottom-up versions of the CHM for U.K. corporates to allow us to make any additional comments on the relative merits of U.K. IG and HY debt. This is something we intend to look into for future reports. Chart 12U.K. Corporate Balance Sheets ##br##Are In Good Shape... Chart 13...Which Is Already Reflected In ##br##Tight Credit Spreads Emerging Market Corporate Health Monitor: Cyclically Strong, Structurally Weak The CHM for EM corporates built by our Emerging Markets Strategy team is purely a bottom-up measure. The financial data from 220 EM companies in over 30 countries is used to construct the EM CHM. Only firms that issue U.S. dollar-denominated bonds are included, with banks and other financials also omitted in a similar fashion to the CHMs for the developed economies. A shorter list of financial ratios is used in the EM CHM than the developed CHMs, including: Profit margins Free cash flow to total debt: Liquidity Leverage Unlike the developed CHMs, the ratios are not equally weighted in the construction of the EM CHM. Profit margins and cash flow/debt combined represent 75% of the EM CHM. The weightings are designed to optimize the performance of the EM CHM versus the actual spread movements in the J.P. Morgan CEMBI benchmark index for EM corporate debt. Chart 14EM Corporate Health: Cyclically Solid... The EM CHM is currently pointing to very strong fundamental underpinnings for EM corporates with the indicator at the most credit-positive level in a decade (Chart 14). That recent strength is a modest cyclical improvement after a multi-year deterioration in all the individual EM CHM components (Chart 15). The uptick in global commodity prices in 2016 played a major role in the improvement in the growth-sensitive components (top two panels). However, the biggest structural headwind for EM corporates is the unrelenting rise in balance sheet leverage (bottom panel) - a problem that could come to the forefront if the recent slump in commodity prices persists or developed market interest rates begin to rise more sharply as central banks become marginally less accommodative. For now, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to EM hard currency debt, as the positive message sent by the EM CHM appears fully priced into the current low level of EM yields and spreads (Chart 16). Chart 15...But Structurally More Challenged Chart 16EM Corporate Debt Is Not Cheap Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Section II of The Bank Credit Analyst, "U.S. Corporate Health Gets A Failing Grade", dated February 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "EM Corporate Health Is Flashing Red" dated September 14 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Given the large share of non-European issuers in the Euro-denominated corporate debt market, we have split our sample set of companies in our bottom-up Euro Area CHMs into "domestic" and "foreign" issuer groups. This allows a more precise analysis of the corporate health of European-domiciled companies. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights The divergence between global bond yields and equity prices is not as puzzling as it may first appear. Thus far, lower inflation has dampened the need for central banks to tighten monetary policy. This has caused bond yields to fall, lifting stocks in the process. Looking out, the combination of faster growth and dwindling spare capacity will cause inflation to rise. This is particularly the case for the U.S., where the economy has already reached full employment. The "blow-off" phase for the U.S. economy is likely to last until mid-2018. The dollar and Treasury yields will move higher over this period. The euro and the yen will suffer the most against a resurgent greenback, the pound less so. China's economy will remain resilient, helping to boost commodity prices. This will support the Canadian and Aussie dollars. Stronger global growth will provide a tailwind to emerging markets. However, at this point, most of the good news is already reflected in EM asset valuations. Feature Stocks And Bonds: A Curious Divergence Chart 1Global Growth: Increasing Optimism One could be forgiven for thinking that equity and bond investors are living on different planets. Global bond yields have been trending lower thus far this year, while stocks have been setting new highs. Are bonds signaling an imminent slowdown which equity investors are willfully ignoring? Not necessarily. Almost all of the decline in bond yields has been due to falling inflation expectations. Real yields have remained reasonably steady, suggesting that growth worries are not foremost on investors' minds. The fact that consensus global growth estimates for 2017 and 2018 have continued to grind higher is consistent with this observation (Chart 1). A quiescent inflation picture has given investors more confidence that the Fed will not need to raise rates aggressively. This has pushed down bond yields, weakened the dollar, and fueled the rally in stock prices. The decline in headline inflation, in turn, has been largely driven by lower commodity prices. In the U.S., several one-off factors - including Verizon's decision to move to unlimited data plans, a temporary lull in health care inflation, and a drop in airline fares - have helped keep core inflation in check. The U.S. Economy: It Gets Better Before It Gets Worse Looking out, global growth is likely to remain firm. This should ultimately translate into higher inflation, particularly in the U.S., where the economy has already achieved full employment. Granted, as we discussed last week,1 the U.S. business cycle expansion is getting long in the tooth. However, history suggests that the transition between boom and bust is often accompanied by a revelry of sorts where things get better before they get worse. Call it a "blow-off" phase for the business cycle. The example of the late 1990s - the last time the U.S. unemployment rate fell below NAIRU for an extended period of time - comes to mind. Chart 2 shows that final domestic demand accelerated to 8.3% in nominal terms in Q1 of 2000. Personal consumption growth surged, reaching 8.4% in nominal terms and 5.7% in real terms. Obviously, there are many differences between now and then. However, there is at least one critical similarity: The unemployment rate stood at 4.3% in January 1999. This is exactly where it stands today. And if it keeps falling at its current pace, the unemployment rate will dip below its 2000 low of 3.8% by next summer. As was the case in the past, an overheated labor market will lead to faster wage growth. In the U.S., underlying wage growth has accelerated from 1.2% in 2010 to 2.4% at present (Chart 3). Chart 2The Late 1990s: An End-Of-Cycle Blow-Off Chart 3Stronger Labor Market Is Leading To Faster Wage Growth Granted, this is still well below the levels seen in 2000 and 2007. However, productivity growth has crumbled over the past decade while long-term inflation expectations have dipped. Real unit labor costs - a measure of compensation which adjusts for shifts in productivity growth and inflation - are rising at a faster rate than in 2007 and close to the pace recorded in 2000 (Chart 4). In fact, real wage growth in the U.S. has eclipsed business productivity growth for three straight years (Chart 5). As a result, labor's share of national income is now increasing. Chart 4Real Unit Labor Cost Growth: Back To Its 2000 Peak Chart 5Real Wages Now Increasing Faster Than Productivity What happens to aggregate demand when the share of income going to workers rises? The answer is that at least initially, demand goes up. Companies typically spend less of every marginal dollar of income than workers. This is especially the case in today's environment where the distribution of corporate profits has become increasingly tilted towards a few winner-take-all firms which, for the most part, are already flush with cash (Chart 6). Thus, a shift of income towards workers tends to boost overall spending. In addition, an overheated labor market typically generates the biggest gains for workers at the bottom of the income distribution. Wages for U.S. workers without a college degree have been rising more quickly than those with a university education for the past few years (Chart 7). Such workers often live paycheck-to-paycheck and, hence, have a high marginal propensity to consume. Chart 6A Winner-Take-All Economy Chart 7Tighter Labor Market Boosting Wages Of Less Educated Workers Let's Get This Party Started The discussion above suggests that U.S. aggregate demand could accelerate over the next few quarters. There is some evidence that this is already happening (Chart 8). Despite a moderation in auto purchases, real PCE growth is still tracking at 3.2% in the second quarter according to the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model. And with the personal saving rate still stuck at an elevated 5.3%, there is scope for consumer spending to grow at a faster rate than disposable income. Chart 9 shows that the current saving rate is well above the level one would expect based on the ratio of household net worth-to-disposable income. Chart 8Solid Near-Term Outlook For U.S. Consumers Financial conditions have eased over the past six months thanks to lower Treasury yields, narrower credit spreads, a weaker dollar, and higher equity prices (Chart 10). Historically, an easing in financial conditions has foreshadowed faster growth (Chart 11). This could make the coming blow-off phase even more explosive than in past business cycles. Some commentators have noted that while financial conditions have eased, bank lending has slowed significantly. If true, this would imply that easier financial conditions are not boosting credit growth in the way one might expect. The problem with this argument is that it takes a far too limited view of the U.S. financial system. Although bank lending to companies has indeed slowed, bond issuance has soared. In fact, total nonfinancial corporate debt rose by $212 billion in the first quarter according to the Fed's Financial Accounts database, the largest increase in history (Chart 12). Chart 10Financial Conditions Have Been Easing... Chart 11...Which Will Support Growth Chart 12Nonfinancial Corporate Debt Surged In Q1 All Good Things Must Come To An End Unfortunately, the burst of demand that often occurs in the late stages of business cycle expansions contains the seeds of its own demise. Initially, when consumer spending accelerates, firms tend to react by expanding capacity. This translates into higher investment spending. However, as labor's share of income keeps rising, an increasing number of firms start incurring outright losses. This causes them to dismiss workers and cut back on investment spending. Such a souring in corporate animal spirits is not an immediate risk for the U.S. economy. Hiring intentions remain solid and businesses are still signaling that they expect to increase capital spending over the coming months (Chart 13). Profit margins are also quite high by historic standards, which gives firms greater room for maneuver. This will change over time, however. Margins are already falling in the national accounts data (Chart 14). History suggests that S&P 500 margins will follow suit. This raises the risk that capex and hiring will start to slow late next year, potentially sowing the seeds for a recession in 2019. We remain overweight global equities on a cyclical 12-month horizon, but will be looking to significantly pare back exposure next summer. Chart 13Corporate America Feeling Great Again Chart 14Economy-Wide Margins Have Slipped The Dollar Bull Market Is Not Over Yet Chart 15Historically, A Rising Labor Share Has Pushed Up The Dollar Until U.S. growth does decelerate, the path of least resistance for bond yields and the dollar will be to the upside. Chart 15 shows the strikingly close correlation between labor's share of income and the value of the trade-weighted dollar. As noted above, the initial effect of accelerating wage growth is to put more money into workers' pockets. This results in higher aggregate demand and, against a backdrop of low spare capacity, rising inflation. Historically, such an outcome has prompted the Fed to expedite the pace of rate hikes, leading to a stronger dollar. This time is unlikely to be any different. The market is currently pricing in only 21 basis points in Fed rate hikes over the next 12 months. This seems far too low to us. Other things equal, a stronger dollar implies a weaker euro and yen. Improved export competitiveness will lead to better growth prospects and higher inflation expectations in the euro area and Japan. Unless the ECB and the BoJ respond by tightening monetary policy, short-term real rates will fall. This, in turn, could put further downward pressure on the euro and the yen. The ECB And The BoJ Will Not Follow The Fed's Lead Many commentators have argued that better growth prospects will cause the ECB and the BoJ to follow in the Fed's footsteps and take away the punch bowl. We doubt it. Labor market slack is still considerably higher in the euro area than was the case in 2008. Outside of Germany, the level of unemployment and underemployment in the euro area is about seven points higher than it was before the Great Recession (Chart 16). If anything, the market has priced in too much tightening from the ECB. Our months-to-hike measure has plummeted from a high of 65 months in July 2016 to 28 months at present (Chart 17). Investors now expect real rates in the U.S. to be only 23 basis points higher than in the euro area in five years' time. This is well below the 76 basis-point gap in the equilibrium rate between the two regions that Holston, Laubach, and Williams estimate (Chart 18). Chart 16Euro Area: Labor Market Slack Is Still High Outside Of Germany Chart 17ECB: Markets Are Pricing In Too Much Tightening Chart 18The Neutral Rate Is Lowest In The Euro Area As for Japan, while it is true that the unemployment rate has fallen to 2.8% - a 22-year low - this understates the true amount of slack in the economy. Output-per-hour in Japan remains 35% below U.S. levels. A key reason for this is that many Japanese companies continue to pad their payrolls with excess labor. This is particularly true in the service sector, which remains largely insulated from foreign competition. In any case, with both actual inflation and inflation expectations in Japan nowhere close to the BoJ's target, this is hardly the time to be worried about an overheated economy. And even if the Japanese authorities were inclined to slow growth, it would be fiscal policy rather than monetary policy that they would tighten first. After all, they have been keen to raise the sales tax for several years now. The Pound Will Rebound Against The Euro, But Weaken Further Against The Dollar Chart 19Pound: Unloved And Underappreciated While we continue to maintain a strong conviction view that the euro and yen will weaken against the dollar, we are more circumspect about other currencies. Bank of England Governor Mark Carney played down speculation this week that the BoE would raise rates later this year, noting in his annual speech at London's Mansion House that "now is not yet the time to begin that adjustment." U.K. growth has been the weakest in the G7 so far in 2017, partly because of growing angst over the forthcoming Brexit negotiations. Nevertheless, U.K. inflation remains elevated and fiscal policy is likely to be eased in the November budget, as Chancellor Hammond confirmed in a BBC interview on Sunday. Sterling is already quite cheap based on our metrics (Chart 19). Our best bet is that the pound will weaken against the dollar over the next 12 months but strengthen against the euro and the yen. We are currently long GBP/JPY. The trade has gained 7.2% since we initiated it in August 2016. CAD Has Upside We went long CAD/EUR in May. Despite the downdraft in oil prices, the trade has managed to gain 2.6% thus far. We are optimistic on the Canadian dollar over the coming months. Our energy strategists remain convinced that crude prices are heading higher. They expect global production to increase by only 0.7 MMB/d in 2017, compared to 1.5 MMB/d growth in consumption. Consequently, oil inventories should fall over the remainder of this year. If history is any guide, this will lead to a rebound in oil prices (Chart 20). The Bank of Canada has also turned more hawkish. Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Wilkins suggested last week that interest rates are likely to rise later this year. The market is now pricing in a 84% chance of a rate hike in 2017, up from only 18% earlier this month. The Canadian economy continues to perform well (Chart 21). Retail sales are growing briskly, the unemployment rate is close to its lowest level in 40 years, and goods exports are recovering thanks to a weak loonie and stronger growth south of the border. While the bubbly housing market remains a source of concern, this is as much a reason to raise interest rates - to prevent further overheating - as to cut them. Chart 20Falling Oil Inventories Should Lead To Higher Crude Prices Chart 21Canadian Economy: Chugging Along China Will Drive The Aussie Dollar And EM Assets After a very strong start to the year, Chinese growth has slipped a notch. Housing starts slowed in May, as did gains in property prices. M2 growth decelerated to 9.6% from a year earlier, the first time broad money growth has fallen into the single-digit range since the government began publishing such statistics in 1986. Still, the economy is far from falling off a cliff, as evidenced by the fact that the IMF upgraded its full-year 2017 GDP growth forecast from 6.6% to 6.7% last week. Real-time measures of industrial activity such as railway freight traffic, excavator sales, and electricity production remain upbeat. Export growth is accelerating thanks to a weaker currency and stronger global growth. The PBoC's trade-weighted RMB basket has fallen by over 8% since it was introduced in December 2015. Retail sales continue to expand at a healthy clip. The percentage of households that intend to buy a new home has also surged to record-high levels. This should limit the fallout from the government's efforts to cool the housing market. The rebound in exports and industrial output is helping to lift producer prices. Higher selling prices, in turn, are fueling a rebound in industrial company profits (Chart 22). A better profit picture should support business capital spending in the coming months. The government also remains cognizant of the risks of tightening policy too aggressively, especially with the National Party Congress slated for this autumn. The PBoC injected 250 billion yuan into the financial system last Friday. This was the single biggest one-day intervention since January, when demand for cash was running high in the lead up to the Chinese New Year celebrations. Fiscal policy has also been eased (Chart 23). So far, the "regulatory windstorm" of measures designed to clamp down on financial speculation has largely bypassed the real economy. Medium and long-term lending to nonfinancial corporations - a key driver of private-sector capital spending - has actually accelerated over the past eight months (Chart 24). Chart 22China: Higher Selling Prices Fuelling A Rebound In Profits Chart 23Fiscal Spending Is On The Mend Chart 24China: Credit To The Real Economy Is Accelerating The key takeaway for investors is that Chinese growth is likely to slow over the next few quarters, but not by much. Considering that fund managers surveyed by BofA Merrill Lynch in June cited fears of a hard landing in China as the biggest tail risk facing financial markets for the second month in a row, the bar for positive surprises out of China is comfortably low. If China can clear this bar, as we expect it will, it will be good news for the Aussie dollar and other commodity plays. Strong Chinese growth should provide a tailwind for EM assets. However, EM stocks and currencies have already had a major run, which limits further upside. The fact that serial-defaulter Argentina could issue a 100-year bond this week in an offering that was three times oversubscribed is a testament to that. The fundamental problems plaguing many emerging markets - high debt levels, poor governance, and lackluster productivity growth - remain largely unaddressed. Until they are, the long-term outlook for EM assets will continue to be challenging. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession," dated June 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights For the time being, our cyclical stance is to underweight the globally-sensitive Energy, Materials and Banks sectors versus Healthcare - in both the equity and credit asset-class. Combined with our expectation of a weakening pound/euro, this necessarily means the following European equity market allocation: Overweight: France, Ireland, U.K., Switzerland and Denmark. Neutral: Germany, Netherlands and Sweden. Underweight: Italy, Spain, and Norway. We anticipate shifting to a more cyclical sector (and country) allocation by the late summer, especially on dips. Feature It is worth reminding readers that picking mainstream equity markets1 is overwhelmingly about the industry sectors and dominant stocks that you are buying, wittingly or unwittingly. Picking equity markets is seldom about the prospects of the underlying domestic economies or head-to-head valuations.2 Chart of the WeekGlobal Energy Has Just Tracked The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse (Down) The usual top-down approach to picking stock markets ignores two dominant features of these markets. First, they have huge variations in their sector exposures. Second, large industry sector groups like Energy, Banks, Healthcare and Technology tend to move en masse under the influence of global or regional rather than domestic drivers. The combination of these two features means that for most stock markets, the sector (and dominant company) impact swamps the effect that comes from the domestic economy. Right now, by far the most important consideration for country pickers is the relative outlook for the globally-sensitive Energy and Banks sectors versus the more defensive Healthcare. As an example, consider the choice between Spain and Switzerland. Spain's IBEX is at the mercy of its huge weighting to Banks, dominated by Santander and BBVA; while Switzerland's SMI is at the mercy of its similarly dominant weighting in the Healthcare sector, via Novartis and Roche. Box I-1 - Sector Skews That Drive Country Relative Performance For major equity indexes in the euro area, the dominant sector skews that drive relative performance are as follows: Germany (DAX) is overweight Chemicals, underweight Banks (Chart 2). France (CAC) is underweight Banks and Basic Materials (Chart 3). Italy (MIB) is overweight Banks (Chart 4). Spain (IBEX) is overweight Banks (Chart 5). Netherlands (AEX) is overweight Technology, underweight Banks (Chart 6). Ireland (ISEQ) is overweight Airlines (Ryanair) which is, in effect, underweight Energy (Chart 7). And for major equity indexes outside the euro area: The U.K. (FTSE100) is effectively underweight the pound (Chart 8). Switzerland (SMI) is overweight Healthcare, underweight Energy (Chart 9). Sweden (OMX) is overweight Industrials (Chart 10). Denmark (OMX20) is overweight Healthcare and Industrials (Chart 11). Norway (OBX) is overweight Energy (Chart 12). The U.S. (S&P500) is overweight Technology, underweight Banks (Chart 13). It follows that if Banks underperform Healthcare, it is highly likely that Spain's IBEX will underperform Switzerland's SMI, irrespective of the performances of the Spanish and Swiss domestic economies. For long-term investors, the large skews in sector exposure also mean that a head-to-head comparison of country valuations can be very misleading. At first glance, Spain, trading on a forward price to earnings (PE) multiple of 15.5, appears 15% cheaper than Switzerland, trading on a multiple of over 18. But this head-to-head difference just reflects the impact of forward PEs of Banks at 11 and Healthcare at 18. The Bank sector's lower multiple does not necessarily make it better value than Healthcare. Unlike two developed economies - whose long-term growth prospects tend to be broadly similar - two industry sectors could end up experiencing very different structural growth outcomes. Which would justify very different multiples. Despite its low multiple, a structural underweight to Banks might nonetheless be a good strategy if the sector's structural growth outlook is poor. In such a case, the low multiple is potentially a value trap. Picking Stock Markets The Right Way To reiterate, the decision to overweight or underweight a mainstream equity index should not be based on your view of the country's underlying economy - unless, of course, the country is the potential source of a major tail-risk event. Instead, the decision should be based on your over-arching sector view, combined with the country's skews to specific dominant stocks and sectors (Box I-1). Chart I-2, Chart I-3, Chart I-4, Chart I-5, Chart I-6, Chart I-7, Chart I-8, Chart I-9, Chart I-10, Chart I-11, Chart I-12 and Chart I-13 should leave readers in absolutely no doubt. A market's dominant sector skew is by far the most important determinant of its relative performance. Chart I-2Germany (DAX) Is Overweight Chemicals,##br## Underweight Banks Chart I-3France (CAC) Is Underweight Banks##br## And Basic Materials Chart I-4Italy (MIB) Is Overweight Banks Chart I-5Spain (IBEX) Is Overweight Banks Chart I-6Netherlands (AEX) Is Overweight Technology,##br## Underweight Banks Chart I-7Ireland (ISEQ) Is Overweight Airlines (Ryanair) ##br##Which Is, In Effect, Underweight Energy Chart I-8The U.K. (FTSE100) Is Effectively ##br##Underweight The Pound Chart I-9Switzerland (SMI) Is Overweight Healthcare, ##br##Underweight Energy Chart I-10Sweden (OMX) Is ##br##Overweight Industrials Chart I-11Denmark (OMX20) Is Overweight ##br##Healthcare And Industrials Chart I-12Norway (OBX) Is ##br##Overweight Energy Chart I-13The U.S. (S&P500) Is Overweight Technology, ##br##Underweight Banks Which brings us to the key consideration for country allocation right now: how to allocate to the sectors that feature most often in the skews: Energy and Banks versus Healthcare. For Energy relative performance, note the very strong recent connection with the global 6-month credit impulse. The downswing in the impulse - heralding a very clear growth pause - lines up with the setback in energy and resource prices and the underperformance of these globally-sensitive equity sectors (Chart of the Week and Chart I-14). Meanwhile, in the most recent mini-cycle, Banks' relative performance is tracking the bond yield almost tick for tick (Chart I-15). There are two reasons. For banks, lower bond yields presage both slimmer net interest margins and weaker economic growth. Chart I-14Commodity Price Inflation Is Just Tracking ##br##The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Chart I-15Financials Are Just Tracking ##br##The Bond Yield So for both Energy and Banks relative performance the overriding question is: when will this mini-downswing end? To answer this question, we note that we are 4-5 months into the global mini-downswing, whose average duration tends to be around 8-9 months. On this basis, now is a little too early to switch to an aggressively pro-cyclical sector allocation. But we would look for potential opportunities by the late summer, especially on sharp dips. Hence, for the time being our cyclical stance is to underweight the globally-sensitive Energy (and Materials) and Banks versus Healthcare. Combined with our expectation of a weakening pound/euro, this necessarily means the following European country allocation: Overweight: France,3 Ireland, U.K., Switzerland and Denmark. Neutral: Germany, Netherlands, and Sweden. Underweight: Italy, Spain, Netherlands and Norway. Clearly, if you have a different cyclical and over-arching sector view, you will arrive at a different country allocation. That's fine. The important point is that the stock and sector skew approach is the right way to pick between mainstream equity indexes. Financials Drive The European Credit Market Finally, an over-arching sector view is also highly relevant for the European corporate credit market. In the euro area, the credit market is heavily skewed towards bank and other financial sector bonds, which account for almost half of euro area corporate bonds by value. By comparison, the U.S. credit market is not so skewed to one dominant sector. Hence, the outlook for the European credit asset-class hinges on the prospects for one sector: Financials (Chart 16). With the European high yield credit spread already close to a 20-year low, we would again wait for a better opportunity before adding aggressively to the European credit asset-class. Chart I-16Mirror Image: European High Yield Credit Spread And Bank Equity Prices Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 In the developed world. 2 Please also see the three European Investment Strategy Special Reports 'Picking 5 European Countries The Right Way' November 13, 2014, 'Picking Countries The Right Way: Part 2' March 26, 2015 and 'Picking Countries The Right Way: Part 3' November 12, 2015. 3 But expect a small near-term countertrend underperformance in the CAC40. See page 11. Fractal Trading Model* There are no new trades this week. Last week's trade, long nickel / short palladium has made an encouraging countertrend move at the classic limit of a trend. 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-17 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights The Federal Reserve stuck to its guns, which lifted the U.S. dollar despite a disastrous CPI report. We agree with the Fed's assessment and expect U.S. inflation to pick up, clearing the way for higher interest rates and a stronger dollar. With three dissenters voting in favor of higher rates, the Bank of England meeting delivered a hawkish surprise. However, the inflation surge will continue to weigh on consumer spending, limiting the capacity of the BoE to increase rates. Stay short cable, but use any rally in EUR/GBP above 0.88 to short this cross. The Canadian economy is strong, and the CAD should perform well on its crosses. However, USD/CAD downside is limited. Go short EUR/SEK. Feature This week was replete with central bank meetings, most crucially the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, which provided much-needed color on the near-term future direction of global monetary policy. While the BoE does face a serious rise in inflation, it is still focused on the risks to U.K. growth. In contrast, the Fed mostly ignored the disastrous inflation report released the morning before its policy announcement and kept its focus on the underlying strength in the U.S. economy. We believe both institutions are pursuing the appropriate strategy for their respective economies. The Fed: Straight Ahead Fed Chair Janet Yellen and her gang increased the fed funds rate by 25 basis points to 1-1.25% and pre-announced the parameters around the reduction in the Fed's balance sheet size. On the balance sheet front, the Fed removed any doubt that it will begin reducing its asset holdings this year. Additionally, the Fed provided its new set of forecasts for growth, inflation, unemployment, and interest rates. While it increased its growth forecast for 2017 to 2.2% from 2.1%, it curtailed its core PCE deflator forecast for 2017 by 0.3 percentage points to 1.6%. However, in line with its conviction that the soft patch in inflation is temporary, it kept its 2018 and 2019 core PCE forecasts at 2%. The Fed did also acknowledge that the equilibrium unemployment rate was lower than it believed in March, decreasing its long-term estimate by 0.1% to 4.6%. However, despite recognizing that NAIRU has fallen, the Fed still thinks the labor market is tight. It proceeded to curtail its unemployment rate forecasts by 0.2% in 2017 to 4.3%, and by 0.3% in 2018 and 2019 to 4.2%. Congruent with these forecasts, the Fed did not adjust its intended path for interest rates. It still expects to hike rates once more in 2017, and three more times in both 2018 and 2019. As a result of these policy changes and the intentions associated with the new set of forecasts, the dollar recouped its CPI report-induced decline, and gold suffered. Most interestingly, the market seems to believe that the Fed is entering the realm of policy mistakes as the 2-10-year yield curve flattened considerably, and inflation expectations plunged to their lowest levels since November 4, 2016 (Chart I-1). But is the Fed really making a mistake? We do not think so. Simply put, we agree with the Fed that underlying economic momentum in the U.S. is real, and that both wage growth and inflation will turn the corner this summer. To begin with, our composite capacity utilization gauge, based on both industrial capacity and labor market utilization, is now fully into "no slack" territory. Historically, this has given the Fed the green light to increase interest rates. There is no mystery behind this relationship: when this indicator is above the zero line, inflation pressures emerge and wage growth accelerates (Chart I-2). This time is unlikely to prove different. Chart I-1A Policy ##br##Mistake? Chart I-2Conditions In Place For Higher##br## Inflation And Rates Supporting this assessment, many indicators show that the recent slowdown in wage growth will prove a temporary phenomenon. First, the spread between the Conference Board's "jobs plentiful" and "jobs hard to get" series still points to accelerating average hourly earnings (Chart I-3). Second, the labor market is likely to remain healthy. True, the fastest pace of job creation is behind us, a key symptom that labor market slack is vanishing, but some of our favorite employment indicators - such as Janet Yellen's labor market condition index and the NFIB job openings and hiring plans subcomponents - have picked up again (Chart I-4). In an environment of little slack, this might not translate into impressive nonfarm payroll numbers, but most likely faster wage growth. Chart I-3Wages Will Pick Up Chart I-4Yes, The Labor Market Is Healthy Third, capex intentions are still perky. Historically, capex intentions have tightly correlated with wages, and even the recent softness in wages was forecast by these intentions. This is simply because capex tends to require labor. When corporate investment materializes as worries about the durability of final demand hits cyclical lows, this is generally an environment that requires bidding up the price of labor - i.e. wages. This is precisely the current economic backdrop (Chart I-5). While the slowdown in bank credit to enterprises has caused many commentators to worry about the outlook for capex, we do not share these concerns. For one, although businesses may not have been tapping bank loans in Q1, they have been aggressively borrowing in the bond market (Chart I-6, top panel). Moreover, credit standards are now easing anew, and small firms are reporting little difficulty in accessing credit (Chart I-6, bottom panel). Chart I-5Good Outlook For Growth And Wages Chart I-6I Need Credit; No Problem! With respect to consumption, weren't retail sales on the soft side as well? Here again, we need to step back. Real retail sales continue to grow at a healthy 4.2% annual pace; meanwhile, the so-called control group - which affects GDP computations - was flat in May, but the April number was revised to 0.6% month-on-month, suggesting real consumption will be robust in Q2. In fact, federal income tax withholdings, a good proxy for household income growth, is also accelerating, further supporting consumption (Chart I-7). Overall, we agree with the Fed that the economy is on its way to escaping from its recent soft patch and that wage growth will accelerate. Ryan Swift, who writes our sister U.S. Bond Strategy service, has also recently argued that the U.S. Philips curve remains alive and well, and that wages and inflation will thus pick up again.1 Our own work does highlight the potential for not just wage growth but core CPI to also perk up. U.S. real business sales have been very strong of late, which historically has been a good leading indicator of core inflation (Chart I-8, top panel). Labor market dynamics tell a similar story. Our unemployment diffusion index is also a good leader of core CPI, and after a soft patch is now pointing to firming underlying inflation (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Chart I-7Real Consumption Will Trudge Along Chart I-8Inflation Soft Patch Will End Therefore, we expect the recent negative inflation surprise in the U.S. to reverse. Moreover, inflation surprises in the U.S. are also likely to beat those of the euro area. To a very large extent, Europe's positive inflation surprise, especially relative to the U.S., reflected the 2014 collapse in the euro. The recent stability in the euro since March 2015 further reinforces that the boost to European relative monetary conditions is dissipating, and that European inflation surprise will not outpace the U.S. going forward (Chart I-9). Chart I-9U.S. Inflation Surprises ##br##Will Pick Up Versus Europe's Chart I-10Diverging Policy ##br##Expectations This is very important, as these relative inflation surprise dynamics have been the key factor underpinning divergent expectations behind ECB policy and the Fed's path. While investors have increasingly brought forward the ECB's first hike, they have aggressively curtailed the number of hikes expected in the U.S. over the next two years (Chart I-10). If, as we expect, relative inflation surprises do once again move in favor of the U.S., this gap will disappear, supporting the dollar in the process. Bottom Line: The Fed is right to stay the course. The economy continues to display momentum, and the inflation soft patch should soon dissipate. Moreover, U.S. economic surprises are bottoming. As such, we expect market expectations for inflation and interest rates to move back toward the Fed's forecast, lifting the U.S. dollar in the process. BoE Dissenters Grab The Headlines, But... The poor BoE is in an infinitely more tenuous situation than the Fed. Core inflation continues to pick up, but economic uncertainty is also on the rise. This dichotomy is most pronounced when it comes to wages. At 2.6%, core inflation is now outpacing wage growth, thus real income levels are contracting (Chart I-11). This is problematic because at 65% of GDP, the U.K. is an economy fundamentally driven by consumer spending. As Chart I-12 illustrates, when inflation picks up and puts downward pressure on real wages, consumption sags. Therein lies the BoE's conundrum. Chart I-11U.K.: Inflation Everywhere, But Not In Wages Chart I-12The BOE's Dilemma Despite the three dissenters who voted in favor of a hike this week, we expect the BoE to continue to favor not lifting rates, leaving its accommodation in place.2 Household inflation expectations remain well moored, but a further relapse in growth could prompt a widening of the output gap and produce entrenched deflationary expectations down the line - something BoE Governor Mark Carney and his colleagues want to avoid at all costs. Chart I-13U.K. FDI At Risk Some investors have been wondering out loud about the likelihood of a "soft Brexit" coming back on the agenda, arguing that it would support the pound. Remaining in the common market is, after all, an unmitigated positive for the U.K. But to be part of the common market, the U.K. also has to adopt the sacrosanct freedom of movement of people. We remain unconvinced that the British will budge on this point. Brexit was first and foremost a rejection of neo-liberal ideals that have been perceived as detrimental to the British middle class. And no point has been and continues to be more contentious than immigration. With the EU absolutely unwilling to dilute freedom of movement, access to the common market for the U.K. remains a distant dream. Moreover, with the British median voter switching to the left, a topic discussed in last Friday's Geopolitical Strategy Service Special Report on the election, British politics are likely to become less business friendly.3 Compounding this issue, U.K. industrial production is flat on an annual basis, bucking the global improvement seen last year and implying that the falling pound has not boosted competitiveness in the U.K. manufacturing sector. Together these forces suggest that the recent upsurge in FDI inflows into the U.K. could reverse in coming quarters (Chart I-13), a big problem for a country with a current account deficit of more than 4% of GDP and deeply negative real rates. Ultimately, the pound is cheap, trading at a one-sigma discount to its fair value. This means the market is well aware of the negatives that are weighing on sterling. Thus, the risks to GBP are well balanced. As a result, we expect GBP/USD to finish the year toward 1.2 because of our expectation of USD strength. EUR/GBP has limited upside, and rises above 0.88 should be used to build short positions. Bottom Line: The BoE decision was in line with expectations, but the market was nonetheless surprised by the fact that three MPC members dissented and voted for a rate hike. Sure, British inflation is on the rise, but this is hurting household real incomes, and thus consumption. These dynamics limit the upside risk to policy rates. We think that GBP could weaken against the USD; we would use moves above 0.88 to short EUR/GBP. The Bank Of Canada Volte Face Despite a 5% fall in oil prices this week, the CAD has appreciated 1.2% against the USD. Behind this impressive move has been Monday's speech by Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Wilkins, in which she hinted that the Bank of Canada's next move will be a hike, coming sooner than investors have been anticipating. The BoC assessed that the negative impact of the fall in oil prices in 2014-'15 has passed, and that domestic strength in the Canadian economy has become self-sustaining. With the output gap expected to close in Q2 2018, the logical path for policy is tighter. Do the indicators warrant such a view? Yes: Canadian employment is quite strong, growing at a 1.8% annual pace. Unemployment too has fallen substantially. Capacity utilization is elevated in the manufacturing sector, thanks to a decade of low corporate investment. If our assessment of the U.S. capex cycle is correct, Canadian goods exports should pick up, adding to capacity and inflationary pressures in the country (Chart I-14). Our Canadian economic diffusion index - based on retail trade, manufacturing sales, building permits, and employment data in the 10 provinces - has sharply accelerated, pointing to a continued rise in GDP growth. Canadian LEIs and PMIs are all strong. Canadian house prices continue to forge ahead, growing at a 14% annual rate, which will additionally support Canadian consumption. This picture highlights that the BoC does have room to adjust its forward guidance, especially if the Fed stays on its desired path. Today, not only are investors the most short CAD since early 2007, but the loonie is cheap relative to real rate differentials (Chart I-15). As a result of these distortions, CAD could respond very positively to continued reaffirmation by the BoC that policy may become tighter. Chart I-14O Canada Chart I-15CAD At A Discount To Rates Practically, due to our broad bullish outlook on the USD, we find the most interesting way to play CAD strength is through its various crosses. Thus, we remain short EUR/CAD, short AUD/CAD, and long CAD/NOK. Bottom Line: The Canadian economy has escaped its funk. True, the long-term risks associated with the housing bubble will ultimately come home to roost. However, in the short term, the BoC is finding room to lift its forward guidance. As a result, CAD is likely to move higher on non-USD crosses. EUR/SEK Is A Short EUR/SEK should weaken in the coming quarters. To begin with, EUR/SEK is trading at a 7% premium against its PPP fair value. Additionally, the real trade-weighted SEK stands at a one-sigma discount to its long-term fundamental fair value, which further highlights the SEK's upside potential versus the euro, the main trading counterparty of Sweden (Chart I-16). Valuations are not enough to motivate a position. Economics need to join the ball. Today, the Swedish output gap is positive while that of Europe remains negative. Unsurprisingly, Swedish core inflation has overtaken that of the euro area (Chart I-17). Moreover, while we have argued at length why euro area core inflation is likely to disappoint going forward,4 pressure on Swedish resources is such that Swedish core inflation is likely to display additional upside (Chart I-18). Chart I-16SEK Is Cheap Chart I-17Swedish Core Inflation Is Outpacing Europe's Chart I-18Swedish Core Inflation Will Rise Further This means there will be attractive relative policy dynamics between the Riksbank and the ECB in the coming months. If the ECB has to tighten policy, the Riksbank has an even better case to be hawkish. If, however, the global economic environment prevents the ECB from tightening and forces it toward an easing bias, these global deflationary pressures should prove more muted in Sweden. Thus, we expect that Swedish policy will tighten relative to the ECB's, despite the economic and inflation environment. Chart I-19CPI Expectations Differential Will Push ##br##Policy Toward A Lower EUR/SEK Additionally, inflation expectations are pointing toward a lower EUR/SEK. The recent Swedish Prospera inflation survey showed that economic agents are expecting a pickup in inflation. As a result, market-based inflation expectations in Sweden have outperformed those in Germany, pointing to a lower EUR/SEK (Chart I-19). Essentially, this reflects potential changes in the relative direction of policy between the two currencies. The big risk to this view is that Stefan Ingves, the Riksbank governor, continues to be one of the most dovish policy makers in the world. However, his term ends on January 1, 2018, and unless he is renewed for another six years, his words and desires will increasingly lose their ability to affect markets. Bottom Line: The Swedish economy is increasingly moving closer to an inflationary environment. This cannot yet be said about the euro area. With inflation expectations sharply moving up in Sweden versus the euro zone, investors should begin betting against EUR/SEK. Housekeeping We are closing our short USD/JPY trade this week at a 4.2% profit. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Low Inflation And Rising Debt", dated June 3, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Moreover, one of the dissenters was Kristin Forbes, who was attending her last meeting as a member of the MPC. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled, "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken", dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled, "ECB: All About China?", dated April 7, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Chairwoman Janet Yellen has halted the dollar selloff for now, with the DXY finally seeing some upside. Following the press conference, the greenback sits 1.2% above the lows seen prior to the Fed policy meeting. We share the view of the Fed and the expect markets to converge over time toward the Fed's forecasts. Additionally, Yellen confirmed that there is still one more hike on the table this year. We believe the market continues to underprice these factors, concentrating too much on what amounts to a temporary soft patch. As we have said in the past, these factors will continue to widen rate differentials between the U.S. and its G10 counterparts. Report Links: Look Ahead, Not Back - June 9, 2017 Capacity Explosion = Inflation Implosion - June 2, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR/USD dropped on the news of a weak trade balance figure of EUR 19.6 bn, below the expected EUR 27.2 bn. Generally, EUR/USD has remained reasonably static as euro weakness was muted by equal dollar weakness, but recent Fed hawkishness has broken this trend. Draghi's hawkishness is tepid at best and the Fed hiking rates this Wednesday, as well as Yellen reiterating that another hike will be seen later this year will continue to help U.S. policy anticipations relative to Europe. As a result, rate differentials are likely to widen, and the euro to soften. The little appreciation in the euro earlier this week, was a result the following positives: German ZEW Survey's Current Situation went up to 88, beating expectations of 85; Euro Area ZEW Survey's Current Situation also went up to 37.7 from 35.1. Report Links: Look Ahead, Not Back - June 9, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been negative: Domestic corporate goods prices grew by 2.1% YoY, against expectations of 2.2%. Machinery orders yearly growth came in at 2.7%, underperforming expectations by a wide margin. Industrial production yearly growth stayed flat at 5.7%. Ultimately, economic activity in Japan will largely depend on the currency. With the yen appreciating for most of 2017, it will be difficult for the Japanese economy to improve sustainably. At this point, we are closing our USD/JPY trade, as the correction in the U.S. dollar has run its course. Meanwhile, we remain bearish on NZD/JPY, as the rising dollar and the tightening in Chinese monetary conditions will deliver a formidable one-two punch to risk assets, and thus weigh on this cross. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Industrial Production contracted by 0.8% on a YoY basis, underperforming expectations. Manufacturing production yearly growth stayed flat, also underperforming. Meanwhile, both core and headline inflation came in above expectations, at 2.6% and 2.9% respectively. Yesterday the BoE came in more hawkish than expected, as Ian McCafferty and Michael Saunders joined Kristin Forbes voting and dissented in favor offor a hike. Meanwhile, in their monetary policy summary the BoE stated that inflation will stay above target for an "extended period". Following the report, EUR/GBP plunged by about 0.8%. We are now not positive on the pound, as core inflation is now outpacing wage growth, a development that should weigh on demand due to the decline in real income. This development could cause GBP/USD and EUR/GBP to reach 1.2 and 0.92 respectively to reach 1.2 by year end, but any move in EUR/GBP above 0.88 should be used to short this cross. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction - April 21, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Data out of Australia was mixed this week: National Australia Bank's Business Confidence declined to 7 from 13; Westpac Consumer Confidence fell to -1.8% from -1.1%; However, the unemployment rate dropped to 5.5%, with full-time employment growing by 52,100, and part-time employment shrinking by 10,100. Most of the movement in the AUD was dominated by the employment data, seeing a broad-based increase versus other G10 currencies. While oil prices kept the CAD and NOK at bay, Chinese industrial production and retail sales increased at a 6.5% and 10.7% annual rate, respectively. Iron ore and copper, commodities important to Australia, however, saw little action, but coal saw a slight upside. The above dynamics resulted in the AUD outperforming other currencies versus the USD, and EUR/AUD weakened massively. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been mixed: Electronic card retail sales grew by 5.2% year-on-year, increasing from 4.2% the month before. However, the current account deficit came in at 3.1% of GDP against expectations of 2.7%. Meanwhile, yearly GDP growth came in at 2.5%, underperforming expectations. The kiwi rallied this week as expectations of a dovish fed weighed on the dollar, although most of these gains vanished following the FOMC press conference. We continue to be positive on the NZD relative to the AUD, given that the kiwi economy is in much better footing than the Australian one. However, upside for NZD/USD is limited, as this cross has reached highly overbought levels. Furthermore, the tightening in Chinese monetary conditions will become a headwind for a sustainable rally in the NZD. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The downside in oil continues as EIA crude oil stocks decreased by 1.661 million barrels, less than the expected 2.739 million. AUD/CAD and NZD/CAD rallied on the news, while CAD/NOK levelled off. In the commodity space, we remain most positive on the Canadian economy. While oil prices are a hurdle, business and consumer confidence, as well as PMIs remain robust, and the BoC expects the output gap to close in Q2 2018. Our Commodity and Energy Strategy team continues to believe that OPEC cuts and increased oil demand will eventually curtail inventories. We therefore expect our short AUD/CAD trade to prove profitable as markets begin to digest these developments. While the CAD looks good on its crosses, the resumption of the dollar bull market will limit the USD/CAD's downside. Report Links: Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Yesterday, in their monetary policy statement, the SNB reasserted its dovish bias, pledging to keep its extremely accommodative monetary policy in the years to come. Their inflation outlook changed little, upgrading the near term slightly while downgrading the longer term outlook. It is important to consider that when the SNB states that they expect that inflation will reach only 1.5% by the first quarter of 2020, they do so assuming the LIBOR rate stays at -0.75%. Meanwhile, they also signaled that they will stay active intervening in the currency market, with SNB president Thomas Jordan reiterating that the Franc “remains significantly overvalued”. We had previously stated that the implied floor put under EUR/CHF by the SNB could be removed by the end of this year. However, this scenario now seems unlikely, given the strong commitment by the SNB to remain accommodative. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Following a sell-off for most of the beginning of the week, USD/NOK has rebounded sharply, following the FOMC interest rate decision. Furthermore, the disappointing draw in oil inventories also contributed to the surge in USD/NOK. We continue to be bearish on the NOK, given that inflation is still receding in Norway. Recent data supports this, with core inflation and producer prices falling from anewApril. Furthermore, any surge in the U.S. dollar will provide a tailwind to USD/NOK given that this cross is highly sensitive to the dollar. Another cross where we are positioned towe use to take advantage of gain from Norway's economic weakness difficulties is CAD/NOK. The Canadian economy is on ain much stronger footing than the Norwegian one, and the rally in the dollar has historically been a tailwind for this cross. Report Links: Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Sweden's economy is developing as expected, with headline inflation reading at the expected level of 1.7%, with a 0.1% monthly increase. Although inflation decreased from the previous 1.9% reading, the Riksbank's Resource Utilization Indicator - historically, a reliable indicator for core inflation - continues to point up, indicating that core inflation will accelerate further. We are putting on a short EUR/SEK trade on the basis of long-term valuations being in the favor of the krona. With a closed output gap, Sweden's economy is more advanced in its business cycle than the euro area', which points to a further bifurcation in inflation rates between the two. These factors will also warrant a quicker removal of policy support from the Riksbank than the ECB. Report Links: Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights The U.K. and EU may get a technical divorce, but the underlying economic and financial relationship may not end up changing dramatically - which is good news for the pound in the long term. Our 6-12 month preference for currencies is euro first, pound second, dollar third. The euro area economy will perform at least in line with the U.S. economy through 2017, so the T-bond/German bund yield spread will continue to compress. Long euro area retailers, short U.S. retailers has catch-up potential. The focussed stock pair-trade would be long Hornbach (Germany), short Home Depot (U.S.) Feature Brexit Will Become A Fake Divorce Theresa May's stinging reversal at the ballot box last Thursday has left some people wondering: will Brexit actually happen? The answer is very likely yes, but this is no longer the right question to ask. Jeremy Corbyn's resurgent Labour Party, the Scottish National Party, the Liberal Democrats and pro-European Conservatives now form a parliamentary majority which proposes that a non-EU U.K. negotiates tariff-free access to the single market and customs union.1 In such an arrangement, the U.K. and EU would be technically divorced. But economically and financially, the relationship would not be so different to being married. In effect, Brexit would become a fake divorce. Unfortunately, there is a flipside. The U.K. would be unable to reclaim swathes of sovereignty over its borders and its law. This is because the tariff-free movement of goods, services and capital is, in theory, indivisible from the free movement of people. Furthermore, EU law would transcend national law in the regulation and policing of the single market's so-called 'four freedoms'. Admittedly, the four freedoms are an unachieved - and arguably unachievable - ideal. But they are an aspiration which EU policymakers do not want Brexit to threaten. Angela Merkel recently put it in very strong terms: "Cherry-picking (from the four freedoms) would have disastrous consequences for the other 27 member countries... Tariff-free access to the single market can only be possible on the conditions of respecting the four basic freedoms. Otherwise one has to talk about limits to access" Hence, Brexit reduces to a trade-off between the extent of tariff-free access to the European single market that the U.K. wants to keep, and the extent of national sovereignty it is willing to concede (Chart of the Week). Economically and financially, it is largely irrelevant whether the U.K. gets tariff-free access to the single market via a bespoke free-trade arrangement or via membership of an off-the-shelf structure like EFTA or the EEA.2 The much bigger question is: in order to keep most of its tariff-free access to the single market, will the U.K. now downgrade its plans to "take back full control" of its borders and law? Following last Thursday's stunning election result - and its impact on parliamentary composition (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3) - the answer seems to be yes. The U.K. and EU may get a technical divorce, but the underlying economic and financial relationship might not end up changing dramatically. Euro First, Pound Second, Dollar Third Avoiding a dramatic change in the U.K./EU economic and financial relationship reduces the risk of a major disruption to the U.K. economy and the need for further emergency easing from the Bank of England. Thereby, it is good news for the pound in the long term. That said, our 6-12 month preference for currencies is euro first, pound second, dollar third. The crucial point is that currencies and bond market relative performance depends front and centre on the evolution of relative interest rate expectations. In turn, the evolution of relative interest rate expectations must ultimately follow relative economic performance, as evidenced in hard data such as GDP growth, inflation and job creation. Over a period of a few months, central banks can look through hard data on the basis that the data is noisy or "transient". But over periods of 6 months and longer, the noisy and transient excuse wears thin. Central banks' strong commitment to data-dependency means that their actions and/or words must follow the hard data. No ifs, buts or maybes. Hence, relative interest rate expectations ultimately follow relative economic performance (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). We are unashamedly republishing these two charts from last week because they prove the point so powerfully. Based on the latest PMIs which capture current economic sentiment, and on 6-month credit impulses which lead activity, euro area hard data will continue to perform at least in line with those in the U.S. (Chart I-6). In which case, relative interest rate expectations will continue to converge, the T-bond/German bund yield spread will continue to compress, and euro/dollar will ultimately drift higher. Chart I-4Relative Interest Rate Expectations Must Follow ##br##Relative Economic Performance Chart I-5Relative Bond Yields Must Follow Relative##br## Economic Performance Chart I-6Only A Modest Decline In The Euro Area ##br##6-Month Credit Impulse The Eurostoxx50 Is Not A Play On The Euro Area Economy. So What Is? Does it follow that the Eurostoxx50 equity index will outperform? Not necessarily. Unlike for currencies, interest rates and bond yields, the connection between relative economic performance and relative equity market performance is weak, or even non-existent. Note that the Eurostoxx50 has underperformed the S&P500 this year even though the euro area economy has outperformed. Chart I-7The Global Growth Pause ##br##Has Hurt Cyclicals The reason is that the over-arching driver of an equity market's relative performance is its skew to dominant international sectors and international stocks. The Eurostoxx50 has a higher exposure to the global growth cycle via its dominant weighting in Financials and Resources; conversely the S&P500 has a higher exposure to the less globally-sensitive Technology and Healthcare sectors. The defining sector skew has penalised the Eurostoxx50 versus the S&P500 because globally-sensitive cyclicals have strongly underperformed in a very clear global growth pause. Furthermore, the ever-reliable global 6-month credit impulse strongly suggests that the global growth pause will persist through the summer (Chart I-7). This begs the question: is there a way for equity investors to play the resilient performance of the euro area economy? The answer is yes. But before explaining how, a quick note of caution. An aggregate small cap equity index is not a good way to play a domestic economy. This is because the dominant characteristic of small cap stocks - in aggregate - is their very high beta. Hence, rather than a strong play on the domestic economy, investors are effectively buying highly leveraged exposure to market direction. Great when markets are rising, but painful when they are falling, irrespective of how the domestic economy is faring. Instead, a good equity play on relative economic performance is the relative performance of retailers (Chart I-8). Drilling down further, the relative performance of home improvement retailers is an even purer play (Chart I-9) - given that household spending on home improvement is closely tied to the domestic economic cycle. Chart I-8Retailers Are A Good Play On Relative ##br##Economic Performance Chart I-9Euro Area Home Improvement Retailers ##br##Can Now Ourperform Those In The U.S. On the expectation that the euro area economy will perform at least in line with the U.S. economy,3 the equity market play would be long euro area retailers, short U.S. retailers. In particular, long euro area home improvement retailers, short U.S. home improvement retailers has a lot of catch-up potential. And the focussed stock pair-trade would be long Hornbach (Germany), short Home Depot (U.S.) Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 In simple terms, the single market defines the zone of tariff-free trade for European countries with each other. Whereas the customs union defines the zone of a single set of rules and tariffs for European countries to trade with the rest of the world. Membership of the customs union allows goods and services that enter from the rest of the world to then move around Europe unhindered. 2 The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) is a free trade area consisting of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway participate in the EU single market through their membership of the European Economic Area (EEA). Whereas Switzerland participates through a set of bilateral agreements with the EU. 3 Based on growth in real GDP per head. Fractal Trading Model* Long nickel / short tin hit its 6.5% profit target and is now closed. This week's trade is to switch to long nickel / short palladium with a 10% profit target. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart I-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart I-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart I-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart I-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Trump's failures have helped fuel the bull market; Yet inflation and Trump legislative wins will embolden the Fed; The U.K. will have yet another election by 2019; Dodd-Frank repeal is a no go ... but small banks may get relief; The Tea Party just found its hard constraint ... in Kansas. Feature Investors in South Africa surprised us last week. The first question on everyone's mind was "Will Trump be impeached?" Our answer that impeachment is highly unlikely at least until the midterm elections was received with suspicion.1 The perspective of our South African clients is understandable. Their domestic assets have been underpinned since Trump's election by a phenomenon we like to call "the Trump put." The thesis posits that U.S. politics will remain a mess for much of the year, delaying any progress on populist economic policies that would have buoyed U.S. nominal GDP growth and given the Fed a reason to hike interest rates more aggressively. The result is a weak dollar, lower 10-year Treasury yields, and a rally in global risk assets (Chart 1). Of course, stubbornly weak inflation and disappointing Q1 GDP numbers bear responsibility as well as Trump (Chart 2). Chart 1The 'Trump Put' Chart 2Weak Inflation Fueling Bull Market For our South African clients, the fate of President Trump is irrelevant. What matters is that the American political imbroglio continues, reducing the likelihood of a hawkish mistake from the Fed, and thus keeping EM risk assets well bid. The market has generally agreed. Several assets associated with Trump's populist agenda have reversed their gains since the election. The yield curve, small caps, and high tax rate equities have all shown signs of disappointment with the Trump agenda (Chart 3). If the Trump put were to continue, we would expect U.S. bonds and stocks to rally, DXY to continue to face headwinds, and international stocks to outperform U.S. stocks. That said, the proxies for Trump's agenda in Chart 3 are starting to perk up. They may be sniffing out some positive political signs, such as the movement in the Senate on the bill repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The budget reconciliation procedure - a process by which Republicans in Congress intend to avoid the Democrat filibuster in the Senate - requires Obamacare to be resolved before the House and the Senate can take up tax reform.2 If Obamacare clears Congress's calendar by the August recess, the odds of tax reform (or merely tax cuts) being passed by the end of 2017 will rise considerably. Second, former Director of the FBI James Comey's testimony was a non-event. We refused to cover it in these pages as we expected it to be theatre. The market had already digested everything that Comey was going to say, given that he had leaked the juiciest components of his testimony weeks ahead of the event. Chart 3Consensus On Trump Policy Failure? Third, President Trump's approval rating with Republican voters remains resilient (Chart 4). If the worst has passed with the Russian collusion investigation - which we expect to be the case now that Comey's testimony has come and gone with little relevance - we could see GOP voters rally around the president. Several clients have pointed out that our measure is less relevant given the decline in voters who identify as Republicans (Chart 5). We disagree. As long as Republican voters vote in Republican primaries, they can act as a constraint on GOP members in Congress who are thinking of abandoning the president's populist agenda. This brings us to the main event: the economy. Our colleague Ryan Swift, who writes BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy, could not care less about the ongoing political drama. As Ryan has argued in a cogent report that we highly recommend to clients, the Fed's median projection for two more 25 basis point rate hikes before the end of the year, and for PCE inflation to reach 1.9% (Chart 6), is not going to happen if inflation continues to disappoint over the summer.3 The market seems to be saying that a PCE of 1.9% is unlikely. Core PCE inflation is running at only 1.54% year-over-year through April, and will probably stay low in May given that year-over-year core CPI fell from 2% in March to 1.89% in April. Chart 5Fewer People Call Themselves Republicans Chart 6Inflation Relapse Would Scratch Fed Hikes Ryan's Philips Curve model, however, disagrees with the market. The model looks to approximate Chair Yellen's own philosophy for forecasting inflation, which she outlined in a September 2015 speech.4 Specifically, BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy models core PCE as a function of: 12-month lag of core PCE; Long-run inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters; Resource utilization; Non-oil import prices relative to overall core PCE. BCA's core PCE model is sending a strong signal that the market's inflation expectations are overly pessimistic (Chart 7). Even after stressing the model under several adverse scenarios, Ryan concludes that it is very likely that core PCE inflation will indeed approach the Fed's 1.9% forecast by year-end. The U.S. economy is quickly running out of slack, with unemployment at a 16-year low of 4.3%. The broader U-6 rate, which includes marginally attached workers and those in part-time employment purely for economic reasons, has dropped to its pre-recession print of 8.4% (Chart 8). Chart 7Market Too Pessimistic On Inflation Chart 8U.S. Labor Market Running Out Of Slack Wages are also rising, with the underlying trend in wage growth having accelerated from 1.2% in 2010 to 2.4% (Chart 9). The acceleration has been broad-based, occurring across most industries, regions, and worker characteristics (Chart 10). Chart 9Wages Heating Up Chart 10Wage Improvements Broad-Based BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, therefore expects the Fed to raise rates in line with its own expectations. In fact, the Fed could expedite the pace of rate hikes if aggregate demand accelerates later in the year.5 It will be difficult for the Fed to ignore macroeconomic data, even if, from a political perspective, the Trump put continues. The analogy we use with clients in meetings is that of the U.S. economy as a camp fire around which the various market participants - bond and equity investors, foreign and domestic, etc. - are huddled. According to our sister publications that conduct macroeconomic research, that campfire is well lit. And according to our political research, "Uncle Donny" had a few too many drinks and is about to pour some bourbon on the fire to show the kids a good time. Chart 11Bond Bulls Feeding On Trump Failures For the Trump put to continue, we would have to see a combination of the following: GOP voters begin to abandon President Trump; Congress remains embroiled in Obamacare debates through FY2017, only seriously picking up on tax reform and other agenda items in FY2018. Greater doubts would undermine the recent uptick in assets tied to Trump's policy agenda (Chart 11). Impeachment concerns heat up again due to new revelations that implicate President Trump directly. So far impeachment talk has not correlated with the rally in Treasuries but it could do so if new evidence comes to light. Perhaps Robert Mueller, the former FBI director and special counsel investigating Russia's role in the election, will drop another bombshell later this year. In addition, for the Trump put to continue our colleagues Ryan and Peter would have to be wrong about the economy and inflation. For investors interested in playing the Trump put, and allocating funds to EM assets in particular, we would caution against it. However, given that BCA's bond and FX views have been challenged over the past several months by the Trump put, we understand why many of our clients are itching to chase the global asset rally. The summer months will be critical. Does Brexit Still Mean Brexit? We posited last week that the extraordinary election in the U.K. was about austerity and, more importantly, about repudiating the Conservative Party's fiscal policies.6 This remains our view. The most investment-relevant message to take from the election is that U.K. fiscal policy will become easier over the life of the coalition government, while monetary policy remains stuck in D - for dovish. This should weigh on the pound over the course of the year. That said, investors will begin to wonder about the longevity of the coalition between the U.K. Conservative Party and Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). In practice the coalition will have only a five-seat majority, which would be tied for the second-smallest margin since Harold Wilson in 1964 (Chart 12). Technically it is an even smaller one-seat majority. U.K. governments with a majority of fewer than ten seats are rare and usually only last one-to-two years (Harold Wilson's four-seat 1974-79 run is an exception). This bodes ill for May's government - that is, if she survives today's brewing leadership challenge from within her party. We have no idea if the election means a softer Brexit as we have no idea - and neither does anyone else - what that means. Generally speaking, the wafer-thin majority for the Tories means the following: "No deal is better than a bad deal" is no longer going to be acceptable to the government or the public; London will end up paying a larger "exit fee" than it probably thinks it will; There will be no favorable deal for the U.K.'s financial industry. In essence, the U.K. clearly has the weaker hand in the upcoming negotiations. Cheers went up in Brussels. Does this change anything? First, we never bought the argument that the U.K. had a strong negotiating position because continental Europeans want to export BMWs to consumers in Britain. The EU is a far bigger market for the U.K. than the U.K. is for the EU (Chart 13). On this measure alone, the U.K. was always going to be the underdog in the negotiations. Chart 13The U.K. Lacks Leverage Second, the influence of Tory Euroskeptics has been reduced. That might appear counterintuitive, given that May wanted to reduce their influence by getting a bigger majority. However, it is highly unlikely that she will get the ultimate EU deal through Westminster, with a five-seat majority, without at least some votes from the opposition. Euroskeptics will therefore either remain quiet and compliant or force May to seek a deal that Labour MPs could agree to. Which brings us to the very likely scenario that the final deal will not pass Westminster without a new election. As we argued right after the referendum, the U.K. will likely have a "Brexit election" sometime in 2019.7 There is no way around it now. At very least the ruling alliance will face a contradiction in trying to soften Brexit while maintaining a strict stance on immigration. And given the weak majority, if Labour does not play ball, the Tories will have to call a new election on the basis of the deal they conclude. The good news for the Conservative Party is that the polls continue to show that a majority of U.K. voters support Brexit (Chart 14). Furthermore, the two Brexit-lite campaign promises by the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats were the least preferred policies ahead of the election (Chart 15, see next page). However, the election also saw a complete collapse in support for Euroskeptic-leaning parties, in terms of share of the overall vote (Chart 16). Could Brexit ultimately be reversed? Certainly the odds have risen. Furthermore, there does appear to be some regret amongst U.K. voters, with a recent survey showing a decline in national identification: now more Britons identify as "also European" than ever (Chart 17). Nonetheless, a full reversal of Brexit will still require an exogenous shock, such as a recession or a geopolitical calamity that convinces the U.K. that they need Europe. Investors should remain vigilant of the polls. A clear trend reversal in Chart 14 would constitute a political opportunity for the opposition parties to campaign on a new referendum. Chart 16Euroskeptics Collapsed In The U.K. Bottom Line: Odds of a softer Brexit have certainly risen as the Tories face considerable domestic constraints in their negotiating strategy with the EU. We continue to believe that the negotiations will not be acrimonious and therefore the pound will not fall below its lows on January 16. However, it may re-test that 1.2 level due to a coming mix of easy fiscal and monetary policy over the course of the year. U.S.: Doing A Number On Dodd-Frank Better put a strong fence 'round the top of the cliff, Than an ambulance down in the valley! - Joseph Malins, "The Fence or the Ambulance," 1895 The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 by a vote of 233-186 on June 8. This is the GOP's second major attempt, after the Affordable Care Act, to rewrite a signature law of President Obama's administration. This time it is the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, known simply as "Dodd-Frank," that is on the docket. The bill's prospects in the Senate are dim. President Trump promised to "do a number" on Dodd-Frank shortly after coming into office, by which he meant dismantling the law. The so-called "CHOICE Act" put forward by Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) now goes to the Senate, where it faces a high hurdle because Democrats can filibuster it, forcing the GOP to summon 60 votes. So the question is what kind of a "number" can the GOP actually do to Dodd-Frank, and does it matter? First a little bit of background.8 Dodd-Frank cleared Congress in the wake of the subprime financial crisis, July 2010. It had both a quixotic and a more pragmatic aim: the first to reduce the likelihood of future financial crises, and the second to improve the ability of regulators to stem risks as they emerge. The law has never been fully implemented and is best understood as a work in progress. The law grants the Federal Reserve and other agencies greater powers of oversight, prevention, and crisis management. In particular it ensures that the Fed would regulate not only banks but also non-bank investment companies and other financial firms (such as the giant insurance company AIG that had to be bailed out at the height of the crisis). It also frees the Fed of the responsibility to rescue failing institutions or dismantle them, handing those duties over to others, while still enabling the Fed to act as lender of last resort. The key provisions are as follows: Impose tougher capital standards: In keeping with the international Basel III banking reforms,9 Dodd-Frank tried to ensure that banks were better fortified against liquidity shortages in future. The new standards would apply both to domestic banks and foreign banks with American subsidiaries. Orderly Liquidation Authority: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a major institution born amidst the Great Depression, would take over the responsibility of liquidating failing firms in the event of a crisis - assuming Treasury's go-ahead due to the systemic importance of the failing firm. Additional measures would hold the entire financial sector responsible for the bill if the FDIC made losses in the process. Each firm would have to maintain a "living will" to make the resolution process easier in the event of disaster. A new Financial Stability Oversight Council: Chaired by the Treasury Secretary and consisting of the various financial regulatory bodies, this council would identify systemically important financial companies, monitor them, and take actions to prevent crises. A new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: The brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the anti-Wall Street firebrand, the bureau would be funded by the Fed but otherwise entirely independent of it, and tasked with patrolling the banks on behalf of consumers. The Volcker Rule: The rule, named after former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, would force banks to curtail a number of short-term, high-risk trading activities on their own accounts, including derivatives, futures, and options, unless to hedge risks or serve bank customers. This was viewed as a partial reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall law, a Depression-era law that separated commercial and investment banking but was repealed by President Clinton in 1999. Republicans want to overturn Dodd-Frank to increase financial sector profits, credit growth, economic growth, and animal spirits. Lending has arguably suffered as a result of the new regulations (Chart 18). The share of bank loans to overall bank credit has remained subdued, reflecting bank behavior under QE and possibly also risk-aversion under tighter regulation (Chart 19). Chart 18Lending Growth Hampered By Dodd-Frank? Chart 19Banks Holding Reserves Instead Of Lending Republicans would also satisfy an ideological goal of reducing state involvement, which grew as a result of the law. In addition, the CBO estimates that the proposed rewrite would cut the budget deficit by a net $22.3 billion over a ten-year period.10 A very small amount, but again in line with GOP's political bent. The way the CHOICE Act would work is to create an "escape hatch" that would allow banks that maintain capital-to-asset ratio of over 10% to bypass Dodd-Frank regulations. Financial companies that do not meet the 10% leverage ratio could either raise funds or remain subject to Dodd-Frank oversight, including required capital ratios, stress tests, living wills, and other regulations. Critically, the 10% leverage ratio for those banks that opt out of Dodd-Frank would not be calculated using risk-weightings for different assets (whereas Dodd-Frank requires both risk-weighted and non-risk-weighted capital ratios to be maintained). Therefore, banks that opt out would be able to take on greater risk while still fulfilling minimum capital requirements. This is supposed to boost lending, earnings, and growth. About 70% of the $18 trillion in U.S. banking assets belongs to banks defined by Dodd-Frank as "systemically important." The eight U.S. banks defined as "globally systemic important banks" account for about $9 trillion in assets and are unlikely to take advantage of the Republicans' escape hatch because they would then have to raise new capital and yet would still be subject to international Basel III regulations even if exempted from Dodd-Frank. The CBO estimates that banks holding about 2% of the bank assets held by systemically important banks (i.e. $252 billion) would opt out of Dodd-Frank (Chart 20). Further, the CBO estimates that, among non-systemically important banks (30% of $18 trillion total banking assets), the banks that both meet the 10% leverage ratio and would opt out of Dodd-Frank account for about 7% of U.S. banking assets ($1.26 trillion) (see Chart 20 above). Community banks (with assets under $10 billion each) and credit unions are especially likely to do so. Therefore, if the Republican bill were to become law, banks comprising something like $1.5 trillion in U.S. banking assets would become less restricted and eligible to adopt riskier trading practices free of Dodd-Frank policing. The greatest impact will be in areas with a higher concentration of small banks and credit unions than elsewhere. These U.S. banks would also, arguably, become more likely to take excessive risks and fail at some future point. Using probabilistic models for bank failures, the CBO found that the U.S.'s Deposit Insurance Fund would only suffer an additional $600 million in losses over the next ten years as a result of this increase in risk. It is a credible estimate but the reality could be far costlier if more and more banks gain the ability to bypass regulation or if banks significantly change their behavior to take advantage of the regulatory loophole. Other aspects of the bill would: Repeal the FDIC's orderly liquidation fund: The private sector would largely take over the responsibility for managing liquidations. The CBO estimates that the federal government would save an estimated $14.5 billion in liquidation costs over ten years. Eliminate the Volcker Rule: Banks would be able to trade riskier assets on their own accounts and forge closer relationships with private equity and hedge funds. Audit the Fed: Within one year of passage, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) would audit the Fed's board of governors and the Federal Reserve regional banks, including their handling of monetary policy. The Fed's open market committee (FOMC) would also have to establish a new interest rate target, based on economic parameters, which the GAO would monitor. Reshape the Consumer Financial Protection Board: The agency would have its powers neutered and funding dependent on the Congress, rather than transfers from the Fed. It would be re-branded as the Consumer Law Enforcement Agency and have its power to oversee institutions with more than $10 billion in assets taken away, making it, in effect, a monitor of small banks only. Cut penalties for violating regulations: However, outright criminality would be punished more severely. Various authorities and institutions would be tweaked, mostly in accordance with the general aim of reducing regulatory burdens on the financial sector. So, what options do the Republicans have going forward?11 Republicans either need 60 votes to defeat a Senate filibuster or they need procedural work-arounds like budget reconciliation. Chart 21Small Banks Benefit From Dodd-Frank Repeal Some Republicans claim that certain elements of the rewrite can be tucked into a reconciliation bill. However, reconciliation requires a single, concentrated policy focus. The GOP is currently undertaking an unprecedented two budget reconciliation bills in a single year: first, the FY2017 reconciliation procedure to repeal Obamacare, and second, the FY2018 procedure to cut taxes. Rewriting Dodd-Frank is a far cry from either health care or tax reform. Dodd-Frank measures crammed into either of these bills would likely be revoked under the so-called "Byrd Rule" which keeps the reconciliation process focused and excludes extraneous material.12 So it is unlikely that this method will work. The FY2018 budget resolution will be a critical signpost. Second, it is hard to see how a bipartisan rewrite of Dodd-Frank is possible. Dodd-Frank was the Democrats' signature response to the subprime mortgage debacle and broader financial crisis. They will not participate in dismantling it. We cannot see eight Democrats joining Republicans in the Senate for what Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) has called "collective amnesia." However, there is one general principle that could find its way into law: the idea of giving small, regional banks a reprieve from Dodd-Frank requirements. Even Fed Chair Janet Yellen has tentatively supported giving these banks a break.13 These banks, with under $10 billion in assets, face the most difficulty in meeting Dodd-Frank's requirements and yet tend to meet the 10% leverage ratio. Politicians could at least attempt to make a popular argument for easing the burden on small community banks and credit unions, which are often vital to local communities. The same cannot be said for the Dodd-Frank rewrite as a whole, which smacks of granting impunity to Wall Street. Still, we think that even a bill focused exclusively on helping small banks would have trouble passing on its own. The legislative agenda is too busy in 2017; while 2018 will see midterm elections, when few candidates will want to appear soft on Wall Street. Instead, a provision helping small banks could pass if tacked onto the larger budget bill or bills for FY2018, if not later. It would have to be made palatable to Democrats, or else it would be perceived as a "poison pill" and risk adding to the numerous risks of government shutdown over the budget this fall. Other than these legislative options, the Trump administration can ease regulation, or relax enforcement, through executive action, as it has already promised to do. Assuming America's financial sector will get a reprieve, investors could capitalize on it by favoring small U.S. bank equities over large bank equities. The share price of small banks relative to large banks, which rallied in the aftermath of Trump's election only to fall back in the subsequent months, has recently perked up (Chart 21). Relative earnings have been flat over the same period. If Dodd-Frank is partially watered down, these banks should see earnings improve, which should drive up their share prices. Our colleagues at BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy are positive on global bank equities, particularly European and American ones. The latter are still relatively affordable as they undertake the long trek of recovery after a once-in-a-generation crisis (Chart 22). U.S. banks have notably better fundamentals than peers in Europe and Japan - more capital, higher net interest margins, lower or equal NPL ratios. They also stand to benefit from relatively faster rising interest rates (Chart 23).14 Chart 22The Long, Hard Road Of Recovery Chart 23U.S. Banks Well Positioned Globally In addition, the FiscalNote Financial Sector Index suggests that the flow of legislative and regulatory proposals has been steadily getting less onerous on the financial sector.15 Chart 24 is an aggregation of the favorability scores - which assess whether the bill is likely to be favorable or unfavorable to the sector - for all U.S. Congressional legislation that is determined to be relevant to the financial sector since 2006. It provides a snapshot of the regulatory environment for the financial sector at any given point in time. Chart 24Financial Sector Scrutiny Softening Risks to the view? Republicans could somehow squeeze a broader Dodd-Frank rewrite through the budget reconciliation process. We think the probability of this is less than 10%. Financially, this would deliver a bigger jolt to the financial sector, and financial stocks, than currently expected. But it would still benefit small banks more than large ones. Politically, a full repeal could add to Republican woes in 2018 - particularly if it is their only legislative achievement. It may well be political suicide to contest the 2018 midterm election on two pieces of legislation: one that denies millions of Americans health insurance and another that favors Wall Street. A full rewrite would also probably increase systemic financial risks. Even deregulation just for the small banks would do so. Lawmakers, focused on restraining the "too big to fail" giants, could end up clearing the way for excesses among the pygmies. That said, excessive regulation can also fuel shadow banking, a risk in itself. And the next crisis may well emanate from somewhere other than the financial sector. Bottom Line: Repealing Dodd-Frank faces procedural hurdles and would yield few political benefits even for Republicans in an environment of populism. However, a bill focused on lightening the regulatory load on small banks has a chance of passing if tacked onto the budget process. Large banks would remain subject to closer scrutiny and stricter international standards. The Trump election rally for bank stocks has mostly fallen back. Now is an opportunity to favor small banks versus large ones on expectations of Trump getting tax cuts passed and regulatory easing of some kind. Kansas: Where Seldom Is Heard A Discouraging Word A chill went through the Tea Party's collective spine on June 6 when two-thirds of the GOP-controlled Kansas legislature overrode the veto of GOP Governor Sam Brownback to repeal a 2012 budget law that slashed taxes on income, small business, and retail sales. You heard that right: Republicans in one of America's reddest states just overrode their leader in order to increase taxes. And it was the largest tax hike in state history. We will spare our readers the nitty-gritty details of the Brownback saga. Suffice it to say that the Tea Party-friendly Kansas legislature slashed state taxes and spending under Brownback's leadership in May 2012. Brownback called it a "real live experiment" of conservative economic principles and argued that the tax cuts would pay for themselves through faster growth. Art Laffer, of "Laffer Curve" fame, allegedly consulted on these measures via the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council. The medicine proved more dangerous than the illness. Since 2012, the state has burned through a budget surplus and growth has slowed (Chart 25). Both Moody's and S&P downgraded Kansas debt. Employment gains have lagged those of neighboring states. Beginning in October 2013, Brownback began to slip in public opinion polls (Chart 26). Cuts to core government services, especially education, caused a tide of criticism. In an extraordinary development, a hundred establishment Republicans supported his Democratic opponent in the 2014 gubernatorial election. He won by a margin of 3.7% but soon afterwards fell out of favor with the public. A series of confrontations with the Kansas Supreme Court hastened his decline, mostly over education funding, which is guaranteed by the state constitution. Brownback, the legislature, and various activist groups attempted to strong-arm the courts, including by ousting four members of the Supreme Court in the 2016 elections. All four retained their posts. The new budget law raises $1.2 billion in income taxes over two years by revoking swathes of the 2012 law, particularly the income tax exemption for business owners and professionals. Brownback duly vetoed the legislation and was promptly overridden by two-thirds of a legislature that is 70% Republican. This is a remarkable event for a state as ideologically conservative as Kansas. What does it mean nationally? There are two reasons that the Kansas experiment will have a limited impact on Republican thinking nationally: Kansas has a balanced budget law (Section 75-3722), while D.C. does not ... and this helped increase the pressure on the administration; Brownback is the least popular governor of any governor in the United States (Chart 27). The blame for the whole fiasco may fall on him personally, distracting from the policy failure. Nevertheless, we think Kansas has set the high-water mark for an aggressive Tea Party agenda in the U.S. that focuses on fiscal conservativism to the exclusion of everything else. Republicans will take note that even as conservative of a state as Kansas has a limit when it comes to spending cuts. It was the cuts to education - which resulted in shorter schoolyears in some districts, and various other disruptions - that fatally wounded Brownback's public standing. Thus public demand for core services is a real constraint on the extent to which taxes can be slashed. Bottom Line: We expect the Trump administration to go forward with tax cuts. But we also think that Trump will get far less in spending cuts than his budget proposals pretend. As such, we expect the GOP tax reform agenda to blow out the budget deficit, a path that Kansas could not legally (or politically) take. This will be the path of least resistance for Congressional Republicans who want to slash taxes yet fear they may not survive the spending cuts necessary to pay for them.16 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jim Mylonas, Vice President Client Advisory & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers," dated May 23, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Janet L. Yellen, "Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy," Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, September 24, 2015, available at www.federalreserve.gov. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "When Doves Cry," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken," dated June 9, 2017, and Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk?" dated June 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Brexit - Next Steps," dated July 1, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 We are particularly indebted to Ben S. Bernanke's account in The Courage To Act: A Memoir Of A Crisis And Its Aftermath (New York: Norton, 2015), pp. 435-66. 9 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "Preparing For Basel III: Who Will Win, Who Will Lose?" dated September 12, 2011, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Congressional Budget Office, "H.R. 10, Financial CHOICE Act of 2017," CBO Cost Estimate, May 18, 2017, available at www.cbo.gov. 11 The Republicans managed to repeal one aspect of Dodd-Frank with a simple majority via the Congressional Review Act, an option that is now closed. U.S. oil, gas, and mineral companies can now be somewhat less transparent about payments made to foreign governments to gain access to resources. Proponents claim U.S. resource companies will gain competitiveness; opponents claim corruption will increase, particularly in foreign countries. 12 Please see Bill Heniff Jr., "The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate's 'Byrd Rule,'" Congressional Research Service, November 22, 2016, available at fas.org. 13 Please see Yellen's February testimony to the Senate Banking Committee, e.g. "Yellen Wants To Ease Regulations For Small Banks," Associated Press, February 14, 2017, available at www.usnews.com. 14 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Girding For A Breakout," dated May 1, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com, and Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Breakout," dated May 5, 2017, and "Wind Of Change," dated November 11, 2016, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 15 The FiscalNote Policy Index measures regulatory risk daily for sectors, industries, and individual companies from every legislative and regulatory proposal. Using proprietary machine-learning-enabled natural language processing algorithms, FiscalNote ingests and processes thousands of legislative and regulatory policy events, scoring each for relevance, favorability, and importance to affected sectors. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The current economic and profit environment supports our stance of favoring stocks over bonds. The Fed will need to see more evidence to alter its gradual path for rates. Although valuations remain elevated, they are not a great market timing tool. Margins are expanding according to the S&P 500 data, and we expect this to continue in the second half of the year. But a peak in margins next year could be the justification to scale back on overweight positions in stocks, in anticipation of slower EPS growth. Corporate balance sheets continued to deteriorate in the first quarter, but that is not enough to warrant cutting back on corporate bond positions within fixed-income portfolios. Watch real short-term rates and bank C&I lending standards, as an exit warning. Feature Environment Remains Supportive For Stocks Over Bonds Investors are wondering whether the equity and currency/bond markets are living on different planets. The dollar and Treasurys seem to be priced for sluggish economic growth, less inflation and no fiscal stimulus. Yet, the S&P 500 is stubbornly holding above the 2,400 level. Many believe that the only reason that stocks got to this level in the first place is the prospect of tax cuts, deregulation and infrastructure spending. If true, then it is only a matter of time before equity investors capitulate. We look at it another way. Yes, equities initially received a boost following the U.S. election on hopes for tax reform. But indicators such as the ratio of small-to-large-cap stocks, or high-tax companies relative to the S&P 500, suggest that the stock market has priced out all chances of any tax reform. The overall stock market has performed well despite this because of the favorable profit backdrop. The fact that Corporate America can generate such profits despite a lackluster economy is impressive. Moreover, the recent softening in inflation has led many to believe that the Fed can proceed even more slowly than the market previously believed, leading to a bond rally. This is quite a bullish backdrop for equities. One does not have to conclude that the bond and stock markets are living on different planets. The backdrop is also positive for corporate bonds versus Treasurys, despite the fact that corporate health continues to deteriorate (see below). Turning to politics, the political consequences of the extraordinary U.K. general election are still not clear. The outcome of the election does not change our core views on the U.S. dollar, equity or bond markets. The dollar has rallied, Treasury yields are higher and U.S. equity prices moved up as this report was being prepared on Friday, June 9. Looking ahead, the coalition-building process in the U.K. will take time as the horse-trading between parties proceeds. Nonetheless, our high conviction view is that the investment implications are in fact already self-evident and do not require foresight into the eventual make-up of the U.K. government. A key takeaway for investors is that, aside from Brexit, domestic fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Austerity is dead in Britain and investors should expect its economic policy - under whatever leadership ultimately gains power - to swing firmly to the left on fiscal, trade, and regulatory policy. Moreover, the Brexit process will continue, albeit of a potentially more "softer" variety and with a somewhat higher probability of eventual reversal.1 Will They Or Won't They? A 25-basis point rate hike is likely this week, but the FOMC will need more evidence on the direction of inflation and the economy before significantly changing the timing and pace of rate hikes or economic forecasts. The market is fully pricing in the anticipated 25-basis point rate bump, but beyond that, there is not much agreement between the Fed and the market on interest rates or economic projections. Nonetheless, as the Fed prepares its June forecast and dot plots, policymakers and the market are on the same page in terms of the labor market, inflation, and the economy in the next few years. The unemployment rate (4.3% in May 2017) is below the Fed's forecasts for 2017 (4.5%) and longer run (4.7%). The consensus outlook for the unemployment rate keeps it below the Fed's path through the end of 2018 (Chart 1, panel 3). Even assuming that the 120,000 pace of job growth in the past three months persists, the unemployment rate would remain below the Fed's view of NAIRU (Chart 2). Our unemployment rate projections are based on a stable labor force participation rate and a 1% gain in the working age population. Chart 1Fed, Market And Reality##BR##Not Too Far Apart Chart 2The Unemployment Rate##BR##Under Various Monthly Job Count Scenarios However, a closer look at what policymakers have said about prices and the trajectory of inflation in recent years suggests that the market and the Fed are not that far apart. At +1.7% in April, the PCE deflator remains near the FOMC's projection of 1.9% for this year and 2.0% in the long run. Bloomberg consensus estimates for inflation for this year and next are above the top end of the Fed's forecast range (Chart 1, panel 2). The FOMC's May minutes state that "participants generally continued to expect that inflation would stabilize around the Committee's two percent objective over the medium run as the effects of transitory factors waned." The market is still concerned that the traditional Phillips curve model may be broken and that inflation may never accelerate even with the economy below the Fed's estimate of full employment. We will discuss the Phillips curve in a post-GFC world in an upcoming edition of The Bank Credit Analyst. As we discussed in last week's report,2 GDP growth in 2017 is on track to exceed the Fed's 2017 target (2.1%) and is already running ahead of the Fed's GDP projection (1.8%) for the long term. The consensus forecast for GDP in 2018 and 2019 is at the upper end of the Fed's range set in March (Chart 1, panel 1). Despite the general agreement between the Fed and the market on certain aspects, they diverge on the outlook for the fed funds rate in the next 18 months (Chart 3). As of June 9, the Fed sees a total of six quarter-point rate hikes by the end of 2018. The market sees just two in the same period. The Fed and market are still far apart on rates in 2019. However, the disconnect between the Fed and the market is not as large as it was in early 2015. This disagreement was a major factor in the equity market pullback in the first few months of 2016 (Chart 3). Neither the recent weakness in the economic data nor softer-than-expected inflation readings will be enough to prompt a significant shift from the Fed in terms of the 'dot plot'. The economic surprise index has been declining for 63 days since peaking in early- to mid-March, but remains consistent with slow growth, not a recession. Economic data tends to disappoint for an average of 90 days after the economic surprise index is above 40, as it was in late 2016/early 2017 in the wake of the U.S. election (Chart 4). Chart 3Disconnect Between Fed##BR##And Market On Rates Chart 4Economic Surprise Index Has Rolled Over##BR##Since Early To Mid March Bottom Line: It would take a significant deterioration in the economy and labor market and in the benign inflation environment to alter the Fed's gradual rate hike plan. A backdrop of gradual hikes and eventually, a smaller balance sheet, will continue to foster the conditions under which stocks have outperformed bonds since 2009. We believe that the recent Treasury rally is overdone because the market has gone too far in revising down the path of Fed rate hikes. A re-evaluation of the outlook could see bond yields jump, sparking a small equity correction. This is not enough of a risk to scale back on equities versus bonds. Valuations, Earnings And Margins: An Update U.S. equities remain overvalued and would be even more extended if not for low rates. However, they are attractively priced relative to competing assets, such as corporate bonds and Treasurys. Valuation is not a great tool to time market turning points and, absent a significant deterioration in the economic, profit and margin environment, we don't foresee a sustained pullback in stocks. Looking beyond our tactical 6-12 month window, above-average market multiples alone imply below-average returns for stocks across a strategic time horizon. Our BCA valuation indicator has deteriorated since we last published it in March 2017 and shows that U.S. equities remain expensive.3 Individually, two of the three components of the Valuation index remain in overvalued territory. The Earnings Group remains at a record high (aside from the tech bubble). The Balance Sheet group shows the same profile. Only the Yield Group, which compares stock prices with various nominal and real interest rates, suggests that equities are undervalued. Thus, U.S. stock prices are vulnerable to a sharp jump in rates, which supports our view that U.S. equity markets will perform well in an economic and inflation backdrop that allows the Fed to raise interest rates and unwind its balance sheet gradually (Chart 5). While tax cuts and infrastructure spending might provide the equity market with a "sugar high", it probably would not last long because fiscal stimulus would bring forward Fed rate hikes. Moreover, Chart 6 shows that U.S. stocks remain favorably priced relative to competing assets such as corporate bonds, Treasurys and residential housing. That said, equity valuation measures such as price-to-book or price-to-sales make the market vulnerable to shocks. Chart 5U.S. Stocks##BR##Are Overvalued... Chart 6Stocks Look Less Expensive##BR##Relative To Competing Assets Inflated valuations alone are not enough to trigger a bear market or even a significant correction in U.S. equities. Outside of aggressive Fed tightening, we will become more defensive when profits come under pressure. On this score, the decline in Q4 profits according to the NIPA data is concerning. We are in a period where margins based on the NIPA data are diverging from the S&P's measure. Like corporate earnings, there is more than one data source for profit margin data, and the data itself is a mix of art and science. In the long run, the S&P-based margin data and the data derived from the NIPA accounts tend to move together. Over shorter time horizons, however, these two metrics may diverge. The NIPA margins peaked in 2014 and have moved steadily lower since then, but the BEA-derived profit data are not closely watched by investors and are subject to significant revision. On the other hand, margins based on S&P data are followed closely by the markets, are not subject to revision and have been moving higher since end of 2015. In the past 55 years, the peak in NIPA margins has often led the S&P data at peaks; the caveat is that it is unclear whether the NIPA data led in real time because of the endless revision process for GDP and profit data.4 The margin series based on S&P data tends to lead heading into margin troughs, but it is not a reliable signal. During the long economic expansion in the 1960s, both indicators topped out around the same time (1966-67). The NIPA derived margins peaked in 1975 as the S&P margins troughed, and later in the decade, the zenith in NIPA margins peaked three years before the S&P version. Similar to the current decade the long expansion in the 1980s saw a mid-decade collapse in oil prices and margins. In the late 80s, NIPA and S&P measures peaked almost simultaneously, which was three years before the crest in equity prices. The 1990s saw unabated margin expansion through 1997 for NIPA margins; the expansion in S&P-based margins lasted until 1999 (Chart 7). Chart 7Margins, Like Profits Are Mix Of Art & Science History also shows that falling margins do not always mean declining EPS growth. In the past 40 years, when the U.S. economy was not in recession, corporate EPS growth was very high on average when margins rose. It was mostly a wash when margins dropped, with slightly negative EPS growth on average. There were two episodes (late-1990s and mid-2000s) when margins fell, but EPS growth was strongly positive (Chart 8). The stock market can also rise significantly even after margins peak for the cycle. Chart 8EPS Can Grow Even As Margins Contract According to S&P data we are in a phase of climbing margins and we expect EPS growth to further accelerate into year end, peaking at just under 20%, before moderating in 2018. If profit growth decelerates in 2018 and the S&P measure of margins begins to narrow again, it would send a strong signal to trim exposure, especially given lofty equity valuations (Chart 9). Chart 9Profit Growth And Margins Both Rising Bottom Line: Rich valuations in U.S. equities will be overlooked as most investors are focused on the S&P and not the NIPA margins. EPS growth will decelerate sharply when margins resume their mean reversion, which could be the catalyst for a major correction or bear market in stock prices. We do not expect this scenario to play out until 2018 at the earliest. Meanwhile, rising margins and profits trump expensive multiples for U.S. equities. Stay long. Corporate Bonds: Kindling And Sparks Last week's U.S. Flow of Funds release allows us to update BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for the first quarter (Chart 10). The level of the CHM moved slightly deeper into "deteriorating health territory." The deterioration in the Monitor over the past few years is largely reflected in the profit-related components of the CHM, including the return on capital, cash flow coverage and free cash flow-to-total debt. Chart 10Deteriorating Since 2015, But... The Monitor has been a reliable indicator for the trend in corporate bond spreads over the years. Indeed, it is one of the oldest and most reliable indicators in BCA's stable of indicators. However, spreads have trended tighter over the past year even as the CHM began to signal deteriorating health in early 2015. Why the divergence? The CHM is only one of three key items on our checklist to underweight corporate bonds versus Treasurys. The other two are tight Fed policy (i.e. real interest rates that are above the neutral level) and the direction of bank lending standards for C&I loans. On its own, balance sheet deterioration only provides the kindling for a spread blowout. A blowout requires a spark. Investors do not worry about high leverage or a profit margin squeeze, for example, until the outlook for defaults sours. The latter occurs once inflation starts to rise and the Fed actively targets slower growth via higher interest rates. Banks see trouble on the horizon and respond by tightening lending standards, thereby restricting the flow of credit to the business sector. Defaults start to rise, buttressing banks' bias to curtail lending in a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. The three items on the checklist usually occurred at roughly the same time in previous cycles because a deteriorating CHM is typically a late-cycle phenomenon. But this has been a very different cycle. High stock prices and rock-bottom bond yields have encouraged the corporate sector to leverage up and repurchase stock. At the same time, the subpar, stretched-out recovery has meant that it has taken longer than usual for the economy to reach full employment. Even now, inflationary pressures are so muted that the Fed can proceed quite slowly. It will be some time before real short-term interest rates are in restrictive territory. As for banks, they tightened lending standards a little in 2015/16 due to the collapse of energy prices, but this has since reversed. As an aside, recent weakness in the growth rate of C&I loans has contributed to concerns over the health of the U.S. recovery. However, the easing in lending standards this year points to an imminent rebound in C&I loan growth (Chart 11). Our model for C&I loans, based on non-residential fixed investment, small business optimism and the speculative-grade default rate, supports this view. Chart 11C&I Loan Growth Set To Rebound The implication is that, while corporate health has deteriorated, we do not have the spark for a sustained corporate bond spread widening. Indeed, Moody's expects that the 12-month default rate will trend lower over the next year, which is consistent with constructive trends in corporate lending standards, industrial production and job cut announcements (all good indicators for defaults). Chart 12 presents a valuation metric that adjusts the HY OAS for 12-month trailing default losses (i.e. it is an ex-post measure). In the forecast period, we hold today's OAS constant, but the 12-month default losses are a shifting blend of historical losses and Moody's forecast. The endpoint suggests that the market is offering about 200 basis points of default-adjusted excess yield over the Treasury curve for the next 12 months. This is roughly in line with the mid-point of the historical data. In the past, a default-adjusted spread of around 200 basis points provided positive 12-month excess returns to high-yield bonds 74% of the time, with an average return of 82 basis points. It is also a positive sign for corporate bonds that the net transfer to shareholders, in the form of buybacks, dividends and M&A activity, has eased on a 4-quarter moving average basis (although it ticked up in Q1 on a 2-quarter basis; Chart 13). As a result, ratings migration has improved (i.e. easing net downgrades), especially for shareholder-friendly rating action, which is a better indicator for corporate spreads. The moderating appetite to "return cash to shareholders" may not last long, but for now it supports our overweight in both investment- and speculative-grade bonds versus Treasurys. That said, excess returns are likely to be limited to the carry given little room for spread compression. Chart 12Still Some Value In##BR##High-Yield Corporates Chart 13Net Transfers To Shareholders##BR##Eased In Past Two Quarters Within balanced portfolios, we recommend favoring equities to high-yield at this stage of the cycle, for reasons we outlined in the April 17, 2017 Weekly Report. In a nutshell, value is not good enough in HY relative to stocks to expect any sustained period of outperformance in the former, assuming that the bull market in risk assets continues. Bottom Line: Corporate balance sheets are still deteriorating but risk assets, including corporate bonds, should continue to outperform Treasurys and cash in the near term. We will look to downgrade risk assets when core inflation moves closer to the Fed's 2% target, which would trigger a more aggressive FOMC tightening campaign and tighter bank lending standards. Favor equities to high yield, but within fixed-income portfolios, overweight investment- and speculative-grade corporates versus Treasurys. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the Geopolitical Strategy Client Note "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken, published on June 9, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Can The Service Sector Save The Day?" June 5, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "How Expensive Are U.S. Stocks", dated March 13, 2017 available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Growth, Inflation and the Fed", May 8, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights The U.K. election was about austerity, not Brexit; The median voter in the U.K. and the U.S. has moved to the left; Nationalism will not satisfy the popular revolt in these countries; The pound is not likely to fall much below GBP/USD 1.2. Feature The political consequences of the extraordinary U.K. general election are still not clear. The coalition-building process will take time as the horse-trading between parties proceeds over the weekend. Our high-conviction view, however, is that the investment implications were in fact already self-evident and do not require foresight into the eventual make-up of the U.K. government. How can that be? Last year, in anticipation of unorthodox electoral results, we introduced the "Median Voter Theory."1 This theory in political science posits that policymakers are not price-makers but price takers in the political marketplace. The price maker is the median voter. Policymakers, of all stripes and colors, will attempt to approximate the policy demands of the median voter in order to win over as many voters as they can in the marketplace. Further, we argued that the median voter in the two most laissez-faire economies, the U.S. and the U.K., had moved to the left of the economic spectrum.2 The U.K. election confirms this argument. It also confirms our suspicion that the plebian revolts in these two bastions of free-market capitalism will not be extinguished merely by rallying the public around the flag and promoting nationalist themes of de-globalization.3 As such, the two trends we believe will emerge from this election, regardless of the ultimate political outcome, are: The Brexit process will continue, albeit toward a "softer" variety and with a somewhat higher probability of eventual reversal; Fiscal austerity is dead in Britain and investors should expect its economic policy - under whatever leadership ultimately gains power - to swing firmly to the left on fiscal, trade, and regulatory policy. Because of this mix of policy outcomes, we expect the GBP to suffer little in the post-election environment, though heading back towards its January lows versus the USD later this year. The market will have to price in much looser fiscal policy out of the U.K. over the course of the next government, with expectations that the BoE will continue to stand pat. This Election Was About Austerity And Globalization, Not Brexit It is absolutely crucial for investors to understand that the Labour Party did not, in any way whatsoever, focus its campaign on the results of the Brexit referendum. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's strategy was not only to accept Brexit as a done deal, but ostensibly even to accept the "hard Brexit" of keeping the U.K. out of the Common Market, which PM Theresa May announced in a major policy speech on January 17. The three policy positions of the Labour Party on Brexit during the campaign were: Gain "tariff-free access" to the EU single market, while accepting that Common Market membership was off the table; Keep the option of negotiating a customs union - which would prohibit the U.K. from negotiating its own trade deals - on the table; Refuse the mantra that "no deal" is better than a "bad deal." Overall, these points are not too far from Tory strategy, although they are devoid of nationalist rhetoric. More importantly, the key difference between the Labour and Tory approach to Brexit was that Labour was not trying to entice blue-collar voters, battered by the winds of globalization, with promises of free-trade agreements with India and China. If last year's Brexit voters did not want a free-trade tie-up with Europe, why on earth would they support a Tory vision of free trade deals with China and India?! Jeremy Corbyn's Labour has, in other words, a much better handle on what the Brexit referendum was all about. As we concluded in our net assessment ahead of the referendum in March of last year, the vote would ultimately be about globalization and its impact on the economic wellbeing of the median voter in the U.K. (Chart 1), not the angst over the EU's technocratic elites and bureaucratic overreach.4 Yes, the latter also mattered, but not to the blue-collar voters who crossed the aisle to support the Tory/UKIP vision on Brexit. For them, Brexit was a vote against elites that have profited from globalization. Election polls gave investors a hint that blue-collar Brexit voters would shift back to Labour. Tories began to see a drop in support almost immediately after they called the election on April 18 - i.e. before May's various mistakes (Chart 2). All the subsequent gaffes by May reinforced the trend, but the trend started on the first day of campaigning. This suggested that traditional Labour voters were turning back to their bread-and-butter economic demands immediately as the campaign began. Chart 1Brits Exposed To Harsher Change Chart 2Labour Rally Began When Election Called Corbyn, who has been underestimated by the media for over a year, was quick to press the gas pedal on left-wing economic issues, steering clear of Brexit. In fact, if one was unfamiliar with British politics, and only focused on the Labour campaign rhetoric, one would hardly know that a referendum on EU membership had even taken place. Corbyn's campaign was straight out of the Labour playbook of the 1980s. He gambled that the median voter had swung to the left. In particular, the Labour campaign pounced on three policy issues that isolated Tory tone-deafness on the unpopularity of austerity: "Dementia tax" - May's quip that the elderly would be means-tested by including the value of their homes in assessing government support for social care ultimately proved to be profoundly self-harming. At the moment when she made the gaffe, Tories were up 11% on Labour in the polls. "Triple Lock" - May hesitated and waffled over the triple lock pension system - which was introduced by the Conservative and Liberal Democratic coalition from 2010-15. It guaranteed that government pension payouts would rise annually at the highest rate of inflation, 2.5% per year, or wage growth. She did so even as inflationary pressures built up as a result of Brexit, which similarly fell flat with voters. This is unsurprising, given that it was the Euroskeptic Tories and UKIP plan to exit the EU that caused inflationary pressures in the economy in the first place. That they then asked low-income elderly to shoulder the costs of Brexit also illustrates a profound misunderstanding of what the Brexit referendum was about. Police funding - May thought that the Manchester and London Bridge terrorist attacks would swing the vote towards the center-right, security-conscious party. She went so far as to announce that human rights concerns would not stand in the way of Britain's fight against terrorism, doubling down on nationalist rhetoric.5 Corbyn stuck to the strategy of tying everything to austerity: he condemned the attacks but criticized the Tories for significant cuts to police forces under May's watch as Home Secretary, claiming that these imperiled law enforcement's ability to keep U.K. citizens safe. Following Brexit, May did try to shift policy to the left. For example, her October 2016 speech - her first major address as the U.K. Prime Minister - blamed "globalized elites" for the pain incurred by Britain's low and medium income households. However, Tories could not help to subsequently promise corporate tax cuts and budget-saving measures. And her gaffes during the election convinced voters - many of whom may have voted for Brexit - that Tories were stereotypical Tories; i.e., not concerned for the plight of the common man. All that said, the Conservative Party will still win around 57 seats more than the Labour Party. In any previous election, that would be considered a decent, if not commanding, result. What we want to stress to clients is that the Conservative Party in fact only won 22 more seats than the combined result of the most left-wing Labour Party in half a century and an extremely left-leaning Scottish National Party. When seen from that perspective, and when we consider the Tories' 22% lead in polls at the onset of the electoral campaign, the result on June 8 is an unmitigated disaster for the party and a wake-up call: the economic preferences of the U.K.'s median voter are as left wing as they have been since the mid-1920s. Bottom Line: The U.K. election was not contested solely on Brexit. As such, investors should not overthink the implications of the election on the Brexit process and hence the implications for the pound and U.K. assets. Labour gained around 29 more seats despite firmly accepting the Brexit referendum. This is not to say that the Labour Party, were it to cobble together a governing coalition with the SNP and others, would not be quick to reverse the Brexit process and call a second referendum if the economic costs of Brexit were to rise over the course of its mandate. That is a possible scenario. But the bigger picture is that Labour's opposition to austerity politics is what made all the difference in this election. Likely Government Formation Scenarios At the time of publication of this Client Note, May's comments and the distribution of seats favor a Tory minority government (or perhaps a formal coalition) supported by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland. As we discussed in our just-published Weekly Report, the Northern Irish have not exercised real power in Westminster in a century, literally.6 The party won ten seats, which makes for a majority with the Tories, and thus could provide just enough support to accomplish the single goal of a Tory-led Brexit. Tories and the DUP have already been in an informal coalition due to the Tories' attempts to increase their earlier majority of only 17 seats. Nonetheless, such a coalition will be controversial and will lead to uncertainties about parliament's ability to pass a final Brexit deal in 2019. Currently, such an arrangement would see a Tory government depend on the slimmest of majorities, around two seats over the 326 needed for a nominal majority. However, because the Irish nationalist Sinn Fein MPs (who gained seven seats this time around) normally do not sit in the parliament, and because the speaker and deputy speakers do not vote, Tory's would have some buffer. (And yet the extraordinary circumstances suggest that one should not rule out Sinn Fein taking up their seats!) How much political capital would a May-led government have? Extremely little. First of all, not only did the Tories squander an extraordinary lead in the polls, but their ultimate share of the total population's vote is merely 2.4% above Labour's haul (Chart 3). In fact, the only thing that saved the Tories from opposition is the U.K.'s first-past-the-post electoral system, which allowed them to win more seats merely by being the only right-of-center option for British voters. In addition, it is now clear that May failed to get all of the UKIP voters to swing to the center-right, establishment party. The UKIP vote declined by over 11% in the election, but the Tory net gain in percentage terms from the last election is only half that figure. This supports our view from above that many blue-collar voters, who voted for Brexit, swung back to the Labour party the minute the election was announced, reflecting deep distrust of the Tory Party on bread-and-butter, non-Brexit issues. A slim government majority made possible by a Euroskeptic Northern Irish Party will ensure that the Brexit process continues. Would Euroskeptic Tories have a bigger say in such a government, forcing May to swing further to the nationalist right and leading to acrimony with Europe? Normally we would say "yes." However, it was May's turn to the nationalist right at the expense of nurturing left-leaning economic policies that cost her a majority. As such, we doubt that she, or her potential replacement in the wake of the disastrous result, would double-down on more Euroskepticism. That would be a profound error following a clear signal from the electorate that nationalist rhetoric and Brexit chest-beating is insufficient to bolster the Conservative Party in the post-Brexit environment. As May herself said, Brexit means Brexit. The median voter appears to agree and now wants the government to move on by turning the U.K. away from austere economic policies. We suspect the Tories understand this now. As for a potential Labour coalition with the SNP and Liberal Democratic Party, the numbers do not add up at the moment. Nonetheless, if we combine all the left-of-center parties in the U.K., their share of total vote is 52%. As such, we expect the Tories, assuming they govern, to tilt to the left on the economic front. Bottom Line: Tories are likely to produce a government in some kind of coalition with Northern Irish DUP. We highly doubt that they will double down on Euroskepticism after that strategy proved so disastrous in the election. The U.K. voters have moved on from Brexit and are not interested in re-litigating the reasons for it. They are, however, interested in seeing a definitive end to austerity. Investment Implications Another reason this election is not a game changer on anything other than domestic economic policy is that the Scottish National Party sustained serious losses of 21 seats. Former banner-bearing member Alex Salmond even lost his seat. Voters are simply not interested in the constitutional struggles within the U.K. or the EU at this point. The key takeaway for investors is that fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Brexit was not only a vote about sovereignty and immigration, it was also a demand from the lower and middle classes for an end to second-class status. That is why May highlighted the need for government to moderate the forces of globalization and capitalism and make the economy "work for everyone" in her October 2016 speech at the Conservative Party conference and in her rhetoric since then. She lost sight of her own message and squandered her massive lead. The Tories had started to ease fiscal policy ahead of the election. In his first Autumn Statement, Chancellor Philip Hammond abandoned his predecessor George Osborne's promise to eliminate the budget deficit by 2019, pushing the timeline beyond 2022 (Chart 4). The latest budget projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the current government is projecting more spending than its predecessor (Chart 5). Thus monetary and fiscal conditions are both accommodative in the short and medium term. Given that we do not expect the European Union to exact crippling measures on the Brits for leaving, as we have outlined in previous reports, the result is a relatively benign environment for the U.K., at least until the business cycle turns, the effects of Brexit begin to bite, and/or global growth slows down. The combination of fiscal stimulus and easy monetary policy, however, should weigh on the pound regardless of the election outcome. We do not expect the GBP to retest its January 16, 2016 lows against the USD in the near term, but the large amount of uncertainty injected into the British political sphere will nonetheless result in a few more days of cable weakness that can be exploited by short-term traders. The competing crosswinds confusing investors in the immediacy of the election are as follow: Jeremy Corbyn's Labour is as left-wing as any major center-left party has become in the West. Yet it just won over 40% of the vote in the U.K.; Brexit remains the likely outcome of U.K.-EU negotiations, but the chances of a "super hard Brexit" or some sort of a "Brexit cliff" have been reduced as voters have repudiated May's hard right turn; The pound has already fallen on every gaffe and misstep by the Tories, suggesting that the current disappointing result, although not fully priced, was partly anticipated by the FX markets. In the long term, however, a reversal of austerity and a relatively dovish monetary policy from the BoE should be negative for the pound. While less austerity is a big plus for the economy, the inflationary momentum experienced in recent months should increase further and dampen the fiscal dividend as higher prices hurt real spending (Chart 6). This puts the BoE in a bind, in which it will be hard to move away from its super-accommodative stance even if inflation is becoming dangerous. Thanks to these dynamics, the leftward tilt for one of the previously most laissez-faire economies in the world could see the GBP ultimately retest its January 16 lows over the medium term as the recent surge in FDI could peter off, increasing the cost of financing the U.K.'s large current-account deficit. Moreover, BCA's House View calls for a higher dollar by year's end, another negative for cable. Yet a fall much below GBP/USD 1.2 is unlikely, given that uncertainty over Brexit negotiations with the EU were overstated to begin with and likely to be resolved towards a "softer Brexit" outcome over the life of the next government. Additionally, the pound is now cheap, and another pullback would result in a more than 1-sigma undervaluation relative to long-term fundamentals (Chart 7). Chart 6The BOE's Dilemma Chart 7The Pound Enjoys A Valuation Cushion Is there a message for the rest of the world from the U.K. election? Absolutely. It signals that the voters who did not benefit from globalization are singularly focused on economic issues and that distracting them with nationalism will only go so far. This is a message that the Trump administration in the U.S. will either heed over the next three years or ignore and suffer a left-wing backlash in the 2020 election that will unsettle the markets in a fundamental way.7 The bastions of laissez-faire economics - the U.K. and the U.S. - are swinging to the left. We continue to believe that investors are unprepared for the consequences of this reality. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The failure of May's tough rhetoric on terrorism to help her in the polls suggests, along with other evidence, that Europeans are becoming desensitized to terror attacks. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk?" dated June 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights The U.K. election was about austerity, not Brexit; The median voter in the U.K. and the U.S. has moved to the left; Nationalism will not satisfy the popular revolt in these countries; The pound is not likely to fall much below GBP/USD 1.2. Feature The political consequences of the extraordinary U.K. general election are still not clear. The coalition-building process will take time as the horse-trading between parties proceeds over the weekend. Our high-conviction view, however, is that the investment implications were in fact already self-evident and do not require foresight into the eventual make-up of the U.K. government. How can that be? Last year, in anticipation of unorthodox electoral results, we introduced the "Median Voter Theory."1 This theory in political science posits that policymakers are not price-makers but price takers in the political marketplace. The price maker is the median voter. Policymakers, of all stripes and colors, will attempt to approximate the policy demands of the median voter in order to win over as many voters as they can in the marketplace. Further, we argued that the median voter in the two most laissez-faire economies, the U.S. and the U.K., had moved to the left of the economic spectrum.2 The U.K. election confirms this argument. It also confirms our suspicion that the plebian revolts in these two bastions of free-market capitalism will not be extinguished merely by rallying the public around the flag and promoting nationalist themes of de-globalization.3 As such, the two trends we believe will emerge from this election, regardless of the ultimate political outcome, are: The Brexit process will continue, albeit toward a "softer" variety and with a somewhat higher probability of eventual reversal; Fiscal austerity is dead in Britain and investors should expect its economic policy - under whatever leadership ultimately gains power - to swing firmly to the left on fiscal, trade, and regulatory policy. Because of this mix of policy outcomes, we expect the GBP to suffer little in the post-election environment, though heading back towards its January lows versus the USD later this year. The market will have to price in much looser fiscal policy out of the U.K. over the course of the next government, with expectations that the BoE will continue to stand pat. This Election Was About Austerity And Globalization, Not Brexit It is absolutely crucial for investors to understand that the Labour Party did not, in any way whatsoever, focus its campaign on the results of the Brexit referendum. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's strategy was not only to accept Brexit as a done deal, but ostensibly even to accept the "hard Brexit" of keeping the U.K. out of the Common Market, which PM Theresa May announced in a major policy speech on January 17. The three policy positions of the Labour Party on Brexit during the campaign were: Gain "tariff-free access" to the EU single market, while accepting that Common Market membership was off the table; Keep the option of negotiating a customs union - which would prohibit the U.K. from negotiating its own trade deals - on the table; Refuse the mantra that "no deal" is better than a "bad deal." Overall, these points are not too far from Tory strategy, although they are devoid of nationalist rhetoric. More importantly, the key difference between the Labour and Tory approach to Brexit was that Labour was not trying to entice blue-collar voters, battered by the winds of globalization, with promises of free-trade agreements with India and China. If last year's Brexit voters did not want a free-trade tie-up with Europe, why on earth would they support a Tory vision of free trade deals with China and India?! Jeremy Corbyn's Labour has, in other words, a much better handle on what the Brexit referendum was all about. As we concluded in our net assessment ahead of the referendum in March of last year, the vote would ultimately be about globalization and its impact on the economic wellbeing of the median voter in the U.K. (Chart 1), not the angst over the EU's technocratic elites and bureaucratic overreach.4 Yes, the latter also mattered, but not to the blue-collar voters who crossed the aisle to support the Tory/UKIP vision on Brexit. For them, Brexit was a vote against elites that have profited from globalization. Election polls gave investors a hint that blue-collar Brexit voters would shift back to Labour. Tories began to see a drop in support almost immediately after they called the election on April 18 - i.e. before May's various mistakes (Chart 2). All the subsequent gaffes by May reinforced the trend, but the trend started on the first day of campaigning. This suggested that traditional Labour voters were turning back to their bread-and-butter economic demands immediately as the campaign began. Chart 1Brits Exposed To Harsher Change Chart 2Labour Rally Began When Election Called Corbyn, who has been underestimated by the media for over a year, was quick to press the gas pedal on left-wing economic issues, steering clear of Brexit. In fact, if one was unfamiliar with British politics, and only focused on the Labour campaign rhetoric, one would hardly know that a referendum on EU membership had even taken place. Corbyn's campaign was straight out of the Labour playbook of the 1980s. He gambled that the median voter had swung to the left. In particular, the Labour campaign pounced on three policy issues that isolated Tory tone-deafness on the unpopularity of austerity: "Dementia tax" - May's quip that the elderly would be means-tested by including the value of their homes in assessing government support for social care ultimately proved to be profoundly self-harming. At the moment when she made the gaffe, Tories were up 11% on Labour in the polls. "Triple Lock" - May hesitated and waffled over the triple lock pension system - which was introduced by the Conservative and Liberal Democratic coalition from 2010-15. It guaranteed that government pension payouts would rise annually at the highest rate of inflation, 2.5% per year, or wage growth. She did so even as inflationary pressures built up as a result of Brexit, which similarly fell flat with voters. This is unsurprising, given that it was the Euroskeptic Tories and UKIP plan to exit the EU that caused inflationary pressures in the economy in the first place. That they then asked low-income elderly to shoulder the costs of Brexit also illustrates a profound misunderstanding of what the Brexit referendum was about. Police funding - May thought that the Manchester and London Bridge terrorist attacks would swing the vote towards the center-right, security-conscious party. She went so far as to announce that human rights concerns would not stand in the way of Britain's fight against terrorism, doubling down on nationalist rhetoric.5 Corbyn stuck to the strategy of tying everything to austerity: he condemned the attacks but criticized the Tories for significant cuts to police forces under May's watch as Home Secretary, claiming that these imperiled law enforcement's ability to keep U.K. citizens safe. Following Brexit, May did try to shift policy to the left. For example, her October 2016 speech - her first major address as the U.K. Prime Minister - blamed "globalized elites" for the pain incurred by Britain's low and medium income households. However, Tories could not help to subsequently promise corporate tax cuts and budget-saving measures. And her gaffes during the election convinced voters - many of whom may have voted for Brexit - that Tories were stereotypical Tories; i.e., not concerned for the plight of the common man. All that said, the Conservative Party will still win around 57 seats more than the Labour Party. In any previous election, that would be considered a decent, if not commanding, result. What we want to stress to clients is that the Conservative Party in fact only won 22 more seats than the combined result of the most left-wing Labour Party in half a century and an extremely left-leaning Scottish National Party. When seen from that perspective, and when we consider the Tories' 22% lead in polls at the onset of the electoral campaign, the result on June 8 is an unmitigated disaster for the party and a wake-up call: the economic preferences of the U.K.'s median voter are as left wing as they have been since the mid-1920s. Bottom Line: The U.K. election was not contested solely on Brexit. As such, investors should not overthink the implications of the election on the Brexit process and hence the implications for the pound and U.K. assets. Labour gained around 29 more seats despite firmly accepting the Brexit referendum. This is not to say that the Labour Party, were it to cobble together a governing coalition with the SNP and others, would not be quick to reverse the Brexit process and call a second referendum if the economic costs of Brexit were to rise over the course of its mandate. That is a possible scenario. But the bigger picture is that Labour's opposition to austerity politics is what made all the difference in this election. Likely Government Formation Scenarios At the time of publication of this Client Note, May's comments and the distribution of seats favor a Tory minority government (or perhaps a formal coalition) supported by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland. As we discussed in our just-published Weekly Report, the Northern Irish have not exercised real power in Westminster in a century, literally.6 The party won ten seats, which makes for a majority with the Tories, and thus could provide just enough support to accomplish the single goal of a Tory-led Brexit. Tories and the DUP have already been in an informal coalition due to the Tories' attempts to increase their earlier majority of only 17 seats. Nonetheless, such a coalition will be controversial and will lead to uncertainties about parliament's ability to pass a final Brexit deal in 2019. Currently, such an arrangement would see a Tory government depend on the slimmest of majorities, around two seats over the 326 needed for a nominal majority. However, because the Irish nationalist Sinn Fein MPs (who gained seven seats this time around) normally do not sit in the parliament, and because the speaker and deputy speakers do not vote, Tory's would have some buffer. (And yet the extraordinary circumstances suggest that one should not rule out Sinn Fein taking up their seats!) How much political capital would a May-led government have? Extremely little. First of all, not only did the Tories squander an extraordinary lead in the polls, but their ultimate share of the total population's vote is merely 2.4% above Labour's haul (Chart 3). In fact, the only thing that saved the Tories from opposition is the U.K.'s first-past-the-post electoral system, which allowed them to win more seats merely by being the only right-of-center option for British voters. In addition, it is now clear that May failed to get all of the UKIP voters to swing to the center-right, establishment party. The UKIP vote declined by over 11% in the election, but the Tory net gain in percentage terms from the last election is only half that figure. This supports our view from above that many blue-collar voters, who voted for Brexit, swung back to the Labour party the minute the election was announced, reflecting deep distrust of the Tory Party on bread-and-butter, non-Brexit issues. A slim government majority made possible by a Euroskeptic Northern Irish Party will ensure that the Brexit process continues. Would Euroskeptic Tories have a bigger say in such a government, forcing May to swing further to the nationalist right and leading to acrimony with Europe? Normally we would say "yes." However, it was May's turn to the nationalist right at the expense of nurturing left-leaning economic policies that cost her a majority. As such, we doubt that she, or her potential replacement in the wake of the disastrous result, would double-down on more Euroskepticism. That would be a profound error following a clear signal from the electorate that nationalist rhetoric and Brexit chest-beating is insufficient to bolster the Conservative Party in the post-Brexit environment. As May herself said, Brexit means Brexit. The median voter appears to agree and now wants the government to move on by turning the U.K. away from austere economic policies. We suspect the Tories understand this now. As for a potential Labour coalition with the SNP and Liberal Democratic Party, the numbers do not add up at the moment. Nonetheless, if we combine all the left-of-center parties in the U.K., their share of total vote is 52%. As such, we expect the Tories, assuming they govern, to tilt to the left on the economic front. Bottom Line: Tories are likely to produce a government in some kind of coalition with Northern Irish DUP. We highly doubt that they will double down on Euroskepticism after that strategy proved so disastrous in the election. The U.K. voters have moved on from Brexit and are not interested in re-litigating the reasons for it. They are, however, interested in seeing a definitive end to austerity. Investment Implications Another reason this election is not a game changer on anything other than domestic economic policy is that the Scottish National Party sustained serious losses of 21 seats. Former banner-bearing member Alex Salmond even lost his seat. Voters are simply not interested in the constitutional struggles within the U.K. or the EU at this point. The key takeaway for investors is that fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Brexit was not only a vote about sovereignty and immigration, it was also a demand from the lower and middle classes for an end to second-class status. That is why May highlighted the need for government to moderate the forces of globalization and capitalism and make the economy "work for everyone" in her October 2016 speech at the Conservative Party conference and in her rhetoric since then. She lost sight of her own message and squandered her massive lead. The Tories had started to ease fiscal policy ahead of the election. In his first Autumn Statement, Chancellor Philip Hammond abandoned his predecessor George Osborne's promise to eliminate the budget deficit by 2019, pushing the timeline beyond 2022 (Chart 4). The latest budget projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the current government is projecting more spending than its predecessor (Chart 5). Thus monetary and fiscal conditions are both accommodative in the short and medium term. Given that we do not expect the European Union to exact crippling measures on the Brits for leaving, as we have outlined in previous reports, the result is a relatively benign environment for the U.K., at least until the business cycle turns, the effects of Brexit begin to bite, and/or global growth slows down. The combination of fiscal stimulus and easy monetary policy, however, should weigh on the pound regardless of the election outcome. We do not expect the GBP to retest its January 16, 2016 lows against the USD in the near term, but the large amount of uncertainty injected into the British political sphere will nonetheless result in a few more days of cable weakness that can be exploited by short-term traders. The competing crosswinds confusing investors in the immediacy of the election are as follow: Jeremy Corbyn's Labour is as left-wing as any major center-left party has become in the West. Yet it just won over 40% of the vote in the U.K.; Brexit remains the likely outcome of U.K.-EU negotiations, but the chances of a "super hard Brexit" or some sort of a "Brexit cliff" have been reduced as voters have repudiated May's hard right turn; The pound has already fallen on every gaffe and misstep by the Tories, suggesting that the current disappointing result, although not fully priced, was partly anticipated by the FX markets. In the long term, however, a reversal of austerity and a relatively dovish monetary policy from the BoE should be negative for the pound. While less austerity is a big plus for the economy, the inflationary momentum experienced in recent months should increase further and dampen the fiscal dividend as higher prices hurt real spending (Chart 6). This puts the BoE in a bind, in which it will be hard to move away from its super-accommodative stance even if inflation is becoming dangerous. Thanks to these dynamics, the leftward tilt for one of the previously most laissez-faire economies in the world could see the GBP ultimately retest its January 16 lows over the medium term as the recent surge in FDI could peter off, increasing the cost of financing the U.K.'s large current-account deficit. Moreover, BCA's House View calls for a higher dollar by year's end, another negative for cable. Yet a fall much below GBP/USD 1.2 is unlikely, given that uncertainty over Brexit negotiations with the EU were overstated to begin with and likely to be resolved towards a "softer Brexit" outcome over the life of the next government. Additionally, the pound is now cheap, and another pullback would result in a more than 1-sigma undervaluation relative to long-term fundamentals (Chart 7). Chart 6The BOE's Dilemma Chart 7The Pound Enjoys A Valuation Cushion Is there a message for the rest of the world from the U.K. election? Absolutely. It signals that the voters who did not benefit from globalization are singularly focused on economic issues and that distracting them with nationalism will only go so far. This is a message that the Trump administration in the U.S. will either heed over the next three years or ignore and suffer a left-wing backlash in the 2020 election that will unsettle the markets in a fundamental way.7 The bastions of laissez-faire economics - the U.K. and the U.S. - are swinging to the left. We continue to believe that investors are unprepared for the consequences of this reality. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The failure of May's tough rhetoric on terrorism to help her in the polls suggests, along with other evidence, that Europeans are becoming desensitized to terror attacks. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk?" dated June 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.