Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys

Highlights Major central banks outside the U.S. have fired a warning shot across the bow of global bond markets by signaling that "emergency" levels of monetary accommodation are no longer required. Pipeline inflation pressures have yet to show up at the consumer price level outside of the U.K. Most central bankers argue that temporary factors are to blame, but longer-lasting forces could be at work. There are numerous examples of deflationary pressure driven by waves of innovation, cost cutting and changing business models. However, this is not confirmed in the productivity data. Productivity is dismally low and we do not believe it is due to mismeasurement. The Phillips curve is not dead. We expect that inflation will firm by enough to allow central banks to continue scaling back monetary stimulus. The real fed funds rate is not far from the neutral short-term rate, but it is still well below the Fed's estimate of the long-run neutral rate. Market expectations for the Fed are far too complacent; keep duration short. The failure to repeal Obamacare could actually increase the motivation of Republicans to move forward on tax cuts. Expansionary fiscal policy would make life more difficult for the FOMC, given that unemployment is on course to reach the lowest level since 2000. This would force the Fed to act more aggressively, possibly triggering a recession in 2019. The peak Fed/ECB policy divergence is not behind us, implying that recent dollar weakness will reverse. However, the next dollar upleg has been delayed. Fading market hopes for U.S. fiscal stimulus this year have not weighed on equities, in part because of a solid earnings backdrop. Global EPS growth continues to accelerate in line with the recovery in industrial production. In the U.S., results so far suggest that Q2 will see another quarter of margin expansion. Overall earnings growth should peak above our 20% target later this year. It will be tougher sledding in the equity market once profit growth peaks in the U.S. because of poor valuation. Expect to downgrade stocks in the first half of 2018. Corporate bonds are also benefiting from the robust profit backdrop. Balance sheet health continues to deteriorate, but the spark is missing for a sustained corporate bond spread widening. Feature Chart I-1Sell-Off In Global Bond Markets ##br##Triggered By Central Bank Talk Sell-Off In Global Bond Markets Triggered By Central Bank Talk Sell-Off In Global Bond Markets Triggered By Central Bank Talk Major central banks outside the U.S. fired a warning shot across the bow of global bond markets by signaling a recalibration of monetary policy at the ECB's Forum on Central Banking in late June (Chart I-1). The heads of the Bank of England (BoE), Bank of Canada (BoC) and Swedish Riksbank all took a less dovish tone, warning that the diminished threat of deflation has reduced the need for ultra-stimulative policies. The BoC quickly followed up in July with a rate hike and a warning of more to come. The central bank now expects the economy to reach full employment and hit the inflation target by mid-2018, much earlier than previously expected. The Riksbank also backed away from its easing bias at its most recent policy meeting. The ECB's shift in stance was evident even before its Forum meeting, when President Draghi gave a glowing description of the underlying strength of the Euro Area economy. The labor market is about two percentage points closer to full employment than the U.S. was just before the infamous 2013 Taper Tantrum.1 European core inflation is admittedly below target today, but so was the U.S. rate leading up to the 2013 Tantrum. We have not forgotten about Europe's structural problems or the inherent contradictions of the single currency. Banks are still laden with bad debt (although the recapitalization of Italian banks has gone well so far). Nonetheless, from a cyclical economic standpoint, solid momentum this year will allow Draghi to scale back the ECB's ultra-accommodative monetary stance by tapering its asset purchase program early in 2018. The message that "emergency" levels of monetary accommodation are no longer needed is confirmed by our Central Bank (CB) Monitors, which measure pressure on central bankers to raise or lower interest rates (Chart I-2). The Monitors became less useful when rates hit the zero bound and quantitative easing was the only game in town, but they are becoming relevant again as more policymakers consider their exit strategy. All of our CB Monitors are currently in "tighter policy required" territory except for Japan and the Eurozone (although even those are close to the zero line). The Monitors have been rising due to both their growth and underlying inflation components. Another tick higher in PMI's for the advanced economies in July underscored that the rebound in industrial production is continuing (Chart I-3). Our short-term forecasting models, which include both hard and soft data, point to stronger growth in the major countries in the second half of 2017 (Chart I-4). Chart I-2Most In The "Tighter Policy Required" Zone Most In The "Tighter Policy Required" Zone Most In The "Tighter Policy Required" Zone Chart I-3Industrial Production Recovery Is Intact Industrial Production Recovery Is Intact Industrial Production Recovery Is Intact On the inflation side, our pipeline indicators have all signaled a modest building of underlying inflation pressure over the past year (although they have softened recently in the U.S. and Eurozone; Chart I-5). In terms of the components of these indicators, rising core producer price inflation has been partly offset by slower gains in unit labor costs in some economies. Chart I-4Our Short-Term Growth Models Are Bullish Our Short-Term Growth Models Are Bullish Our Short-Term Growth Models Are Bullish Chart I-5Some Rise In Pipeline Inflation Pressure Some Rise In Pipeline Inflation Pressure Some Rise In Pipeline Inflation Pressure These pipeline pressures have yet to show up at the consumer level. Most central bankers argue that temporary special factors are to blame, but many investors are wondering if longer-lasting forces are at work. There are numerous examples of deflationary pressure driven by waves of innovation, cost cutting and changing business models. Amazon, Uber, robotics and shale oil production are just a few examples. If this is the main story, then the inability for central banks to reach their inflation targets is a "good thing" because it reflects the adaptation of game-changing new technology. There is no doubt that important strides are being made in certain areas where new technologies are clearly driving prices down. The problem is that, at the macro level, it is not showing up in the productivity data. Productivity is dismally low across the major countries and we do not believe it is simply due to mismeasurement. A Special Report from BCA's Global Investment Strategy2 service makes a convincing case that mismeasurement is not behind the low productivity figures. In fact, it appears that productivity is over-estimated in some industries. It is also important to keep in mind that technological change is nothing new. There is a vigorous debate in academic circles on whether today's new technologies are anywhere near as positive as previous ones like indoor plumbing, electricity, the internal combustion engine and the internet. We are wowed by today's new gizmos, but they are not as transformative as previous innovations. While productivity is surging in some high-profile firms, studies show that there is a long tail of low-productivity companies that drag down the average. A full discussion is beyond the scope of this report and more research needs to be done, but we are not of the view that technology and productivity preclude rising inflation. We expect that inflation will firm by enough to allow central banks to continue scaling back monetary stimulus in the coming months and quarters. Did Yellen Turn Dovish? As with other central banks, the consensus among Fed policymakers is willing to "look through" low inflation for now. Yellen's Congressional testimony did not deviate from that view, although investors interpreted her remarks as dovish. The financial press focused on her statement that "...the policy rate is not far from neutral." However, this was followed up by the statement that "...because we also anticipate that the factors that are currently holding down the neutral rate will diminish somewhat over time, additional gradual rate hikes are likely to be appropriate over the next few years to sustain the economic expansion and return inflation to our 2 percent goal." Chart I-6Bond Market Does Not Believe The Fed Bond Market Does Not Believe The Fed Bond Market Does Not Believe The Fed The Fed believes there are two neutral interest rates: short-term and long-term. Yellen argued that the actual policy rate is currently close to the short-term neutral level, which is depressed by economic headwinds. However, Yellen and others have made the case that the short-term neutral rate is trending up as headwinds diminish, and will converge with the long-term neutral rate over time. The Fed's Summary of Economic Projections reveals what the FOMC thinks is the neutral long-term real fed funds rate; the median forecast calls for a nominal fed funds rate of 2.9% at the end of 2019 and 3% in the longer run. Incorporating a 2% inflation target, we can infer that the Fed anticipates a real neutral rate of 1% in the longer run. The Fed is likely tracking the real neutral fed funds rate using an estimate created by Laubach and Williams (LW).3 Chart I-6 shows this estimate of the neutral rate, called R-star, alongside the real federal funds rate that is calculated using 12-month trailing core PCE. The resulting real fed funds rate has risen sharply during the past seven months due to both three Fed rate hikes and a decline in inflation. If the Fed lifts rates once more this year and core inflation stays put, then the real fed funds rate would end 2017 close to zero, only 42 bps below neutral. However, it's more likely that the Fed will need to see inflation rebound before it delivers another rate hike. In a scenario where core inflation rises to 1.9% and the Fed lifts rates once more, then the real fed funds rate would actually decline between now and the end of the year. The implication is that the real fed funds rate is not far from R-star, but the nominal rate will have to rise a long way before the real rate reaches the Fed's estimate of the long-term neutral rate. Investors simply don't believe Fed policymakers. According to the bond market, the real fed funds rate will not shift into positive territory until 2021 (see real forward OIS line in Chart I-6). We think this is far too complacent. U.S. Health Care Reform: RIP The speed at which short-term rates converge with the long-run neutral rate will depend importantly on the path of fiscal policy. The Republicans' failure to pass their health care legislation is leading the investors to doubt the prospect for (stimulative) tax cuts. This may be premature. Ironically, the failure to jettison Obamacare may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for President Trump and the Republican Party. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the proposed legislation would have caused 22 million fewer Americans to have health insurance in 2026 compared with the status quo. The Senate bill would have also led to substantial cuts to Medicaid relative to existing law, as well as deep cuts to insurance subsidies for many poor and middle-class families. Many of these voters came out in support of Trump last year. The failure to repeal Obamacare could actually increase the motivation of Republicans to move forward on tax cuts anyway. The chances for broad tax reform have certainly diminished, since that will be just as difficult to get passed as healthcare reform. The GOP also wanted to use the roughly $200 billion in savings from healthcare reform to fund reduced tax rates. However, tax cuts are something that all Republicans can easily agree too, and they will need to show a legislative victory ahead of next year's mid-term elections. The difficulty will be how to pay for these cuts. We expect them to be "fully funded" in the sense that there will be offsetting spending cuts, but these will be back-loaded toward the end of the 10-year budget window, whereas the tax cuts will be front-loaded. This would generate a modest amount of fiscal stimulus over the next few years. Sub-4% U.S. Unemployment Rate Followed By Recession? Chart I-7Inside The Fed's Forecasts Inside The Fed's Forecasts Inside The Fed's Forecasts Expansionary fiscal policy would make life more difficult for the FOMC, which may have already fallen behind the curve. The unemployment rate is below the Fed's estimate of the full employment level, and it will continue to erode unless productivity picks up soon. We backed out the productivity growth rate implied by the Fed's latest Summary of Economic Projections, given its assumption that real GDP growth will be roughly 2% over the next couple of years and that the unemployment rate will stabilize near the current level. This combination implies that productivity growth will accelerate from the average rate observed so far in this expansion (0.7%) to about 1%, which is consistent with monthly payrolls of 135,000 assuming real GDP growth of 2% (Chart I-7). If we instead assume that productivity does not accelerate (and real GDP growth is 2%), then payrolls must jump to 160,000 and the unemployment rate would fall below 4% next year. The implication is that the unemployment rate is likely to soon reach levels not seen since 2000, which would force the FOMC to tighten more aggressively. The Fed would hope for a soft landing as it tries to nudge the unemployment rate higher, but the more likely result is a recession in 2019. For this year, we expect the Fed to begin balance sheet runoff in the autumn, followed by a rate hike in December. The latter hinges importantly on at least a modest rise in core PCE inflation in the coming months. A rebound in oil prices would help the Fed reach its inflation goal, even though energy prices affect the headline by more than the core rate. Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih indicated at a recent press conference in St. Petersburg that no changes are presently needed to the production deal under which OPEC and non-OPEC producers pledged to remove 1.8mn b/d from the market. The Saudi energy minister's remarks leave open the possibility of deeper cuts later this year if global inventories do not draw fast enough, or for the cuts to be extended beyond March 2018 if officials are not satisfied with progress on the storage front. We still believe they are capable of meeting this goal, despite rising shale production. Chart I-8Forecast Of Oil Inventories Forecast Of Oil Inventories Forecast Of Oil Inventories Our commodity strategists expect OECD oil inventories to reach their five-year average level by year-end or early 2018 Q1 (Chart I-8). In the absence of additional cuts, the five-year average level of OECD inventories will be higher than we estimated earlier this year, indicating that our expectation for the overall inventory drawdown later this year has been trimmed. Still, our oil strategists believe the inventory drawdowns will be sufficient to push WTI above the mid-$50s by year-end. If this forecast pans out, rising oil prices will push up headline inflation and inflation expectations in the major advanced economies. The bottom line is that the backdrop has turned bond-bearish now that central bankers in the advanced economies are in the process of scaling back the easier monetary policy that followed the deflationary 2014/15 oil shock. Duration should be kept short within global fixed income portfolios. In terms of country allocation, our global fixed income strategists have downgraded the Eurozone government bond market to underweight, joining the Treasury allocation, in light of the pending ECB tapering announcement that could place more upward pressure on yields. This was offset by upgrading Japan to maximum overweight. Max Policy Divergence Has Not Been Reached Chart I-9Europe Has A Lower Neutral Rate Europe Has A Lower Neutral Rate Europe Has A Lower Neutral Rate The change in tone by central bankers outside the U.S. has weighted heavily on the U.S. dollar. The Canadian dollar and the Euro have been particularly strong. Investors have apparently decided that the peak Fed/ECB policy divergence is now behind us. We do not agree. The ECB may be tapering, but rate hikes are a long way off because there remains a substantial amount of economic slack in the Eurozone. Laubach and Williams estimate R-star in the Eurozone to be close to zero, which is 50 basis points below the U.S. neutral rate (Chart I-9). The difference is related to slower potential growth and greater unemployment. Labor market slack across the euro area as a whole is still 3.2 percentage points higher than in 2008, and 6.7 points higher outside of Germany. The current real short-term rate is about -1%. We expect U.S. R-star to rise in absolute terms and relative to the neutral rate in the Eurozone because the U.S. is further advanced in the economic expansion. As Fed rate hike expectations ratchet up in the coming months, interest rate differentials versus Europe will widen in favor of the dollar. It is the same story for the dollar/yen rate because the Bank of Japan is a long way from raising or abandoning its 10-year bond yield peg. Japanese core inflation has fallen back to zero and medium-to-long-term inflation expectations have dipped so far this year. The annual shunto wage negotiations this summer produced little in the way of salary hikes. The major exception to our "strong dollar" call is the Canadian loonie, which we expect to appreciate versus the greenback. We also like the Aussie dollar, provided that the Chinese economy continues to hold up as we expect. Stocks Get A Free Pass For Now Chart I-10Global EPS And Industrial Production Global EPS And Industrial Production Global EPS And Industrial Production Fading market hopes for U.S. fiscal stimulus have weighed on both U.S. Treasury yields and the dollar, but the equity market has taken the news in stride. Are equity investors simply in denial? We do not think so. The equity market appears to have been given a "free pass" for now because earnings have been supportive. The combination of robust earnings growth, steady real GDP growth of around 2%, and low bond yields has been bullish for stocks so far in this expansion. At the global level, EPS growth continues to accelerate in line with the recovery in industrial production, which is a good proxy for top line growth (Chart I-10). Orders and production for capital goods in the major advanced economies have been particularly strong in recent months. The global operating margin flattened off last month according to IBES data, although margins continued to firm in the U.S. and Europe (Chart I-11). The profit acceleration is widespread across these three economies in the Basic Materials and Consumer Discretionary sectors. Industrials, Energy, Health Care and Consumer Staples are also performing well in most cases. Telecom is the weak spot. Our sector profit diffusion indexes paint an upbeat picture for the near term (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Operating Margins On The Rise Operating Margins On The Rise Operating Margins On The Rise Chart I-12Earnings Diffusion Indexes Are Bullish Earnings Diffusion Indexes Are Bullish Earnings Diffusion Indexes Are Bullish In the U.S., the second quarter earnings season is off to a good start. Results so far suggest that Q2 will see another quarter of margin expansion. We believe that U.S. margins are in a secular decline, but they are in the midst of a counter-trend rally that will last for the rest of this year. Using blended results for the second quarter, trailing S&P 500 EPS growth hit 18½% on a 4-quarter moving total basis (Chart I-13). The acceleration in earnings is impressive even after excluding the Energy sector. We projected early this year that EPS growth would peak at around 20%4 by year end, but it appears that earnings will overshoot that level. Chart I-13Robust EPS Growth Even Without Energy Robust EPS Growth Even Without Energy Robust EPS Growth Even Without Energy It will be tougher sledding in the equity market once profit growth peaks in the U.S. because of poor valuation. We are expecting to scale back our overweight equity recommendation sometime in the first half of 2018, although the global rally could be extended by constructive earnings data in Europe and Japan. The earnings recovery in both economies is behind the U.S., such that peak growth will come later in 2018. There is also more room for margins to expand in Europe than in the U.S. The relative earnings cycle is one of the reasons why we continue to favor Eurozone and Japanese stocks to the U.S. in local currency terms. Japanese stocks are also cheap to the U.S. based on our top-down valuation indicator (Chart I-14). European stocks are not far from fair value relative to the U.S., after adjusting for the fact that Europe trades structurally on the cheap side. The message from our top-down valuation indicator for European stocks is confirmed when using the bottom-up information contained in the new BCA Equity Trading Strategy platform. The Special Report beginning on page 20 describes a bottom-up valuation measure that we will use in conjunction with our top-down (index-based) measures. Corporate Bonds: Kindling And Sparks Healthy EPS growth momentum is also constructive for corporate bonds, although overall balance sheet health continues to erode in the U.S. The release of the U.S. Flow of Funds data allows us to update BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for the first quarter (Chart I-15). The level of the CHM moved slightly deeper into "deteriorating health territory." Chart I-14Top-Down Relative Equity Valuation Top-Down Relative Equity Valuation Top-Down Relative Equity Valuation Chart I-15Deteriorating Since 2015, But... Deteriorating Since 2015, But... Deteriorating Since 2015, But... The Monitor has been a reliable indicator for the trend in corporate bond spreads over the years, calling almost all major turning points in advance. 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. It also 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 ramp up, buttressing banks' bias to curtail lending in a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. The three items on the checklist normally 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. It will be some time before U.S. short-term interest rates reach 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. 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 I-16 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, eased in the fourth quarter 2016 and the first quarter of 2017 (Chart I-17). Ratings migration has also improved (i.e. moderating net downgrades), especially for shareholder-friendly rating action, which is a better indicator for corporate spreads. The diminished 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 I-16Still Some Value In ##br##High-Yield Corporates Still Some Value In High-Yield Corporates Still Some Value In High-Yield Corporates Chart I-17Net Transfers To Shareholders ##br##Eased In Past Two Quarters Net Transfers To Shareholders Eased In Past Two Quarters Net Transfers To Shareholders Eased In Past Two Quarters Within balanced portfolios, we recommend favoring equities to high-yield at this stage of the cycle. 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. Investment Conclusions A key change in the global financial landscape over the past month is a signal from central banks that they see the need for policy recalibration. Policymakers view sub-target inflation as temporary, and some are concerned that low interest rates could contribute to the formation of financial market bubbles. The bond market remains skeptical, given persistent inflation undershoots and growing anecdotal evidence that new technologies are very deflationary. It would be extremely bullish for stocks if these new technologies were indeed boosting the supply side of the economy at a faster pace than the official data suggest. Robust advances in output-per-worker would allow profits to grow quickly, and would provide the economy more breathing space before hitting inflationary capacity limits (keeping the bond vigilantes at bay). We acknowledge that there are important technological breakthroughs being made, but we do not see any evidence that this is occurring on a widespread basis sufficient to "move the dial" in terms of overall productivity growth. Indeed, the stagnation of middle class personal income is consistent with a poor productivity backdrop. Chart I-18 highlights that "creative destruction" is in a long-term bear market. Chart I-18Less Creative Destruction Less Creative Destruction Less Creative Destruction That said, the equity market is benefiting from the mini-cycle in corporate profits, which are still recovering from the earnings recession in 2015/early 2016. We expect the recovery to be complete by early 2018, which will set the stage for a substantial slowdown in EPS growth next year. It won't be a disaster, absent a recession, but demanding valuations suggest that the market could struggle to make headway through next year. We expect to trim exposure sometime in the first half of 2018. To time the exit, we will watch for a roll-over in the growth rate of S&P 500 EPS on a 4-quarter moving total basis. Investors should look for a peak in industrial production growth as a warnings sign for profits. We are also watching for a contraction in excess money, which we define as M2 divided by nominal GDP. Finally, a rise in core PCE inflation to 2% would be a signal that the Fed is about to ramp up interest rates. For now, remain overweight equities relative to bonds and cash. Favor equities to high yield, but within fixed-income portfolios, overweight investment- and speculative-grade corporates versus Treasurys. We are comfortable with our pro-risk recommendations and our below-benchmark duration stance. Unfortunately, that can't be said of our bullish U.S. dollar and oil price house views. Both are controversial calls among our strategists. As for oil, supply and demand are finely balanced and our positive view hinges importantly on OPEC agreeing to more production cuts. The obvious risk is that these cuts do not materialize. The dollar call has gone against us as the latest signs of improving global growth momentum have admittedly been outside the U.S. Meanwhile, the U.S. is stuck in a political morass, which delays the prospect of fiscal stimulus. This is not to say that U.S. growth will slow. Rather, the growth acceleration may fall short of the high expectations following last November's election. We continue to believe that the market is too complacent on the pace of Fed rate hikes in the coming quarters. An upward adjustment in rate expectations should push the dollar higher on a trade-weighted basis, as outlined above. Nonetheless, this shift will require higher U.S. inflation, the timing of which is highly uncertain. We remain dollar bulls on a 12-month horizon, but we are stepping aside and calling for a trading range in the next three months. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst July 27, 2017 Next Report: August 31, 2017 1 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Central Banks Are Now Playing Catch-Up," dated July 4, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Kathryn Holston, Thomas Laubach, and John C. Williams "Measuring The Natural Rates Of Interest: International Trends And Determinants," Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Working Paper 2016-11 (December 2016). 4 Calculated as a year-over-year growth rate of a 4-quarter moving total of S&P data. II. The BCA ETS Trading Platform Approach To Valuing Eurozone Stocks The performance of European stocks relative to the U.S. has been dismal in the post-Lehman period. However, the Eurozone economy is performing impressively, profit growth is accelerating and margins are rising. This points to a period of outperformance for Eurozone stocks, at least in local currency terms. Standard valuation measures based on index data suggest that Eurozone stocks are cheap to the U.S. Nonetheless, the European market almost always trades at a discount, due to persistent lackluster profit performance. In Part II of our series on valuation, we approach the issue from a bottom-up perspective, utilizing the powerful analytics provided by BCA's exciting new Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform. The ETS software allows us to compare U.S. and European companies on a head-to-head basis and rank them based on a wide range of characteristics. The bottom-up approach avoids the problems of index construction. Investors can be confident that they will make money on a 12-month horizon by taking a position when the new bottom-up indicator reaches +/-1 standard deviations over- or under-valued, although technical information should be taken on board to sharpen the timing. The +/-2 sigma level gives clear buy/sell signals irrespective of fundamental or technical factors. Valuation alone does not justify overweight Eurozone positions at the moment, although we like the market for other reasons. The bottom-up valuation indicator will not replace our top-down version that is based on index data, but rather will be considered together when evaluating relative value. Total returns in the European equity market have bounced relative to the U.S. since 2016 in both local-currency and common currency terms (Chart II-1). However, this has offset only a tiny fraction of the dismal underperformance since 2007. In local currencies, the relative EMU/U.S. total return index is still close to its lowest level since the late 1970s. Compared with the pre-Lehman peak, the U.S. total return index is more than 96% higher according to Datastream data, while the Eurozone total return index is only now getting back to the previous high-water mark when expressed in U.S. dollars (Chart II-2). Chart II-1EMU Stocks Lag Massively... EMU Stocks Lag Massively... EMU Stocks Lag Massively... Chart II-2...Due To Depressed Earnings ...Due To Depressed Earnings ...Due To Depressed Earnings The yawning return gap between the two equity markets was almost entirely due to earnings as market multiples have moved largely in sync. Earnings-per-share (EPS) generated by U.S. companies now exceed the pre-Lehman peak by about 19%. In contrast, earnings produced by their Eurozone peers are a whopping 48% below their peak (common currency). This reflects both a slower recovery in sales-per-share growth and lower profit margins. Operating margins in Europe have been on the upswing for a year, but are still depressed by pre-Lehman standards. Margin outperformance in the U.S. is not a sector weighting story; in only 2 of 10 sectors do European operating margins exceed the U.S. The return-on-equity data tell a similar story. Nonetheless, a turning point may be at hand. Chart II-3Europe Trades At A Discount Europe Trades At A Discount Europe Trades At A Discount The Eurozone economy has been performing well, especially on a per-capita basis, and forward-looking indicators suggest that growth will remain above-trend for at least the next few quarters. U.S. profit margins have also been (temporarily) rising, but the Eurozone economy has more room to grow because there is still slack in the labor market. There is also more room for margins to rise in the Eurozone corporate sector than is the case in the U.S., where the profit cycle is further advanced. Traditional measures of value based on the MSCI indexes suggest that European stocks are on the cheap side. But are they really that cheap? Based on index data, Eurozone stocks trade at a hefty discount across most of the main valuation measures (Chart II-3). This is the case even for normalized measures such as price-to-book (P/B). However, Eurozone stocks have almost always traded at a discount. There are many possible explanations as to why there is a persistent valuation gap between these two markets, including differences in accounting standards, discount rates and sector weights. The wider use of stock buybacks in the U.S. also favors American stock valuations relative to Europe. But most important are historical differences in underlying corporate fundamentals. U.S. companies on the whole were significantly more profitable even before the Great Financial Crisis (Chart II-3). U.S. companies also tend to have lower leverage and higher interest coverage. Better profitability metrics in the U.S. are not solely an artifact of sector weighting either. RoE and operating margins are lower in Europe even applying U.S. sector weights to the European market.1 Why corporate Europe has been a perennial profit under-achiever is beyond the scope of this paper. U.S. companies reaped most of the benefit from productivity gains over the past 25 years, with the result that the capital share of income soared while the labor share collapsed. European companies were less successful in squeezing down labor costs. Measuring Value In the first part of our two-part Special Report on valuation, published in July 2016, we took a top-down approach to determine whether Eurozone stocks are cheap versus the U.S. after adjusting for different sector weights and persistent differences in the underlying profit fundamentals. A regression approach that factored in various profitability measures performed reasonably well, but the top-down "mechanical" approach that relied on a 5-year moving average provided the most profitable buy/sell signals historically. We approach the issue from a bottom-up perspective in Part II of our series, utilizing the powerful analytics provided by BCA's exciting new Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform. The software allows us to compare U.S. and European companies on a head-to-head basis and rank them based on a wide range of characteristics. The bottom-up approach avoids the problems of index construction when trying to gauge valuation across countries. The web-based platform uses over 24 quantitative factors to rank approximately 10,000 individual stocks in 23 countries, allowing clients to find stocks with winning characteristics at the global level. Users can rank and score individual equities to support a broad set of investment strategies and apply macro and sector views to single-name investments. The ETS approach has an impressive track record. Historically, the top-decile of stocks ranked using the "BCA Score" methodology have outperformed stocks in the bottom decile by over 25% a year.2 The BCA Score includes all 24 factors when ranking stocks, but we are interested in developing a valuation metric that provides valued added on its own and is at least as good as the top-down index-based measure developed in Part I. The five valuation measures in the ETS database are trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-book, price-to-sales and price-to-cash flow. We combine all of the Eurozone and U.S. companies that have total assets of greater than $1 billion into one dataset. The ETS platform then ranks the stocks from best to worst on a daily basis (i.e. cheapest to most expensive), using an equally-weighted average of the five valuation measures. The average score for U.S. stocks is subtracted from the average score for European stocks, and then divided by the standard deviation of the series. This provides a valuation metric that fluctuates roughly between +/- 2 standard deviations. Chart II-4 presents the resulting bottom-up indicator, along with our previously-published top-down valuation measure. A high reading indicates that European stocks are cheap to the U.S., while it is the opposite for low readings. Chart II-4Eurozone Equity Relative Valuation Indicators Eurozone Equity Relative Valuation Indicators Eurozone Equity Relative Valuation Indicators The underlying bottom-up data extend back to 2000. However, the bursting of the tech bubble in the early 2000's causes major shifts in relative valuation among sectors and between the U.S. and Eurozone that skew the indicator when constructed using the entire data set. We obtain a cleaner indicator when using only the data from 2005. As with any valuation indicator, it is only useful when it reaches extremes. We calculated the historical track record for a trading rule that is based on critical levels of over- and under-valuation. For example, we calculated the (local currency) excess returns over 3, 6, 12 and 24-month horizon generated by (1) overweighting European stocks when that market was one and two standard deviations cheap versus the U.S. market, and (2) overweighting the U.S. when the European market was one and two standard deviations expensive (Table II-1). Table II-1Value Indicator: Trading Rule Returns And Batting Average August 2017 August 2017 The trading rule returns were best when the indicator reached two standard deviations cheap or expensive, providing average returns of almost 11 percent over 12 months. The trading rule returns when the indicator reached +/-1 standard deviation were not as good, but still more than 3% on 12- and 24-month horizons. Table II-1 also presents the trading rule's batting average. That is, the number of positive excess returns generated by the trading rule as a percent of the total number of signals. The batting average ranged from 50% on a 3-month horizon to 68% over 24 months when buy/sell signals are triggered at +/- 1 standard deviation. The batting average is much higher (80-100%) using +/- 2 standard deviations as a trigger point, although there were only five months over the entire sample when the indicator reached this level. The charts and tables in the Appendix present the results of the same analysis at the sector level. The results are equally as good as the aggregate valuation indicator, with a couple of exceptions. European stocks are cheap to the U.S. in the Energy, Financials, and Utilities sectors, while U.S. stocks offer better value in Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples, Health Care, Industrials and Technology. Materials, Real Estate, and Telecommunications are close to equally valued. Sharpening The Buy/Sell Signals We then augmented the valuation analysis by adding information on company fundamentals, such as EPS growth and profit margins among others. The ETS software ranked the companies after equally-weighting the valuation and fundamental factors. However, this approach yielded poor results in terms of the trading rule. This is because, for example, when European stocks reach undervalued levels relative to the U.S., it is usually because the European earnings fundamentals have underperformed those of the U.S. companies. Thus, favorable value is offset by poor fundamentals, muddying the message provided by valuation alone. In contrast, adding some information from the technical factors in the ETS model does add value, at least when using +/-1 standard deviations as the trigger point for trades (Chart II-5). Excess returns to the trading rule rise significantly when the medium-term momentum and long-term mean reversion factors are included in the valuation indicator (Table II-2). The batting average also improves. Chart II-5Indicators: Value And Value With Technical Information Indicators: Value And Value With Technical Information Indicators: Value And Value With Technical Information Table II-2Value And Technical Indicator: Trading Rule Returns And Batting Average August 2017 August 2017 Adding technical information does not improve the trading rule performance when +/-2 sigma is used as the trigger point. Investment Conclusions Our new ETS platform provides investors with a unique way of picking stocks by combining top-down macro themes with company-specific information. It also allows us to develop valuation tools that avoid some of the pitfalls of index data by comparing stocks on a head-to-head basis. Historical analysis using a trading rule demonstrates that the new bottom-up valuation indicator provides real value to investors. We would normally evaluate its track record using stretching analysis, where we use only the historical information available at each point in time when determining relative value. However, the relatively short history of the available data precludes this test because we need at least a few cycles to best gauge the underlying volatility in the data. Still, investors can be fairly confident that they will make money on a 12-month horizon by taking a position when the bottom-up indicator reaches +/-1 sigma over- or under-valued, although technical information should be taken on board to sharpen the timing. The +/-2 sigma level gives clear buy/sell signals irrespective of the fundamental or technical factors. The bottom-up valuation indicator will not replace our top-down version that is based on index data, but rather will be considered together when evaluating relative value. At the moment, the top-down version proposes that European stocks are somewhat cheap to the U.S., while the bottom-up indicator points to slight overvaluation. Considering the two together suggests that valuation is close enough to fair value that investors cannot make the decision on value alone. Valuation indicators need to be near extremes to be informative. Our global equity strategists recommend overweighting Eurozone stocks versus the U.S. at the moment, although not because of valuation. Rather, the Eurozone economy and corporate earnings have more room to grow because of lingering labor market slack. This also means that the ECB can keep rates glued to the zero bound for at least the next 18 months while the Fed hikes, which will place upward pressure on the dollar and downward pressure on the euro. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Appendix: Trading Rule Returns By Sector Chart II-6, Chart II-7, Chart II-8, Chart II-9, Chart II-10, Chart II-11, Chart II-12, Chart II-13, Chart II-14, Chart II-15, Chart II-16. Chart II-6Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary Chart II-7Consumer Staples Consumer Staples Consumer Staples Chart II-8Energy Energy Energy Chart II-9Financials Financials Financials Chart II-10Health Care Health Care Health Care Chart II-11Industrials Industrials Industrials Chart II-12Materials Materials Materials Chart II-13Real Estate Real Estate Real Estate Chart II-14Utilities Utilities Utilities Chart II-15Technology Technology Technology Chart II-16Telecommunication Telecommunication Telecommunication 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Are Eurozone Stocks Really That Cheap?" July 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Introducing ETS: A Top Down Approach to Bottom-Up Stock Picking," December 2, 2015, available at ets.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Stocks continue to outperform bonds against a constructive backdrop of improving global economic prospects and accelerating EPS growth, while low inflation is expected to keep central banks from tightening quickly. Our main equity and asset allocation indicators remain bullish for risk, with a few exceptions. Our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) jumped back to a 100% equity weighting in July. We introduced the RPI in last month's Special Report. 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. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks for the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provide 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. The U.S. WTP remains bullish, but has topped out, suggesting that flows into the U.S. market are beginning to moderate. In contrast, 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, although it has not yet shown up in terms of equity market outperformance versus the U.S. On the negative side, our Monetary Indicator last month fell a little further below the zero line and our composite Technical Indicator appears to be rolling over; the latter generates a 'sell' signal when it drops below its 9-month moving average. Value is stretched, but our Valuation Indicator has not yet reached the +1 standard deviation level that indicates clear over-valuation. As highlighted in the Overview section, the U.S. and global earnings backdrop continues to support equity markets. Forward earnings estimates are in a steep uptrend, and the recent surge in the net revisions ratio and the earnings surprise index suggests that EPS growth will remain impressive for the remainder of the year. Bond valuation is largely unchanged from last month, sitting very close to fair value. We still believe that fair value is rising as economic headwinds fade. However, much depends on our forecast that core inflation in the major countries will grind higher in the coming months. Central banks stand ready to "remove the punchbowl" if they get the green light from inflation. The dollar's downdraft in July reduced some of its overvaluation based on purchasing power parity measures. The dollar appears less overvalued based on other measures. Our composite Technical Indicator has fallen hard, but has not reached oversold levels. This suggests that the dollar has more downside before it finds a bottom. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China

Highlights The RBA will not hike as quickly as markets expect. Weak wage growth and high underemployment suggest plenty of spare capacity. Inflation is only barely at the bottom of the central bank's range. Massive household debt levels will make it difficult for consumers to handle higher interest rates. Australian banks, although relatively healthy, are still enormously exposed to Australian housing and interest-only mortgages. House prices have nearly quadrupled since 2000 and exhibit the characteristics of a bubble. Still, it will likely take considerable monetary tightening before the bubble bursts. We do not think this will occur anytime soon. Maintain a neutral exposure to Australian government bonds, but enter into a 2-year/10-year Australian government bond yield curve flattener. Feature Chart 1Diverging Trends In##BR##The Australian Economy Diverging Trends In The Australian Economy Diverging Trends In The Australian Economy Australia remains one of the more difficult bond markets on which to take a decisive investment stance at the moment. The recent Moody's downgrade of Australian banks has put the spotlight back on the housing boom Down Under. With home prices continuing to climb - despite the introduction of macro-prudential measures on mortgage lending and with household indebtedness reaching exorbitant levels - investors are becoming increasingly concerned over a potential housing crash that could have spillover effects on the Australian banking system (Chart 1). At the same time, the domestic economy continues to suffer a hangover from the end of the mining boom earlier this decade, with excess capacity keeping inflation pressures subdued. Naturally, this has put the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) in a difficult position. Interest rate cuts in response to low inflation would add further fuel to the housing bubble. On the other hand, any attempt to try and normalize the current accommodative monetary policy settings with rate hikes could trigger an unwanted surge in the Australian dollar and prompt a correction in house prices. The latter could lead to financial instability and raise recession risks with consumers already dealing with negative real wage growth, low savings and massive debt loads. In this Special Report, we examine Australia's monetary policy trajectory, analyze its concentrated banking sector and the potential risks from a downturn in house prices, and revisit our positioning on Australian government debt. Our conclusions still lead us to stick with a neutral duration stance and country allocation on Australian debt, but with a bias towards a flatter government bond yield curve. RBA On Hold... For Now Chart 2Aussie Bonds Caught##BR##In The Global Selloff Aussie Bonds Caught In The Global Selloff Aussie Bonds Caught In The Global Selloff Earlier this month, the RBA decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 1.5%. The central bank maintained its fairly neutral rhetoric, though they did cite that the "broad-based pick-up in the global economy is continuing." The central bank upgraded its economic forecasts, with real GDP growth now projected to reach slightly above 3% over the next two years. The minutes from that July 4 monetary policy meeting revealed that a discussion over the ideal level of the real cash rate took place.1 The conclusion was that equilibrium inflation-adjusted rate is now around 1%, meaning that the "neutral" nominal rate is 3.5% after adding an inflation expectation of 2.5% (the middle of the RBA inflation target band). That implies that the RBA has lots of catching up to do on interest rates once the next tightening cycle begins. The timing of that discussion on real rates came shortly after the rebound in global bond yields that began after policymakers in other countries, most notably the European Central Bank and the Bank of Canada, began hinting that a move to dial back the emergency monetary easings of 2015/16 was about to begin (Chart 2). With the RBA possibly sending a similar message, investors responded by raising interest rate expectations and bidding up the Australian dollar (AUD). 30bps of RBA hikes are now priced in over the next year, while our proxy for the market-implied pricing of the terminal (i.e. equilibrium) cash rate - the 5-year AUD overnight index swap rate, 5-years forward - shot up to just over 3%. We believe that this market repricing of potential RBA rate hikes is too optimistic. Australian monetary policy must remain highly accommodative for some time. Our more dovish case is based on our assessment of the RBA's policy mandates, which include full employment, price stability and the 'welfare of the Australian people'. Because of Australia's heavy economic exposure to iron ore prices, its largest export, we also include an outlook on the commodity to aid in our forecast of RBA policy. Employment: The latest readings on the Australian labor market have shown marked improvement so far in 2017 (Chart 3). The unemployment rate now sits at 5.6%. Employment growth is accelerating while the participation rate has edged higher in recent months. The National Australia Bank business confidence index is steadily improving, while job vacancies are at a five-year high. In the statement released after the June monetary policy meeting, RBA governor Philip Lowe stated that "forward-looking indicators point to continued growth in employment in the period ahead." Chart 3Labor Demand##BR##Picking Up... Labor Demand Picking Up... Labor Demand Picking Up... Chart 4...But All Signs Point To Lots##BR##Of Spare Labor Capacity ...But All Signs Point To Lots Of Spare Labor Capacity ...But All Signs Point To Lots Of Spare Labor Capacity While Governor Lowe also noted that the overall employment picture is 'mixed' in some aspects, we are far more pessimistic (Chart 4). The underemployment rate has been rising and now sits only slightly below its almost 50-year high of 8.8%.2 Part-time workers as a percentage of total employment has experienced a structural increase to nearly 33%, while hours worked have declined. Additionally, nominal wages have been flat and real wages are declining. This suggests that there is plenty of slack in labor markets and that Australia is still far from full employment, even with the headline jobless rate sitting slightly below the OECD's current NAIRU estimate of 5.9%.3 Inflation: Core inflation has been slowing since 2014 and only reached an anemic 1.45% in the first quarter of 2017 (Chart 5). Although headline inflation has rebounded over the past year, at 2.1% it remains only at the bottom of the RBA's 2-3% target range. Additionally, the downtrend in inflation expectations for 2017 appears to be intact. Chart 5Inflation Staying Within The RBA 2-3% Target Inflation Staying Within The RBA 2-3% Target Inflation Staying Within The RBA 2-3% Target Chart 6Australian Consumer Spending Slowing Australian Consumer Spending Slowing Australian Consumer Spending Slowing Weak productivity growth, leading to lackluster wage growth, is keeping overall inflation subdued. The trade-weighted currency has rallied since June, presenting an additional headwind for consumer prices. Even if the recovery in headline inflation persists and starts to pass through to core readings, policymakers will likely err on the side of caution. A higher realized inflation rate will be tolerated in the near term to ensure expectations stay well within the 2-3% target band - the RBA's definition of "price stability" - before any interest rate increases are considered. Consumer: Australian households face a challenging environment. Real wages are declining, with the wage cost index in a downtrend since 2011. Real retail spending growth has been slowing and is nearing negative territory, while consumer sentiment is quite pessimistic (Chart 6). As income growth is lacking, consumers have had to dip into savings to maintain consumption, with the savings rate collapsing from 10% to 5% over the last few years. Part of that decline is likely due to the rising cost of "essentials" spending, such as utilities, health care, education and transportation. The inflation rates for those sectors have been outpacing overall headline and core readings (Chart 7), suggesting that Australian households are saving less just to "make ends meet." Chart 7Spending More On The "Essentials" Spending More On The "Essentials" Spending More On The "Essentials" Overall, Australian consumers remain incredibly indebted. The household debt-to-income ratio is nearing 200% - the fourth highest figure among the OECD countries.4 Households have been able to handle the massive debt loads (so far) due to record-low interest rates, which have allowed debt service ratios to fall in line with long-term averages. However, hiking interest rates against this backdrop of highly leveraged consumers - especially given the huge exposure of Australian household balance sheets to overvalued house prices - could severely test the 'economic prosperity and welfare of the Australian people' element of the RBA's mandates. In other words, the RBA would need to see decisive signs that the economy was pushing up against inflationary capacity constraints before embarking on a tightening cycle, for fear of the spillover effects of pricking the housing bubble too soon (as we discuss later in this report). Iron Ore: Historically, Australia's growth has been tightly linked to the performance of industrial commodities, in particular iron ore which represents nearly 20% of total Australian exports. Our commodity strategists are neutral on iron ore on a cyclical horizon and bearish on a strategic basis. Chinese iron ore import growth has recently ticked up, but should remain subdued as Chinese inventories are still high (Chart 8). Chinese property construction activity, which accounts for roughly 35% of total Chinese steel demand, remains depressed. Globally, iron ore supply is set to increase throughout the year as many mining projects will come on stream. On a longer-term basis, Chinese demand for metals will likely slow due to the ongoing structural economic shift away from excessive reliance on infrastructure investment and house-building to an economy based on consumption and services. Summing it all up, none of the RBA's policy mandates is being threatened in a way that should force policymakers to begin shifting to a less dovish stance. There is little evidence that Australia has reached full employment, inflation and inflation expectations remain within the RBA target band, growth momentum remains moderate and the housing bubble remains an existential risk to the future health of the economy. Additionally, Australian policymakers will want to keep rates as low as possible to ensure that a weaker currency helps prop up exports, support the economy in its transition away from the heavy reliance on mining investment. Real GDP growth fell below 2% and the output gap is still far in negative territory, suggesting plenty of slack (Chart 9). Our own Australian Central Bank Monitor has rolled over and is now barely in the "tight policy required" zone (bottom panel). Projected fiscal drag over the next few years will also dampen growth. RBA growth forecasts appear highly optimistic relative to median economist estimates. All of these factors point to a delay in rate hikes. Chart 8No Big Boost To Iron Ore Prices From China No Big Boost To Iron Ore Prices From China No Big Boost To Iron Ore Prices From China Chart 9No Pressure On The RBA To Hike Rates No Pressure On The RBA To Hike Rates No Pressure On The RBA To Hike Rates Bottom Line: Markets are overpricing the potential for RBA tightening. There is still spare capacity in labor markets, inflation is subdued and consumers cannot handle higher rates. Monitoring The Banks In June, Moody's downgraded all Australian banks, citing a "rise in household leverage and the rising prevalence of interest-only and investment loans" (Chart 10). The downgrade raised concern among investors, with banks being the largest component of the Australian equity market, and short positions have noticeably risen. Despite subdued income growth and enormous household debt levels, escalating house prices have supported consumption through the wealth effect, but this is clearly unsustainable. Political pressures are also building, as evidenced by the introduction of a bank levy in South Australia. Chart 10A Relentless Climb In Household Debt A Relentless Climb In Household Debt A Relentless Climb In Household Debt The Chairman of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), Wayne Byres, wants to make bank capital levels "unquestionably strong." His recent comments indicate that Australian banks will need to raise capital before 2020 to adhere to global standards, with some estimates reaching as high as $20bn (in USD). This process is crucial for instilling confidence in markets that banks can meet these targets through organic capital generation or dividend re-investment plans. As the increased capital required is relatively small - only 2% of the capital base of the Australian banks - it should not be difficult to raise that amount. The greatest risk to the financial system is still the exposure to Australian housing. For the four major banks, Australian housing loans make up slightly over 50% of their lending mix, far greater than for U.S. banks prior to the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 (Chart 11). Of those loans, approximately 40% are non-traditional (interest-only, sub-prime, reverse mortgages). Several macro-prudential measures have been implemented by Australian financial regulators to decrease risks within the banking sector. The regulations have been focused on interest-only loans, which are more vulnerable to rate rises. Such loans are riskier, typically shorter in maturity and requiring larger deposit amounts. Banks are tightening their lending standards for these loans and risk weights will likely be increased, thereby requiring more capital. Additionally, the standard variable rate on interest-only loans has increased by 30-35bps and APRA has imposed a 30% cap on interest-only loans as a percentage of new loans. This will cause a meaningful decline in the risk profile of banks' mortgage books, as consumers with interest-only loans will shift to less expensive principal-plus-interest loans. Another source of risk is the Australian banks' increasing reliance on offshore short-term wholesale funding. When credit growth outpaces deposit growth, which has been the case, banks need to balance the equation through increased wholesale funding. This raises the potential for a liquidity crunch, as capital may be unavailable during a crisis. Credit growth to the private sector is slowing, though, reducing the immediate need for this type of funding. Additionally, authorities are prompting banks to substitute away from the heavy reliance on short-term wholesale funding through the implementation of a net stable funding ratio. This is defined as the available amount of stable funding (i.e. core deposits, equity and long-term wholesale funding) over the required regulatory level of stable funding. Banks will have until 2018 to increase this ratio above 100%. As a result, long-term wholesale debt issuance rose sharply in 2016 and that amount is projected to be relatively similar for 2017. Overall, current metrics suggest that Australian banks are fairly healthy, even before the additional capital requirements. Tier 1 capital ratios have gradually increased since 2007 and are fairly strong, non-performing loans are subdued and net interest margins are rising (Chart 12). In fact, Tier 1 ratios are substantially higher in Australia than they were in the U.S. prior to the Global Financial Crisis. Return-on-assets and return-on-capital have bounced slightly, although increasing capital will certainly dampen the earnings prospects for the Australian banks. Chart 11Australian Banks Heavily Exposed##BR##To Risky Mortgage Lending Australia: Stuck Between A Rock And A Hard Place Australia: Stuck Between A Rock And A Hard Place Chart 12Aussie Banks In##BR##Good Shape Right Now... Aussie Banks In Good Shape Right Now... Aussie Banks In Good Shape Right Now... Since the Moody's downgrade, credit default swap spreads for Australian banks have actually declined to near the 2014 lows, suggesting markets are not concerned about the risk of future bank stresses. We remain concerned, however. Macro-prudential measures on mortgage loan sizes and higher capital requirements are certainly welcome and will reduce perceived risks within the banking sector. However, these measures have done little to curb the rise in Australian house prices. Given their huge exposure to Australian housing, the banks will likely not be able to withstand a meaningful decline in house values - the outlook for which depends critically on the RBA's future monetary policy path. Bottom Line: Australia bank metrics are fairly healthy but they will need to raise more capital. This should not be too problematic. However, the banks' massive exposure to Australian housing, elevated number of interest-only mortgage loans and heavy reliance on short-term wholesale funding present substantial risks. Even if the bank capital levels are 'unquestionably strong,' they will not be enough to withstand a meaningful downturn in house prices. When Will The Housing Bubble Burst? House prices in Australia have nearly quadrupled since 2000. With the exception of Perth, house prices in the other major cities have continued their massive run-up over the last year, suggesting macro-prudential measures have done little to cool the market (Chart 13). Price gains have been supported by robust demand, both domestic and foreign. However, the steady rise in debt-fueled speculation (i.e. loans for investment purposes), the magnitude of the price increases, and the lack of any correction in over 25 years, suggest Australian housing is indeed in the midst of a bubble. On the supply side, steadily rising completions over the past decade have not curbed price gains (Chart 14). While construction has slowed since its peak at the end of 2016 and building approvals have declined, we find the argument that there has been a shortage in supply to be fairly weak. In fact, the rate of dwelling completions has outpaced population growth since 2012 and dwelling completions per 1,000 people are much higher in Australia than its G7 counterparts. Chart 13...Just Don't Prick##BR##The Housing Bubble ...Just Don't Prick The Housing Bubble ...Just Don't Prick The Housing Bubble Chart 14Supply Not Rising Enough To##BR##Slow House Price Growth Supply Not Rising Enough To Slow House Price Growth Supply Not Rising Enough To Slow House Price Growth History teaches us that bubbles never deflate calmly. Nevertheless, we view the likelihood of a systemic crash over the next 6-12 months as highly unlikely. While growth estimates may not meet the RBA's lofty goals, Australia will also not experience its first recession in over 25 years, which would crimp housing demand. The two most likely candidates to act as a catalyst for a housing downturn are therefore: a slowdown in capital inflows from Chinese property buyers and/or a shift to restrictive monetary policy from the RBA. It will not require a complete halt in capital inflows from China, simply a considerable slowdown, for the Australian housing market to come under pressure. While there is always a possibility for Chinese authorities to clamp down on outflows, particularly if the RMB comes under pressure, we view this as fairly unlikely. Current capital outflows have eased a bit and a long-term goal is to deregulate the capital account. Continued capital liberalization in China will aid in maintaining capital flows into Australian housing. Additionally, the millionaire class in China is growing and the private sector wants to diversify its assets. While Australian house prices are expensive, prices are far more affordable than those metropolitan areas such as Hong Kong, indicating Chinese money will continue to drift into Australian real estate. Chart 15A Long Way From Restrictive Policy Rates A Long Way From Restrictive Policy Rates A Long Way From Restrictive Policy Rates The more likely candidate for a bursting of the housing bubble is through the monetary policy channel. In the case of the U.S., multiple Fed rate hikes in the mid-2000s pushed monetary conditions into restrictive territory, prompting the housing crash. As we previously argued, the RBA will likely stay on hold for an extended period due to a lack of serious inflation pressures. Yet even if the RBA were to begin tightening sooner than we expect, it will take multiple rate hikes before monetary conditions become even close to restrictive. Using a simple measure of the equilibrium RBA cash rate, like a combination of Australian potential GDP growth and a five-year moving average of headline CPI inflation or the Taylor Rule formulation that we introduced in a recent Weekly Report, it is clear that the RBA is a long way from a restrictive policy stance (Chart 15).5 Bottom Line: Australian house prices have nearly quadrupled since 2000 and exhibit the characteristics of a bubble. Still, it will likely take considerable monetary tightening before the bubble bursts. We do not think this will occur anytime soon. Investment Implications We currently hold a neutral recommended stance on Australian government debt, both in terms of duration exposure and country allocation in global fixed income portfolios. Australian bond yields are above the lows seen in 2016 but have yet to break out of the structural downtrend with the benchmark 10-year now at 2.67% (Chart 16). We hesitate to go outright overweight on Australian debt in our model bond portfolio, however, even with our relatively dovish view on the RBA's future policy moves. Without any slowing in house prices, and with realized and expected inflation having clearly bottomed after last year's downturn, a big move lower in Australian bond yields is unlikely. At best, Australian yields will not rise by as much as we expect to see in the U.S. or Euro Area over the next 6-12 months. At the same time, if that view pans out, the Australian currency will likely underperform which will erode into the returns of an overweight Australian bond position (either through currency hedging costs or the outright losses on unhedged currency exposure). We do, however, see an opportunity to enter into an Australian 2-year/10-year yield curve flattening position (Chart 17). As previously mentioned, the short end of the curve will be anchored by an inactive central bank. The long end, however, faces multiple downward pressures. Macro-prudential measures and political pressures will continue to dampen credit growth. While we believe there is scope for realized inflation to grind a bit higher in the coming quarters, longer-term inflation expectations are likely to remain well-anchored. Additionally, the economic surprise index is elevated after several positive data releases and has plenty of scope for disappointment, which will limit any rise in longer-dated bond yields. Chart 16No Bear Market##BR##In Australian Bonds No Bear Market In Australian Bonds No Bear Market In Australian Bonds Chart 17Enter A 2yr/10yr##BR##Australian Curve Flattener Enter a 2yr/10yr Australian Curve Flattener Enter a 2yr/10yr Australian Curve Flattener The added benefit of entering a curve flattener is that the trade will likely work if our RBA view turns out to be wrong in a hawkish direction. If the RBA does indeed begin to hike rates sooner than we expect to deal with an improving economy or to begin deflating the housing bubble, this should put flattening pressure on the curve as the market prices in additional future rate increases. Only in the case of a breakout in longer-term inflation expectations that bear-steepens the curve, or a severe economic downturn that prompts RBA rate cuts and bull-steepens the curve, will a flattening trade underperform. Given our views on Australian growth and inflation, we see more likely scenarios where the curve flattens than steepens, particularly versus the only modest amount of flattening currently priced in the forwards. Bottom Line: Enter into a 2-year/10-year Australian government bond yield curve flattener. The short end of the curve will be anchored by an inactive central bank. On the long end, slowing credit growth, fiscal drag and an elevated economic surprise index will put downward pressure on yields. Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Patrick@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 http://www.rba.gov.au/monetary-policy/rba-board-minutes/2017/2017-07-04.html 2 The "underemployed" is defined as full-time workers on reduced hours for economic reasons and part-time workers who would like, and are available, to work more hours. 3 NAIRU = Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate Of Unemployment. 4 https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-debt.htm 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Dangerous Duration", dated July 11 2017. Available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The Fed is behind the curve in raising rates, as is the Bank of Canada, the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, and the Swedish Riksbank. In contrast, the Bank of Japan, the ECB, and the Swiss National Bank have little need to tighten monetary policy. Accordingly, investors should favor USD, CAD, SEK, NZD, and to a lesser extent, AUD. EUR, CHF, and JPY will weaken. GBP will trade sideways. Short-term momentum could push EUR/USD to 1.18, but the euro will ultimately reach parity against the dollar next year, as the Fed is forced to accelerate the pace of rate hikes. Stay structurally long DXY. Go long SEK/CHF. We are closing our longstanding overweight positions in Australian and New Zealand government bonds for a handsome profit. Remain overweight global equities for now, but be prepared to turn bearish in the second half of 2018. Feature The Fed: It's Time To Get A Bit More Hawkish In our December 2015 report "The Fed Makes An Unforced Error," we made the case that the Federal Reserve would regret its decision to tighten monetary policy.1 Subsequent events validated this view: U.S. growth sagged in the first half of 2016, leading to a sharp flattening in the yield curve. It would be another 12 months before the Fed raised rates again. As bond prices and the economic data evolved over the course of 2016, our recommendations changed accordingly. On July 5th, we published a note entitled "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" arguing that it was time to take profits on long duration positions.2 As luck would have it, this was the exact same date that the 10-year Treasury yield hit a record closing low of 1.37%. Fast forward to the present and investors are once again debating the next steps that central banks are likely to take. However, unlike in 2015, a strong case can be made that the Fed is now behind the curve in raising rates, rather than ahead of it. There are three reasons for this: There is less slack now than in 2015. The unemployment rate stands at 4.4%, down from 5% in December 2015. The broader U-6 unemployment rate has fallen even more, from 9.9% to 8.6%. Other measures of labor market slack are also closing in on their past business-cycle lows (Table 1). Table 1Comparing Current Labor Market Slack With Past Cycles Are Central Banks Behind The Curve Or Ahead Of It? Are Central Banks Behind The Curve Or Ahead Of It? The neutral interest rate has likely risen somewhat over the past 18 months (Chart 1). Household debt has continued to decline as a share of disposable income. The share of national income going to labor has increased. Wage growth among lower-income workers who tend to spend most of their paychecks has accelerated. All this should give consumers the wherewithal to spend more, warranting higher interest rates. Bank balance sheets have also continued to improve, as evidenced by the recent stress test results. In addition, fiscal policy has eased modestly and could ease even more if Congress is able to pass legislation cutting taxes later this year or in early 2018. Financial conditions have eased significantly since the start of the year, which should boost growth in the second half of this year (Chart 2). This is in sharp contrast to 2015, a year when financial conditions tightened sharply. Easier financial conditions are boosting credit growth. The annualized 3-month change in bank credit has accelerated from 1.1% in April to 4.2% at present. (Chart 3). Chart 1Households Have The Wherewithal To Spend More Households Have The Wherewithal To Spend More Households Have The Wherewithal To Spend More Chart 2Financial Conditions Have Eased Financial Conditions Have Eased Financial Conditions Have Eased Chart 3Credit Growth Has Picked Up Credit Growth Has Picked Up Credit Growth Has Picked Up The prospect of stronger growth over the next few quarters implies that the unemployment rate is likely to fall below 4% early next year, possibly breaking through the 2000 low of 3.8%. If that were to happen, the unemployment rate would end up being nearly a full percentage point below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. It is possible, of course, that the true value of NAIRU is lower than official estimates suggest. Older workers change jobs less frequently, and so an aging workforce tends to produce less frictional unemployment. The internet has also improved the ability of companies to fill vacancies with suitable workers. On the flipside, declining geographical mobility and falling demand for low-skilled labor may have raised structural unemployment. On balance, we are skeptical that the current estimate of NAIRU of 4.7% - already one percentage point below its post-1960 average (Chart 4) - is significantly overstated. A tighter U.S. labor market will put upward pressure on wages. While recent wage data has been on the soft side, our wage tracker is still growing twice as fast as in 2010 (Chart 5). Indeed, for all the talk about how wage growth is "inexplicably" slow, real wages have been rising more quickly than productivity for three straight years now - the longest stretch since the late 1990s (Chart 6). Chart 4NAIRU Is Low By Historic Standards NAIRU Is Low By Historic Standards NAIRU Is Low By Historic Standards Chart 5A Stronger Labor Market Will Lead To Faster Wage Growth A Stronger Labor Market Will Lead To Faster Wage Growth A Stronger Labor Market Will Lead To Faster Wage Growth Chart 6Real Wages Now Increasing Faster Than Productivity Real Wages Now Increasing Faster Than Productivity Real Wages Now Increasing Faster Than Productivity Inflation: A Lagging Indicator When will accelerating wage growth translate into sharply higher price inflation? Probably not this year. Historically, inflation has been the mother-of-all lagging indicators. Core inflation peaked at 2.5% in August 2008, eight months after the start of the recession. In fact, core inflation has topped out in every single business cycle over the past 40 years only after the expansion has ended and the recession begun (Chart 7). Likewise, core inflation typically bottoms several years after the economic recovery is underway. This suggests that inflation could stay subdued for the next 12 months as the labor market slowly overheats, before moving higher in the second half of 2018. Chart 7Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator Are Central Banks Behind The Curve Or Ahead Of It? Are Central Banks Behind The Curve Or Ahead Of It? If the Fed drags its feet in raising interest rates, it will be difficult to achieve a soft landing. Stabilizing the economy is akin to landing a plane: You don't just need to know the speed at which you have to hit the runway, you also have to time your descent in order to touch the ground at precisely the right speed. Even if the Fed knew where the neutral interest rate stood (which it doesn't), tightening monetary policy too late could end up pushing the unemployment rate to such a low level that it has nowhere to go but up. And as we have shown before, once the unemployment rate starts rising, it generally keeps rising, owing to the presence of numerous negative feedback loops.3 The Fed has arguably already fallen into the trap of waiting too long. If so, gradual rate hikes this year will give way to more aggressive hikes late next year, setting the stage for a recession in 2019. The Bank Of Canada Turns Hawkish On the other side of the 45th parallel, the Bank of Canada raised rates last week and signaled that further hikes lie in store. The BoC revised up its GDP growth forecasts for 2017 and 2018. It also indicated that the output gap would close later this year, rather than next year as it had earlier projected. The Bank of Canada's newfound optimism was bolstered by the most recent Business Outlook Survey, which pointed to accelerating growth, dwindling spare industrial capacity, and an increasingly tight labor market (Chart 8). The moose in the living room is the Canadian housing market (Chart 9). Central bankers are generally reluctant to use the blunt tool of tighter monetary policy to target excessive property prices. However, when stricter macroprudential regulations fail to do the job, the standard prescription is to tighten monetary policy slowly but early. The Bank of Canada has done the former but not the latter. Consequently, as my colleague Jonathan LaBerge argued in last week's Special Report, the coming housing bust is likely to be a nasty affair.4 This will be the price the Bank of Canada pays for being behind the curve. Chart 8Canadian Growth Picture Is Upbeat Are Central Banks Behind The Curve Or Ahead Of It? Are Central Banks Behind The Curve Or Ahead Of It? Chart 9Housing Bubbles Abound Housing Bubbles Abound Housing Bubbles Abound For now, we remain long the Canadian dollar in our currency recommendations. We are expressing this view by being long CAD/EUR, a trade that has gained 3.5% in the nine weeks since we initiated it. We also recommend being underweight Canadian government bonds within a global fixed-income portfolio. It is important to stress, however, that these are 12-month views. Most Canadian mortgages are floating rate. Higher borrowing costs will likely trigger a housing bust late next year or in 2019, forcing the Bank of Canada to slow or even reverse the pace of rate hikes. The RBA And RBNZ ... Behind The Curve Too Australia and New Zealand have also been grappling with dangerously overvalued housing markets, and just as in Canada, the RBA and RBNZ have been behind the curve in responding to the brewing excesses. That is starting to change. The Reserve Bank of Australia struck a hawkish tone in the July 4 meeting minutes released this week, sending the Aussie dollar to a 26-month high against the greenback. The RBA highlighted the improvement in business conditions and a tightening labor market. It also indicated that the "neutral cash rate" was 3.5%, two points higher than the rate of 1.5%. Australia's terms of trade have been recovering of late and this should support the economy as well as the Aussie dollar (Chart 10). The RBNZ is even further behind the curve than the RBA (Chart 11). Nominal GDP is growing at over 6% and retail sales are expanding at nearly 8%. Population growth has risen sharply in recent years due to increased immigration, leading to greater demand for housing. The government has increased infrastructure spending and cut taxes. The unemployment rate has fallen back to an 8-year low of 4.9%, while the terms of trade is approaching record-high levels. Chart 10RBA Behind The Curve... RBA Behind The Curve... RBA Behind The Curve... Chart 11... And RBNZ Too? ... And RBNZ Too? ... And RBNZ Too? With all this in mind, we are closing our longstanding overweight positions in Australian and New Zealand government bonds for gains of 59.5% and 74.2%, respectively.5 Riksbank: End Of NIRP? The Swedish repo rate stands at -0.5%, despite the fact that the output gap has moved into positive territory (Chart 12). Inflation is still slightly below target, but is moving higher. The Riksbank is taking notice of the changing economic environment. The central bank backed away from its easing bias at its most recent policy meeting. The facts on the ground support this decision. Sweden's GDP is now 0.7% above potential and the economy continues to strengthen. The Riksbank's resource utilization indicator points to a sharp acceleration in Swedish inflation in the coming quarters. Nonfinancial private credit has reached 237% of GDP, up from 106% in 2000. If the Riksbank falls too far behind the curve, it will be forced to jack up rates very aggressively down the road, reviving the specter of the debt crisis of the early 1990s. The ECB, SNB, And BoJ: Take It Easy Whereas a strong case can be made that the central banks discussed above are behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy, the same cannot be said for the ECB, Swiss National Bank, or Bank of Japan. Labor market slack across the euro area as a whole is still 3.2 percentage points higher than in 2008 and 6.7 points higher outside of Germany (Chart 13). Moreover, as we discussed two weeks ago, the neutral rate in the euro area remains very depressed.6 Thus, even if the euro area economy were close to full employment, the ECB would still not have much scope to raise rates. Chart 12NIRP In Sweden: R.I.P. NIRP In Sweden: R.I.P. NIRP In Sweden: R.I.P. Chart 13Euro Area: Labor Market Slack Still High Outside Of Germany Euro Area: Labor Market Slack Still High Outside Of Germany Euro Area: Labor Market Slack Still High Outside Of Germany In this light, investors have gotten too optimistic about the ability of the ECB to tighten monetary policy. While the ECB will further taper asset purchases as early as this autumn, sustained rate hikes are still a few years away. Mario Draghi explicitly said during his press conference yesterday that "the last thing that the governing council may want is actually an unwanted tightening of the financing conditions." This is in sharp contrast to the Fed, which is trying to tighten financial conditions by raising rates. Swiss monetary conditions are far from accommodative, despite a policy rate that remains buried in negative territory (Chart 14). Core inflation is close to zero and wage growth is anemic. An overvalued currency has offset the benefits from lower interest rates. Given the SNB's policy of intervening in the currency markets to keep EUR/CHF within a reasonably tight range, the recent appreciation of the euro will further add to the deflationary pressures weighing on the Swiss economy. Investors should position for a weaker franc (and euro) in the months ahead. Go long SEK/CHF (Chart 15). Chart 14The Swiss Economy Still Needs Low Rates The Swiss Economy Still Needs Low Rates The Swiss Economy Still Needs Low Rates Chart 15Long SEK/CHF Long SEK/CHF Long SEK/CHF Similar to the ECB and the SNB, the Bank of Japan is in no position to tighten monetary policy. Core inflation has fallen back to zero and medium-to-long-term inflation expectations have dipped so far this year (Chart 16). The annual shunto wage negotiations this summer produced little in the way of salary hikes. And even if inflation were to rise, the government would likely want to tighten fiscal policy before contemplating removing the monetary punch bowl. The Bank Of England: A Tough Call If one didn't know what transpired last June, the case for tighter monetary policy in the U.K. would be fairly straightforward. The unemployment rate is at a 9-year low and inflation is well above target. The trade-weighted pound has weakened by 21% since November 2015, which in most cases, would translate into stronger growth in the years ahead. Reflecting these points, our Central Bank Monitors show that the U.K. is more in need of tighter money than any other major developed economy (Chart 17). Chart 16BoJ: In No Position To Tighten BoJ: In No Position To Tighten BoJ: In No Position To Tighten Chart 17The Message From Our Central Bank Monitors The Message From Our Central Bank Monitors The Message From Our Central Bank Monitors Brexit negotiations are likely to cast a pall over the economy, however. The EU will be forced to take a tough line with the U.K., for fear that the Brexit vote could prompt other countries to follow's Britain's lead. BCA's geopolitical strategists ultimately expect a "hard Brexit" to be averted, but things may need to be brought to the precipice before that happens. The pound is cheap and so we do not expect it to weaken significantly from current levels. Nevertheless, the upside for both sterling and gilt yields will remain constrained until political uncertainty abates. Investment Conclusions As a rule of thumb, investors should favor currencies in economies whose central banks are behind the curve. Such central banks are likely to find themselves in a position where they have to scramble to tighten monetary policy. We noted on July 7th that short-term momentum favors the euro and that we would not be surprised if EUR/USD reaches 1.18 over the coming weeks. Looking further ahead, the appreciation of the euro in the first half of this year will weigh on growth in the remainder of 2017 and into early 2018. This will force the ECB to cool its heels. In contrast, U.S. growth should accelerate. Against the backdrop of diminished spare capacity, this will prompt the Fed to turn more hawkish. We expect EUR/USD to fall to 1.05 by year-end, and reach parity next year as the Fed ramps up the pace of rate hikes. The market is betting that the Fed will deliver fewer rate hikes than implied by the 'dots'. Our hunch is that the Fed will deliver more hikes than what its forecast suggests, especially starting early next year when inflation is liable to accelerate. Bullish sentiment towards the dollar has collapsed. Investors should turn contrarian and position for a stronger greenback over the next 12 months. In addition to the dollar, we like the Swedish krona, Canadian dollar, and New Zealand dollar. The Aussie dollar should also perform reasonably well, provided that the Chinese economy continues to hold up, as we expect it will. The Japanese yen remains our least favorite currency. Despite the dollar selloff, USD/JPY has managed to gain 3% since mid-April. As the Fed and a number of other central banks raise rates, the spread in yields between foreign government bonds and JGBs will widen. This will push down the yen, helping Japanese stocks in the process. As far as overall risk sentiment is concerned, another rule of thumb says that stocks rarely fall on a sustained basis outside of recessions (Chart 18). We do not expect a recession in the U.S. or elsewhere until 2019. This implies that investors should maintain an overweight position in global equities for now, favoring cyclical sectors over defensive ones. Chart 18Stocks Rarely Fall On A Sustained Basis Outside Of Recessions Stocks Rarely Fall On A Sustained Basis Outside Of Recessions Stocks Rarely Fall On A Sustained Basis Outside Of Recessions Peter Berezin, Global Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Makes An Unforced Error," dated December 18, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "When Doves Cry," dated June 9, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story," dated July 14, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Calculated as the total excess return on the 10-year bond index relative to global government benchmark since inception in 2009, foreign-currency hedged since 2014. The 10-year yield for New Zealand government bonds has dropped from 4.28% at the time of inception to 2.94% today. The 10-year yield for Australian government bonds has fallen from 4.10% to 2.74% over this period. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Draghi's Dilemma," dated July 7, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The era of divergent monetary policies between the ECB and the Fed is over. Re-convergence has a lot further to go. As the ECB ends its ultra-accommodation, it will also liberate Sweden's Riksbank. Go long Swedish krone/dollar as an alternative or addition to long euro/dollar. Bond investors should underweight Swedish government bonds versus a European or global benchmark, currency hedged. Equity investors should remain overweight European banks and retailers versus U.S. banks and retailers, currency unhedged. The risk of persistent inflation will rise only after the next severe global downturn. Feature "Is the 2% inflation target still a very realistic aim?" - Ewald Nowotny, ECB Governing Council member As the ECB Governing Council gathers for its latest monetary policy meeting, some voices within its ranks are starting to question the ECB's first commandment: the 2% inflation target. Respected and influential ECB Governing Council member, Ewald Nowotny, has asked whether there should "be an easing of the 2% inflation goal in the sense of setting a range instead of a clear-cut target." Across the Baltic Sea, Sweden's Riksbank is one step ahead. Recently, it suggested (re)introducing a variation band of 1% either side of the 2% inflation target1 to acknowledge that persistent 2% inflation is very difficult, or impossible, to achieve (Chart of the Week). More concerning, the single-minded pursuit of 2% inflation creates risks and instabilities. The Riksbank's inflation target has forced it into an absurd position: with inflation undershooting for over five years, the policy interest rate is now at -0.5% when Swedish GDP growth was recently running at a world-beating 4.5% clip (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Mission Impossible:##br## 2% Inflation Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation Chart I-2Absurd: Interest Rate At -0.5% ##br##When Growth Is At 4.5% Absurd: Interest Rate At -0.5% When Growth Is At 4.5% Absurd: Interest Rate At -0.5% When Growth Is At 4.5% Hence, Riksbank Governor, Stefan Ingves, recently proposed that "central banks should also have the explicit responsibility for financial stability." The former governor of the Bank of Japan, Masaaki Shirkawa agrees. "My worry with setting a precise number (of 2%) is that it can crowd out other very important considerations, such as financial stability." What's So Special About 2% Inflation Anyway? Given the almost religious significance of the 2% inflation target for central banks, you would think that there is a well-established theoretical and empirical basis both for inflation targeting and for the 2% number. But you would be wrong. As we explained two years ago in our special report Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation,2 inflation targeting only became established in the 1990s, and the magic 2% number was pulled out of the air. Chart I-3The Riksbank Has Undershot ##br##Its 2% Inflation Target For 5 Years The Riksbank Has Undershot Its 2% Inflation Target For 5 Years The Riksbank Has Undershot Its 2% Inflation Target For 5 Years At the Federal Reserve's July 1996 policy meeting, Chairman Alan Greenspan argued that if the aim of inflation targeting was a truly stable price level, it entailed an inflation target of 0-1% (because measured inflation slightly overstates true inflation.) But one of the persons present was not so sure. The dissenter was a Fed governor called Janet L. Yellen. She countered that if inflation ended up at 0-1%, the zero-bound of interest rates would prevent "real interest rates becoming negative on the rare occasions when required to counter a recession." Yellen's pragmatism won the day, and Greenspan summarized "we have now all agreed on 2%" Meanwhile in Europe, the ECB's original inflation target of below 2% was close to Greenspan's proposal of 0-1%. But in 2003 the ECB changed its inflation target to its current "below but close to 2%". The reason, according to Mario Draghi: "The founding fathers of the ECB thought about the adjustment within the euro area, the rebalancing of the different members. To rebalance these disequilibria, since the countries do not have the exchange rate, they have to readjust their prices. This readjustment is much harder if you have zero inflation than if you have 2%." Hence, the Fed, ECB and other central banks are targeting inflation at a low but arbitrary number, 2%, to always allow some leeway for negative real rates; and in the case of the ECB, to allow easier convergence among disparate euro area economies. But as the Riksbank and other central banks have now acknowledged, trying to hit and hold inflation at a point target of 2% is both futile and dangerous (Chart I-3). Why 2% Inflation Is A Mission Impossible The crux of the issue is that inflation is a notoriously non-linear phenomenon. A defining feature of a non-linear phenomenon is that you cannot just turn it up or down like the volume dial on your music system. Non-linear phenomena experience sudden and violent phase-shifts from stability to instability, making it very difficult to hit and hold a point target like 2%. To experience this difficulty for yourself, try pulling a brick across a table using an elastic band. Initially, the brick doesn't move because of the friction with the table. But at a tipping point the brick does move, and the friction simultaneously decreases, self-reinforcing the brick's acceleration. Meanwhile, your pull on the elastic continues to increase as you react with a time-lag. The result is that this non-linear system suddenly phase-shifts from stability - the brick doesn't move - to violent instability - the brick hits you in the face! Try as hard as you might, it is near-impossible to pull the brick across the table at a constant speed of, say, 2mph. A very similar dynamic applies to inflation. The system suddenly phase-shifts from stability - near-zero inflation - to violent instability. It is near-impossible to keep inflation at an arbitrary constant of, say, 2%. To understand why, consider the standard identity of monetary economics: MV = PT M is the broad money supply, V is its velocity of circulation, P is the price level and T is the volume of transactions. PT is effectively nominal GDP. Theoretically and empirically, both M and V are notoriously non-linear phenomena (Chart I-4, Chart I-5, Chart I-6, Chart I-7) - because they are subject to the same conditions as the brick pulled by an elastic band: inertia, then self-reinforcement with delayed controlling feedback. Chart I-4The Velocity Of Money... Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation - An Update Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation - An Update Chart I-5...Is A Non-Linear Phenomenon Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation - An Update Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation - An Update Chart I-6The Money Multiplier... The Money Multiplier... The Money Multiplier... Chart I-7...Is A Non-Linear Phenomenon ...Is A Non-Linear Phenomenon ...Is A Non-Linear Phenomenon As policymakers try to take inflation away from its natural state of near-zero, nothing happens at first. But at a tipping point, the self-reinforcement of inflation expectations becomes explosive. Whereupon, the money supply, M, gaps up because it becomes rational for banks to lend as much as possible. And its velocity, V, also gaps up because it becomes rational to spend the money - both newly created and pre-existing balances - as quickly as possible. Hence, the product MV experiences an even sharper non-linearity. Well-intentioned policymakers would think they could apply a controlling feedback to MV. But how? Economic and monetary data are noisy, imprecise and take time to collect and parse. As we have shown, inappropriate and/or delayed feedback just adds to the system's instability. Seen in this light, inflation-targeting in the 1990s worked because central banks were just helping economies move from an unnatural state - uncontrolled inflation - towards a natural state - price stability (Table I-1 and Chart I-8). But now that economies have reached a natural near-zero inflation rate, point targeting an unnatural inflation rate is both futile and dangerous. Table I-1For 700 Years U.K. Inflation ##br##Averaged Near-Zero Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation - An Update Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation - An Update Chart I-8Excluding Wars, Persistent Inflation Was ##br##Very Unusual... Until The Late 20th Century Excluding Wars, Persistent Inflation Was Very Unusual... Until The Late 20th Century Excluding Wars, Persistent Inflation Was Very Unusual... Until The Late 20th Century The Investment Implications The ECB's Nowotny argues that "the 2% inflation target should include a certain flexibility." The Riksbank's Ingves agrees, and adds that extreme and unprecedented loose monetary policy endangers financial stability. Central banks tend not to volte-face as it damages their credibility. But to us, it is clear that the ECB and Riksbank are switching their focus from sub-2% inflation to their economies' robust growth. And to the risk that ultra-accommodative policy poses to financial stability and market distortion. Hence, the era of divergent monetary policies between the ECB and the Fed is over. Re-convergence has a lot further to go. As the ECB ends its ultra-accommodation, it will also liberate the Riksbank whose policy has inevitably mirrored Frankfurt - for fear of a sharp appreciation of the Swedish krone versus the euro. Our currency mantra this year has been "euro first, pound second, dollar third." The strategy has performed extremely well, and into this mix we can add the Swedish krone. Go long Swedish krone/dollar as an alternative or addition to long euro/dollar (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Long SEK/USD Is An Alternative ##br##To Long EUR/USD Long SEK/USD Is An Alternative To Long EUR/USD Long SEK/USD Is An Alternative To Long EUR/USD Chart I-10Underweight Swedish Bonds Is An Alternative To Underweight German Bunds Underweight Swedish Bonds Is An Alternative To Underweight German Bunds Underweight Swedish Bonds Is An Alternative To Underweight German Bunds The bond market corollary is to underweight Swedish government bonds - just like German bunds - versus a European or global benchmark, currency hedged (Chart I-10). The equity market implication is to remain overweight European banks and retailers versus U.S. banks and retailers, currency unhedged. Finally, given that inflation could ultimately phase-shift to violent instability, when should we worry about it? Not yet. To expand the broad money supply, someone has to borrow money. So if policymakers really want to create rampant inflation, the government has to borrow and spend money at will,3 with the central bank creating it. In other words, the central bank loses its independence and fiscal policy becomes irresponsibly loose. The risk of this remains low until the next severe downturn - when policymakers may be forced into desperate measures for a desperate situation. Until then, own some bonds. Our preference is Spanish Bonos and U.S. T-bonds. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 The Swedish FSA has said that the Riksbank should delay the change until a parliament review of Riksbank policy rules is completed in about 2 years. 2 Published on August 20, 2015 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 3 For example, by giving all public sector workers a 50% pay rise! Fractal Trading Model* The sell-off in Spanish media (Mediaset Espana Comunicacion) is technically overdone. This week's trade is to go long Mediaset Espana Comunicacion versus the market with a 5% profit-target and symmetric stop-loss. In other trades, long FTSE100/short IBEX35 hit its 4% profit-target, while short EUR/USD hit its 2% stop-loss For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 Long Mediaset Espana Comunicacion Vs. IBEX3 Long Mediaset Espana Comunicacion Vs. IBEX3 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 Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights DM Rates Strategy: Many central banks are responding to the strong global economic backdrop by signaling not only a shift in the bias of monetary policy, but actual changes in interest rates or asset purchases. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall portfolio stance, but with more diverse views on country allocation: underweight the U.S., Euro Area, & Canada; maximum overweight on Japan; and neutral on the U.K. and Australia. Expect steeper yield curves in the U.S., Euro Area and U.K., and continued flattening in Canada. U.S. Corporate Bond Liquidity: There are few signs of diminished liquidity in U.S. corporate bond markets, despite the sharply reduced inventories of primary dealers. ETFs and institutional investors have picked up the slack from the dealers, as has electronic trading directly between market participants. Feature Chart of the Week2013 Revisited 2013 Revisited 2013 Revisited Developed Market (DM) policymakers continue to push towards a less accommodative monetary stance. Last week, the Bank of Canada (BoC) became the second central bank to hike rates this year, following the Fed's earlier tightenings. The European Central Bank (ECB) continues to signal a move to reduce the pace of its asset purchases, likely to be announced at the September policy meeting. A very public debate has opened up among the members of the Bank of England (BoE) policy committee against the stagflationary backdrop of high inflation and cooling growth. This current backdrop is reminiscent of the 2013 synchronized global economic upturn that also put pressure on policymakers to become less accommodative according to our Central Bank Monitors (Chart of the Week). That year was terrible for government bonds, but spread product held in well given the solid growth backdrop. A big difference now is that there is greater evidence of diminished economic slack (lower unemployment rates, higher capacity utilization) than in 2013, so the underlying inflation pressures should be greater. Realized inflation rates remain subdued in most countries (excluding the U.K.), but central bankers are attributing that to temporary factors that should soon fade. That forecast may prove to be wrong, which risks a potential policy mistake if interest rates move up too much or too fast. For now, however, central banks are in charge and bond investors should position accordingly by limiting duration exposure and overweighting growth-sensitive assets like corporate bonds versus sovereign debt. A Country-By-Country Summary Of Our Interest Rate Views With central banks now in the process of adjusting policy settings to varying degrees, financial markets are starting to show a greater level of diversification than in previous years. This can be seen in the moves in bond yields, equity markets and currencies since the speech by ECB President Mario Draghi on June 27 that ignited the latest bond sell-off (Chart 2). The largest yield moves have occurred in the Euro Area, U.K., Canada and Australia, which have also coincided with currency strength and equity market underperformance in those countries. As the markets now try to sort out the growing divergences between monetary policies, this has opened up opportunities for diversification of duration exposures, country allocation and yield curve strategies. This week, we present a brief summary of our individual country recommendations for the remainder of the year. United States: underweight duration, underweight country allocation, steeper yield curve, long inflation protection The Fed remains on track for a move to begin reducing its balance sheet at the September FOMC meeting, with another rate hike expected in December. The inflation data of late has started to raise concern among some FOMC members about how many more interest rate increases will be necessary for this tightening cycle. We expect U.S. growth to show solid improvement over the latter half of 2017, and for this current downdraft in realized inflation to soon bottom out led by tightening labor markets and the lagged impact of this year's decline in the U.S. dollar. Treasury yields will continue to grind higher in the months ahead, led more by rising inflation expectations that will bear-steepen the yield curve. (Chart 3) Chart 2Market Moves Since Draghi's Portugal Speech Global Interest Rate Strategy For The Remainder Of 2017 Global Interest Rate Strategy For The Remainder Of 2017 Chart 3U.S. Rates Strategy Summary U.S. Rates Strategy Summary U.S. Rates Strategy Summary Germany: underweight duration, underweight country allocation, steeper yield curve, long inflation protection France: underweight duration, underweight country allocation, steeper yield curve, long inflation protection Italy: underweight duration, underweight country allocation (versus Spain), steeper yield curve The ECB is clearly signaling that a taper of its asset purchase program will begin in 2018. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Mario Draghi will speak at the upcoming Fed Jackson Hole conference in late August.1 Similar to his speech at the ECB Forum in late June, this will likely be another opportunity for Draghi to prepare financial markets and other central bankers for the ECB's policy shift. We expect an announcement of a "Fed-like" tapering of bond purchases that will begin in January and end sometime in the fourth quarter of 2018. A rate hike is still some time away, most likely in the first half of 2019 at the earliest. The ECB will want to see more signs of lower unemployment and sustainable higher core Euro Area inflation before contemplating higher short-term interest rates - especially given the likely positive impact on the euro from such a move that would risk an unwanted tightening of financial conditions. There is far more risk in longer-dated bond yields to reprice via higher term premia and/or inflation expectations, thus we are recommending a bearish stance not only on European duration and country allocation, but also a bias toward steeper yield curves (Chart 4 & Chart 5). Tapering will also put upward pressure on Peripheral European yields and spreads, particularly in Italy, as risk premiums normalize away from the tight levels seen during the ECB asset purchase program. We do not anticipate a rout in Italian debt given the current improvements in the domestic economy and the positive moves seen in consolidating and recapitalizing the troubled Italian banking sector. However, we do see continued underperformance of Italian debt versus Spanish sovereigns, thus we are maintaining an overweight stance on Spain versus Italy in our model bond portfolio (Chart 6). Chart 4Germany Rates Strategy Summary Germany Rates Strategy Summary Germany Rates Strategy Summary Chart 5France Rates Strategy Summary France Rates Strategy Summary France Rates Strategy Summary Chart 6Italy & Spain Strategy Summary Italy & Spain Strategy Summary Italy & Spain Strategy Summary U.K.: underweight duration, neutral country allocation, neutral yield curve We have been maintaining a neutral allocation to U.K. Gilts, but with an underweight duration exposure and a curve steepening bias (Chart 7). The growing rift among the members of the BoE Monetary Policy Committee does suggest that there could be more two-way risk in U.K. interest rates than at any time seen since last year's Brexit vote. The BoE responded to that political surprise with rate cuts and a new round of asset purchases, even though the U.K. economy was operating at full employment at the time and inflation pressures were rising. Now, the chickens have come home to roost for the BoE, with inflation remaining stubbornly high despite signs of slowing growth (Chart 8). With real wage growth slowing substantially and household saving rates at very low levels, the risk of a consumer spending slowdown - that the BoE was flagging earlier in the year - is increasing. Chart 7U.K. Rates Strategy Summary U.K. Rates Strategy Summary U.K. Rates Strategy Summary Chart 8Stagflation In The U.K. Stagflation In The U.K. Stagflation In The U.K. Given the ongoing uncertainties from the upcoming Brexit negotiations that will likely continue to weight on business confidence and investment spending, and with consumption likely to continue losing steam, we see little case for the BoE to seriously consider a rate hike before year-end. We are only recommending a neutral stance on Gilts, though, as realized inflation continues to run well above the BoE's target, supported by the stubbornly soft British pound. We continue to recommend a steepening bias on the Gilt curve until there is more decisive evidence that U.K. inflation is rolling over. Japan: overweight duration, maximum overweight country allocation, neutral yield curve and neutral inflation protection We continue to recommend a maximum overweight on Japanese government bonds (JGBs). JGBs are a low-beta market with the BoJ still targeting a 0% level on the benchmark 10-year yield, even as other global bond markets sell off. The BoJ has been particularly aggressive in capping any rise in JGB yields of late, offering to buy 10-year bonds in unlimited size and also increasing its purchases at shorter maturities (Chart 9). With Japanese inflation still struggling to stay in positive territory, even with the economy estimated to be operating at full employment, the BoJ will do the only thing it can do to put a floor under inflation - keep JGB yields at low levels to trigger a new wave of yen weakness and, hopefully, some imported inflation pressures via the currency. Against this backdrop, JGBs will continue to outperform other DM bond markets during this move towards strong growth and less accommodative monetary policies outside of Japan. Stay overweight Japan against global hedged bond benchmarks. Canada: underweight duration, underweight country allocation, flatter yield curve, long inflation protection We moved our Canadian country allocation to underweight last week in advance of the BoC's expected rate hike, but we had been recommending bearish Canadian trades (curve flatteners and spread wideners versus U.S. Treasuries) in our Tactical Overlay Trade Portfolio for much of the year so far.2 The BoC's 180-degree policy shift over the past month has taken many investors by surprise, but the very strong upturn in the Canadian economy is forcing the BoC into action. With the BoC now projecting the Canadian output gap to be closed this year, expect another one, even two, rate hikes by the end of 2017. This will put additional upward pressure on Canadian bond yields and bear-flatten the Canadian government bond yield curve (Chart 10). Australia: neutral duration, neutral country allocation, neutral curve Australia has been one of the trickier markets on which to have a strong opinion, given the combination of a tight labor market, low inflation, mixed readings on domestic demand and heavy exposure to China's economy. This has led us to be neutral across the board on Australian bonds (Chart 11). We will be covering the outlook for Australia in a Special Report to be published next week, in which we will re-examine our current Australia recommendations. Chart 9Japan Rates Strategy Summary Japan Rates Strategy Summary Japan Rates Strategy Summary Chart 10Canada Rates Strategy Summary Canada Rates Strategy Summary Canada Rates Strategy Summary Chart 11Australia Rates Strategy Summary Australia Rates Strategy Summary Australia Rates Strategy Summary Bottom Line: Many central banks are responding to the strong global economic backdrop by signaling not only a shift in the bias of monetary policy, but actual changes in interest rates or asset purchases. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall portfolio stance, but with more diverse views on country allocation: underweight the U.S., Euro Area, & Canada; maximum overweight on Japan; and neutral on the U.K. and Australia. Expect steeper yield curves in the U.S., Euro Area and U.K., and continued flattening in Canada. An Update On The State Of U.S. Corporate Bond Market Liquidity In the Fed's latest Monetary Policy Report, presented by Janet Yellen to the U.S. Congress last week, an entire section was devoted to the state of U.S. corporate bond market liquidity.3 The Fed's conclusion was that, according to many commonly used metrics like average bid/ask spreads, corporate debt has not become more difficult to trade in recent years. This goes against the intuition of many bond investors who have perceived a deterioration of liquidity in corporate credit markets since the 2008 Financial Crisis. The Fed likely felt compelled to dedicate three pages of its Monetary Policy Report to a topic as mundane as bond market functionality as a defense of its current regulatory framework for U.S. banks. The Fed has taken a lot of flak from major U.S. financial institutions, conservative free-market politicians and, since last November, the Trump White House over the "heavy-handed" rules shackling the banks. Chart 12U.S. Dealers Don't Matter U.S. Dealers Don't Matter U.S. Dealers Don't Matter Regulations such as the Volcker Rule and the Supplementary Leverage Ratio have almost certainly reduced the odds of another financial crisis caused by undercapitalized banks speculating in risky assets. Yet the critics continue to point out that banks which are more worried about meeting regulatory targets are less able to make loans or, in the case of investment banks, make markets in risky assets like corporate debt. This is important for bond investors given the sharply reduced footprint of investment banks in corporate debt markets. The Fed's data on primary dealer positioning in corporates shows a massive decline from the pre-crisis peak in 2007 of $280bn to only $20bn this year (Chart 12). Over the same period, the size of the U.S. corporate bond market has more than tripled to $6.5 trillion (using the market capitalization of the Barclays Investment Grade and High-Yield indices as a proxy). On the surface, that indicates that dealers held 10% of "the market" at the peak. Now, dealer inventories barely represent only 0.3% of corporate debt outstanding. While that is low, it is not much lower than the share of corporates held by dealers in the early 2000s. When looking at the full span of the available data, the huge dealer footprint in the U.S. corporate bond market in the years prior to the Financial Crisis was the exception and not the norm. Like most other market participants in those years, the investment banks were seduced by the extended period of low macro and market volatility and ended up taking too much risk on their balance sheets. Now, dealers are much more cautious when trading with clients, acting more as an "agent" that matches buyers and sellers for individual trades and less as a "principal" that holds the bonds themselves. The smaller presence of dealers could create a liquidity problem for corporate debt, especially if dealers in their usual role as market-makers cannot be there to absorb the selling pressure from investors during market sell-offs. Yet corporate bond markets have functioned well since the dark days of the Lehman crisis. According to data from SIFMA, average daily trading volumes in the U.S. corporate bond market rose from a low in 2008 of $14bn to $30bn in 2016 (Chart 13). Corporate bond issuance has surged as well, but corporate bond turnover - total annualized trading volumes relative to total bonds outstanding - has improved by nearly 35% since the 2008 low. In addition, the reduced dealer presence has not resulted in any unusual widening of typical relationships like the basis between Credit Default Swaps and corporate bond spreads (bottom panel). The Fed noted this in its Monetary Policy Report as a sign that market liquidity was not impaired since there were not many "unrealized arbitrage opportunities". It is evident that other market participants have picked up the slack from the dealers in U.S. corporate bond trading. Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) are the obvious candidate, led by the popular iShares HYG and the SPDR JNK funds that have a combined $30bn in assets under management. According to the Fed's database on the Financial Accounts of the United States (formerly known as the Flow of Funds), the share of corporate bonds held by all retail funds, including ETFs, soared from 6.5% in 2008 to nearly 19% in Q1 of this year (Chart 14). This nearly offset the decline in the share of corporates held directly by households, as individual investors shifted their preferences toward the ease of trading corporate debt ETFs over individual bonds. Chart 13U.S. Corporate Bond Market Turnover Has Improved U.S. Corporate Bond Market Turnover Has Improved U.S. Corporate Bond Market Turnover Has Improved Chart 14Shifting Ownership Patterns For U.S. Corporates Shifting Ownership Patterns For U.S. Corporates Shifting Ownership Patterns For U.S. Corporates Importantly, institutional investors like insurance companies and pension funds have seen their influence in corporate bond markets increase, as they now hold a combined 35% of corporate debt, up from 26% in 2008 (bottom two panels). These groups will likely control an even greater share of the corporate bond market in the years to come with the growing usage of so-called "all-to-all" electronic trading platforms like MarketAxess or Bloomberg that allow users to trade directly with each other. All-to-all has already established a major market footprint, as activity on MarketAxess now represents 16% of all trading volume in U.S. Investment Grade corporates and 34% for High-Yield, according to The Economist.4 This is a hugely important development. If more professional bond investors can now transact directly with one another, this helps to alleviate any reduction in market liquidity caused by a smaller dealer presence in the market. Even with so much evidence pointing to no serious liquidity problems in U.S. corporate debt, some worrisome issues remain. Chart 15Market Performance Leads Fund Inflows,##BR##Not Vice Versa Market Performance Leads Fund Inflows, Not Vice Versa Market Performance Leads Fund Inflows, Not Vice Versa Average trade sizes in corporates are smaller now compared to pre-crisis levels - perhaps as much as 20% smaller according to estimates by the New York Fed.5 This is likely the result of the reduced risk-taking by the dealers and the growing share of direct electronic trading. This creates an effect where it may feel like liquidity is impaired since it now takes longer to execute a large bond trade, even though transaction costs for individual trades have not been increasing, on average. Corporate bond ETFs are easier to trade than the underlying bonds held in the ETFs themselves. This has worried many investors who fear that a corporate bond market downturn could turn into a much larger rout if rapid ETF redemptions cause "fire sales" of the bonds held in the ETFs to quickly raise cash. Admittedly, the unique ETF structure - where the shares of the ETF are traded and not the underlying bonds, similar to a closed-end mutual fund - has not yet been tested in a true credit bear market. However, there have been several episodes of "risk-off" bond sell-offs over the past few years, most notably for High-Yield ETFs during the 2014/15 oil bear market, which did not result in any disorderly disruption of corporate bond markets. If anything, the historical experience of U.S. corporate bond mutual funds shows that net flows into funds tend to follow, and not lead, the performance of markets (Chart 15). This may exaggerate bond market moves at turning points but, in general, outflows are a symptom, not a cause, of corporate bond downturns. Net-net, we agree with the assessment of the Fed that corporate bond market liquidity shows little sign of impairment and does not represent a threat to market stability. Bottom Line: There are few signs of diminished liquidity in U.S. corporate bond markets, despite the sharply reduced inventories of primary dealers. ETFs and institutional investors have picked up the slack from the dealers, as has electronic trading directly between market participants. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.wsj.com/articles/draghi-may-address-future-of-ecb-stimulus-at-jackson-hole-1499944342 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Dangerous Duration", dated July 11 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/20170707_mprfullreport.pdf 4 https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21721208-greater-automation-promises-more-liquidity-investors-digitisation-shakes-up 5 http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2015/10/has-us-corporate-bond-market-liquidity-deteriorated.html Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Interest Rate Strategy For The Remainder Of 2017 Global Interest Rate Strategy For The Remainder Of 2017

Highlights BCA's Central Bank Monitors support the case for less stimulus. Yellen's "dovish" testimony does not change our Fed call. The BCA Beige Book Monitor and related indicators support our view on the economy and Fed. Maximum central bank policy divergence has not been reached. Too early to predict Trump's replacement for Yellen. Now that economic surprise index has bottomed, risk assets can outperform as the metric mean reverts. Some wage measures are accelerating as the economy approaches full employment. Feature Chart 1Sell-Off In Global Bond Markets##BR##Triggered By Central Bank Talk Sell-Off In Global Bond Markets Triggered By Central Bank Talk Sell-Off In Global Bond Markets Triggered By Central Bank Talk Global bond investors were shocked in June when central bankers announced at the ECB's Forum on Central Banking what appeared to be a global recalibration of monetary policy. Until that time, investors had been lulled into a false sense of security that growth headwinds would prevent the Fed from hiking by more than once a year and keep the other major central banks on hold "indefinitely." The heads of the Bank of England (BoE), the Bank of Canada (BoC) and the Riksbank all took a less dovish tone, as they signaled less need for ultra-stimulative policies because the threat of deflation had diminished. Together with some better-than-expected U.S. economic data, this shift in tone led to a sharp sell-off in global bond markets (Chart 1). The BoC followed up last week by kicking off a prolonged tightening cycle. The central bank now expects the Canadian economy to reach full employment and hit the BoC's inflation targets by mid-2018, which is much earlier than expected. The global bond mini-rout actually began before the ECB Forum, when the ECB President gave a very upbeat description of the underlying strength of the Euro Area economy. BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service highlights that the Euro Area is about two percentage points closer to full employment than the U.S. was just before the infamous 2013 Taper Tantrum.1 European core inflation is admittedly below target today, but so was the U.S. rate leading up to the 2013 Tantrum. Draghi's comments confirm that the ECB will announce this fall that a further tapering of its asset purchase program will take place in early 2018. The message that "emergency" levels of monetary accommodation are no longer needed is confirmed by our Central Bank Monitors (CB), which measure pressure on central bankers to raise or lower interest rates (Chart 2). The Monitors became less useful when rates hit the zero bound and quantitative easing became popular, but the measures are relevant again. All of our CB Monitors are in "tighter policy required" territory except for Japan (although even that one appears on the verge of breaking above the critical zero line). The Monitors have been rising due more to their growth than their inflation components. Bond investors may be startled by the ECB's posture because inflation remains well below target in all the major economies except the U.K. What is most worrying is the recent deceleration in U.S. inflation, where the economy is very close to or at full employment. Almost all of the major central banks point to temporary factors that will soon fade, which would allow inflation to escalate toward the target. Our Aggregate Inflation Indicators have all signaled a modest building of underlying inflation pressure over the past year (although they have softened recently in the U.S. and Eurozone; Chart 3). In terms of the components of these indicators, rising core producer price inflation has been partly offset by slower gains in unit labor costs in some economies. Chart 2All In The "Tighter Policy Required" Zone All In The "Tighter Policy Required" Zone All In The "Tighter Policy Required" Zone Chart 3BCA Aggregate Inflation Indicators BCA Aggregate Inflation Indicators BCA Aggregate Inflation Indicators These and other indicators support our view that core consumer price inflation will grind higher in the coming months in most of the advanced economies, including the U.S. Admittedly, all models and indicators have been poor predictors of inflation in this recovery. Nonetheless, historical relationships might begin to re-establish now that capacity utilization is rising and labor market slack has moderated significantly. Did Yellen Turn Dovish? June's FOMC minutes indicated that the consensus among Fed policymakers is willing to "look through" low inflation and maintain the current timetable on rate hikes. Yellen's Congressional testimony last week did not deviate from that view, although investors interpreted her remarks as dovish. The financial press focused on her statement that "...the policy rate is not far from neutral." However, this was followed up by the statement that "...because we also anticipate that the factors that are currently holding down the neutral rate will diminish somewhat over time, additional gradual rate hikes are likely to be appropriate over the next few years to sustain the economic expansion and return inflation to our 2 percent goal." The Fed asserts there are two neutral interest rates: short-term and long-term. Yellen argued that the actual policy rate is close to the short-term level, which is depressed by economic headwinds. However, Yellen and others have made the case that the short-term neutral rate is trending up as headwinds diminish, and will converge with the long-term neutral rate over time. The Fed Chair is at risk of confusing investors by discussing the concept of two neutral rates, although this may have been to head off demands by some Congressional lawmakers that the Fed should follow a mechanical policy rule when setting policy (such as the Taylor Rule). Nonetheless, the important point is that Yellen is not saying that the actual policy rate is close to the peak for the cycle. Yellen's testimony has not altered our Fed call for this year: balance sheet runoff beginning in the fall, followed by a rate hike in December. The latter hinges importantly on at least a modest rise in core PCE inflation in the coming months. We expect more rate hikes in 2018/19 than are discounted in the bond market. That said, the soft June CPI data challenges our view that inflation will move higher in the second half. The bottom line is that the backdrop has turned decidedly bond-bearish now that central bankers in the advanced economies are in the process of scaling back the easier monetary policy that followed the deflationary 2014/15 oil shock. Global bond yields have already taken a step up in recent weeks, but they will have to rise further to catch up with the solid pace of global growth and diminishing economic slack. Duration should be kept short. The Beige Book: Another Inflation Anomaly The Beige Book released on July 12 supports the Fed's base case outlook for the economy and inflation. It also keeps the Fed on track to begin to trim its balance sheet in September and boost rates by another 25 basis points in December. Our quantitative approach2 to the qualitative data in the Beige Book points to an acceleration in GDP and inflation, less business unease from a rising U.S. dollar, and ongoing improvement in real estate, both commercial and residential (Chart 4). Chart 4Beige Book Monitors Support Fed's Outlook##BR##On Economy And Inflation Beige Book Monitors Support Fed's Outlook On Economy And Inflation Beige Book Monitors Support Fed's Outlook On Economy And Inflation At 62%, the BCA Beige Book Monitor remained near its cycle highs in July, providing more confirmation that the economy rebounded in Q2 after a desultory Q1. The July 12 Beige Book covered the period from late May through June 30. Based on the Beige Book, the dollar should not be much of an issue in Q2 earnings season. The greenback seems to have faded as a concern for small businesses and bankers, which is in sharp contrast to 2015 and early 2016 when mentions of a strong dollar in the Beige Book surged. The Q2 earnings reporting season will provide corporate managements with another forum to express their views of currency impact on their operations. Business uncertainty over government policy (fiscal, regulatory and health) remained elevated in the most recent Beige Book (not shown). The implication is that the business community is mindful of the lack of progress by Washington policymakers on Trump's agenda. Our analysis of the Beige Book also shows that real estate was still stout as Q2 ended. This implies that both residential and commercial real estate, the former a source of strength in Q1, will add to growth again in Q2. Moreover, the latest reading on the BCA Real Estate Monitor further widened the gap between the BCA Beige Book Real Estate Monitor and the relative performance of REITS to the S&P 500. Nonetheless, BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy service recently downgraded REITS to neutral,3 citing our expectation of higher Treasury yields, modest rent growth, some cracks in CRE credit quality, and tightening standards for bank lending in the CRE marketplace. Echoing the market's disagreement with the Fed on inflation, the big disconnect in the Beige Book showed up in the number of inflation words. Inflation words hit a new peak in July, in sharp contrast with the recent soft readings on CPI and PCE. In the past, increased references to inflation have led measured inflation by a few months, suggesting that the CPI and core PCE may soon turn up. Bottom Line: The Beige Book backs the Fed's assertion that the economy will expand around 2% this year and inflation will move higher in the coming months, supporting a gradual removal of policy accommodation. Uncertainty in Washington is distressing, but worries over the dollar seem to be fading. Max Policy Divergence Has Not Been Reached What about the dollar? Tighter Fed policy is dollar-bullish on its own, but some of the major central banks are also starting to remove the monetary punchbowl as well. Recent dollar action suggests that investors have decided that the peak Fed/ECB policy divergence is now behind us. We do not agree. The ECB may be tapering, but raising interest rates is a long way off because there is still a lot of economic slack in the Eurozone. In contrast, the Fed is increasingly concerned that allowing the unemployment rate to fall further below its estimate of full-employment risks too large an overshoot of the 2% target. We still believe that market pricing for the fed funds rate is too benign. As Fed rate hike expectations ratchet up in the coming months, interest rate differentials versus Europe will widen in favor of the dollar. It is the same story for the dollar/yen rate. The major exception is the Canadian dollar, which we expect to appreciate versus the greenback. Does Gary Cohn Have What It Takes? A key wildcard in the financial outlook is the Fed Chair's replacement. Yellen's term as Chair will end in February 2018 and the markets have not yet shown any concerns about her potential replacement. The current frontrunner is Gary Cohn, the Chairman of President Trump's National Economic Committee; his appointment would conform to some historical precedents but violate others. Our March 6 Weekly Report4 provides a list of potential Fed appointees and also provides some background on the potential for the Fed to become more politicized under Trump. Since the late 1970s, Presidents have selected the Fed Chair based on their trust relationship with a candidate. Arthur Burns (Chair from 1970-1978) was the head of President Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) and was a special counselor to President Nixon. William Miller (1978-1979) worked for the presidential campaigns of Hubert Humphrey and Jimmy Carter. Alan Greenspan (1987-2006) served as the Chair of President Reagan's Social Security Commission in the early 1980s, was the Chair of President Ford's CEA and advised President Nixon's campaign in 1968. Ben Bernanke (2006-2014) was George W. Bush's chief economist in 2005 and 2006 before Bush chose him to lead the Fed. Janet Yellen (2014-present) was Chair of Bill Clinton's CEA in the late 1990s, when she worked with many of Obama's economic team members. Paul Volcker (1979-1987) was the lone exception to this rule; he worked for Nixon, but not Carter, before becoming Fed Chair (Table 1). Table 1Characteristics Of Fed Chairs Since 1970 Global Monetary Policy Recalibration Global Monetary Policy Recalibration Cohn does not have any experience as a central banker, but that does not preclude him from holding the position. Volcker, Bernanke and Yellen, all held posts in the Federal Reserve System before their appointments as Chair. However, Miller was an outside director for the Boston Fed, and Burns and Greenspan had no prior experience at the monetary authority. Party identification is one area where Gary Cohn would stand out. Since at least 1970, the party affiliation of a new Fed Chair has matched that of the President. However, Presidents have crossed party lines to reappoint sitting Fed Chairmen to additional terms. Volker, Greenspan and Bernanke were reappointed to lead the Fed by Presidents from opposing political parties. The timing of Trump's announcement on Yellen's replacement may be critical. In the summer of 2013, names were already being floated by the Obama White House (and mainly rejected) by markets, before he finally settled on Yellen. The official announcement came in early October 2013. In August 2009, President Obama reappointed Bernanke for a second four-year term. Bernanke was initially nominated to be Fed Chair by George W. Bush in October of 2005. If the appointment comes in October and the nominee is perceived to be hawkish, the risk is that markets may begin to price in the regime change sometime in the next few months. Our U.S. Bond Strategy service argued in a recent report5 that rate hike expectations may already be ramping up, while the data on the economy and inflation begin to beat expectations again. Bottom Line: It is too early for the markets to be concerned about the next Fed Chair and their policies. The names mentioned in the summer may not be the ones offered the job in the fall. Surprise Index Finally Bottomed Out The June employment report marked a turning point for the Citigroup surprise index, following an extended period of disappointment that depressed the dollar and bond yields. The June reports on CPI and retail sales were disappointing, but June industrial production exceeded expectations. What does this mean for relative asset returns? After 86 days, expectations moved low enough to allow economic reality to begin to run ahead. It took as few as 8 business days (in 2009) and as many as 164 (2015) for the surprise index to return to the zero line, an average of 52 days (Chart 5). Chart 5Risk Assets Tend To Outperform As Economic Surprise Index Rebounds Risk Assets Tend To Outperform As Economic Surprise Index Rebounds Risk Assets Tend To Outperform As Economic Surprise Index Rebounds Mean-reversions in the surprise index following troughs have generally been good for risk assets in this recovery (Table 2). We have identified 11 periods since late 2009 when the surprise index bottomed out and then moved up toward zero. In 8 of those episodes, the total return on stocks was higher than 10-year Treasuries. Equities beat Treasuries by an average of 286 bps across all 11 periods, with a median outperformance of 400 basis points. Table 2U.S. Financial Market Performance As Economic Surprise Index Rises Global Monetary Policy Recalibration Global Monetary Policy Recalibration The total return on investment-grade corporate debt outperformed Treasuries in 6 of 11 episodes. In those six instances, investment grade credit outperformed on average by 132 bps. Nonetheless over all 11 episodes, the excess return was 0%. In contrast, high-yield bonds beat Treasuries in 7 of the 11 periods, with a median outperformance of 188 basis points. Similarly, small caps beat large caps 72% of the time as the economic surprise index moved back toward the zero line. The median outperformance of small over large in all 11 periods was 124 basis points. The performance of commodities was mixed as economic surprises climbed. Gold rose in 6 of the 11 times, but fell in 5. Oil prices posted increases in only 5 of the 11, but the median return for oil after economic surprise bottomed was -2.7%. Bottom Line: Economic expectations that ramped up post-election have now declined and allowed the economic surprise index to trough. The implication for investors is that risk assets tend to outperform as the economic surprise index moves back to zero. This supports our tactical views of stocks over bonds, small over large caps, and credit over Treasury. What's Up With Wages? The June jobs report released in early July6 only added to the market's fears that the Phillips Curve is dead because wage growth softened even as the labor market tightened. Unfortunately, no Fed officials including Yellen have addressed the topic in depth recently. The market does not believe the Fed when it says that the tighter labor market is pushing up wages. We see it another way. Chart 6 shows that wage inflation has accelerated since mid-to-late 2012, but some measures of wages have made more progress than others. Chart 7 and Chart 8 reinforce that, setting aside the rollover in average hourly earnings (AHE), wage inflation is accelerating, albeit modestly. Chart 6Plenty Of Signs That##BR##Wages Are Accelerating Plenty Of Signs That Wages Are Accelerating Plenty Of Signs That Wages Are Accelerating Chart 7Compositional Effects Do Not##BR##Explain Recent Rollover Compositional Effects Do Not Explain Recent Rollover Compositional Effects Do Not Explain Recent Rollover Chart 8Acceleration In Hours Worked Should##BR##Lead To Faster Wage Growth Acceleration In Hours Worked Should Lead To Faster Wage Growth Acceleration In Hours Worked Should Lead To Faster Wage Growth The Employment Cost Index (ECI) excluding bonuses (Chart 6, panel 1) is our favorite measure of labor compensation. It has accelerated steadily since 2010. It adjusts for compositional changes in the labor market (unlike the average hourly earnings measure) and is the broadest and most comprehensive wage metric. Its drawbacks are that it is released with a long lag. For example, the Q2 ECI data will not be released until the end of July. The AHE data is already available for June and Q2. On the other hand, unit labor costs (ULC) (panel 2) have stagnated for the past five years. Data starts in 1947, so it has the most history of any of the wage measures. However, it is even more delayed than the ECI: it is released five weeks after the end of the quarter. Moreover, these data are subject to revisions and tend to be more volatile than other wages measures, which makes it difficult to identify a change in trend. Productivity, which is used to construct ULC, is also very difficult to estimate. A recent BIS report7 notes that there is evidence that the relationship between ULC and labor market slack has diminished over time, but that ULC is a better measure of inflationary pressures than AHE. Median usual weekly earnings (panel 3) have also accelerated. This is not a pure wage measure; it combines hourly pay and hours worked and, therefore, is a good proxy for incomes. Income growth has picked up the pace, providing a solid underpinning for consumer spending. Panel 4 shows compensation per hour worked. It, too, has stalled and is subject to the same strengths and weakness as ULC because it is part of the quarterly Productivity and Costs report. This metric has run near 2% with no trend. Finally, average hourly earnings (panel 5) have sped up since 2012, but rolled over in late 2016. This wage gauge gets most of the market's attention although it is only one of many measures that the Fed watches. AHE is a timely data set, released alongside monthly payroll numbers. It includes average earnings of private non-farm production and non-supervisory positions. The major disadvantage of this measure is that hourly wage earners represent only about 58% of workers and do not account for trends in salaried jobs. Earnings do not include bonus pay or employee benefits. The data are available beginning only in 2006. In Chart 7, we created an "equally-weighted" AHE measure to adjust for shifts in the composition of the labor market, but we found that the recent deceleration is not linked to compositional effects. Since wage growth bottomed out in late 2012, the compositional shifts slightly lowered wage inflation on average, but the growth rates today are roughly the same. The Atlanta Fed wage tracker (not shown) is in a distinct uptrend. The Tracker has the advantage that it is not biased by compositional shifts. Chart 8 shows our update to a study by the Kansas City Fed8 that found only a few industries (mostly in the goods-producing sector of the economy) have accounted for most of the rise in wages, notably manufacturing, construction and wholesale trade. Financial services, retail, professional and business services, and leisure and hospitality - all service sector industries - were the laggards. The report shows that although earnings growth has fallen behind in service-oriented industries since 2015, hours worked have seen faster growth than in the goods-producing sector. We concur with the author that labor demand was strong in the past few years in areas that have not experienced much wage growth. As the labor market continues to tighten, wages in these industries may accelerate, but patience will be required. Bottom Line: The various measures of wage inflation provide a mixed picture. Taken as a group, however, we believe that wage growth has indeed accelerated as the labor market has tightened. The acceleration has admittedly been modest, but it is only recently that unemployment reached a full employment level. The real test for the Phillips curve will be in the coming quarters as the economy moves further into "excess labor demand" territory. 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 BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Central Banks Are Now Playing Catch-Up", dated July 4, 2017. Available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Great Debate Continues", dated April 17, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "SPX 3000?, dated July 10, 2017. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Trump And The Fed", dated March 6, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Summer Snapback", dated July 11, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Sizing up the Second Half", dated July 10, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Monetary policy: inching towards normalization", Bank for International Settlements (BIS), 25 June 2017. 8 Wage Leaders and Laggards: Decomposing The Growth In Average Hourly Earnings", Willem Van Zandweghe, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, February 15, 2017.

Dear Client, I am visiting clients this week, and as such there will be no Weekly Report. Instead, we are sending you this Special Report written by my colleague Jonathan LaBerge. Jonathan argues that while the recent acceleration of the Canadian economy is genuine, the rise in Canadian household debt-to-income over the past 16 years has been so large that a credit-driven downturn in spending is now virtually unavoidable over the long run. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights The recent economic improvement in Canada is genuine. In isolation, this supports the Bank of Canada's decision to gradually raise interest rates. However, over the long run, the historical experience suggests that the substantial leverage of Canadian households will ultimately cause a serious credit-driven downturn. Several myths about Canada's housing market have obscured the true extent of its credit market imbalances, heightening the risk that policymakers will ultimately overplay their hand when tightening monetary conditions. There are multiple potential triggers that could eventually spark a credit-driven downturn in Canada, but none of them seem likely to have a major impact on the economy over the coming 6-12 months. Favor a pro-cyclical stance over the coming year, but look to shift to a bearish structural view at some point beyond the immediate investment horizon. Feature Several developments over the past few months have altered the outlook for the Canadian economy. However, these events have not had a consistent impact on the narrative for Canadian assets. Whereas a sharp rebound in real GDP growth and a hawkish pivot from the Bank of Canada have been signs of a strengthening economy, the crisis surrounding Home Capital Group (a Canadian non-bank mortgage lender) was an ominous sign for many investors concerned about the deeply imbalanced Canadian housing market.1 In this report we argue that the cyclical improvement in the Canadian economy is legitimate, and that the Bank of Canada is likely to move forward with gradual policy tightening following Wednesday's move. However, the rise in Canadian household debt-to-income over the past 16 years has been so large that a credit-driven downturn in spending is now virtually unavoidable over the long run, rather than a risk. We highlight how, in many ways, the imbalances in the Canadian housing market are even worse than the market narrative would suggest. We also provide a checklist of factors to monitor in order to judge when Canada's day of reckoning will arrive. For now, it does not appear to be imminent. From an investment standpoint, our conclusions imply that investors should pursue a "two-staged" approach when allocating to Canadian assets. Over the coming 6-12 months, a cyclical improvement in the economy means that Canadian risky asset prices and government bond yields are likely to rise, and we believe that this stage is worth playing. But over the secular horizon, the reverse is likely to unfold, meaning that a rally in Canadian assets over the coming year will create excellent "selling conditions" for investors looking to position for a bearish structural view. Economic Momentum Is Spurring Tighter Monetary Policy... The Bank of Canada is now back on a path towards tighter monetary policy, and a close examination of the Canadian economy, as well as our outlook for global oil inventories, supports the BoC's view: Real consumer spending picked up significantly in Q1, rising from 2.7% to 3.1% on a year-over-year basis. Chart 1 highlights that the rise in real spending has been supported by a rebound in employment growth and consumer confidence (the latter is at a 9-year high). On the employment side, Chart 1 also shows that the acceleration in job growth is not limited to provinces that are strongly associated with oil sands production. In fact, the chart shows that employment in Canada excluding Alberta and Saskatchewan has been in an uptrend since mid-2014, when fiscal and monetary policy began to respond to the shock from a collapse in the price of oil. All Canadian employment cylinders are now firing, given the job recovery in oil sands provinces. Real Canadian gross fixed capital formation turned positive in Q1 after a significant decline into negative territory, and a simple model based on business confidence, oil prices, and the Canadian dollar (stripped of its correlation with oil) suggests that it will continue to accelerate modestly over the coming year (Chart 2). Chart 1Genuine Signs Of A Stronger Economy Genuine Signs Of A Stronger Economy Genuine Signs Of A Stronger Economy Chart 2Further Gains In Investment Likely Further Gains In Investment Likely Further Gains In Investment Likely Chart 3 shows a model for oil prices, based on global industrial production, oil production, OECD oil inventories, and oil consumption in the major countries and China. If OPEC is successful in reducing inventories to their 5-year moving average, as BCA's commodity strategists expect, the model implies that oil prices will rise materially. This is likely to provide a tailwind for the Canadian economy, at least in nominal terms. While the pace of tightening is likely to be gradual because of the weakness in Canadian core inflation, Chart 4 suggests that the decline in inflation over the past few months may simply represent the correction towards more fundamentally-justified levels. The chart shows a model of core inflation based on lagged real core consumer spending and the Canadian dollar (as a proxy for imported inflation/deflation), and highlights that actual inflation has overshot the model value over the past three years. But the chart also shows that the fundamentally-justified level of core inflation remains in an uptrend, suggesting that recent weakness is likely temporary and is thus not an impediment to higher policy rates over the coming year. Chart 3Falling Inventories Will Be Bullish For Oil Falling Inventories Will Be Bullish For Oil Falling Inventories Will Be Bullish For Oil Chart 4The Dip In Core Inflation Is Temporary The Dip In Core Inflation Is Temporary The Dip In Core Inflation Is Temporary Bottom Line: The recent economic improvement in Canada is genuine and, in isolation, supports the Bank of Canada's decision to gradually raise interest rates. ...But It Will All Likely End In Tears Chart 5Higher Household Leverage Than In The U.S. Pre-Crisis Higher Household Leverage Than In The U.S. Pre-Crisis Higher Household Leverage Than In The U.S. Pre-Crisis While we agree that the Bank of Canada is on a path to gradually raise interest rates over the coming year and that the economy is currently in good shape, the odds are good that tighter policy (and/or other factors) will eventually inflict considerable damage to the Canadian economy via the housing market and its impact on highly leveraged consumers. In this regard, the pickup in Canadian economic growth likely represents a happy moment in an otherwise sad story. Chart 5 compares Canada's mortgage debt-to-disposable income, total household debt-to-GDP, and the total household debt service ratio to that of the U.S. The chart neatly illustrates the fundamental basis for a bearish secular outlook for the Canadian economy, which is that household debt levels have risen enormously since 2000, to a level that is worse today than in the U.S. in 2007. "So what?" ask some investors. Household debt levels vary significantly across countries, meaning that an elevated level of household debt-to-income does not necessarily spell economic doom. Chart 6 counters this point by showing the relationship between the historical change in household debt-to-GDP (y-axis) versus the starting point for the ratio (x-axis) during episodes of significant household leveraging. The change in debt-to-GDP is shown as a 10-year average of the year-over-year change in the ratio, in order to compare Canada's recent debt binge with other long-term booms in credit. In terms of very significant increases in household credit-to-GDP from an already above-average level, Chart 6 shows that Canada's experience (an average yearly increase of 3.3%) has been among the most severe cases. The chart also shows that while there are a few exceptions, other observations in the neighborhood of Canada's have had a strong tendency to be associated with harsh economic consequences once the credit binge has come to an end. In particular, while the chart shows that the countries at the center of the euro area sovereign debt crisis saw a more rapid rise in household debt-to-GDP than observed in Canada, this occurred from a lower base. When measuring the total change in household debt-to-GDP, Canada has experienced almost the same magnitude rise from 2000 to today as what occurred in Spain and Portugal during the last economic cycle. In terms of a comparison with the U.S., Chart 7 presents a long-term perspective on the inverse relationship between household credit growth and real per capita consumption in the U.S. The chart highlights that 10-year upcycles in household debt-to-GDP correlate well, with a lag, to 10-year downcycles in real per capita spending. Periods where the relationship is less tight have tended to be associated with less severe increases in household debt-to-GDP, suggesting that investors can be more confident that debt growth will eventually negatively impact consumer spending the stronger the credit binge has been. Chart 6The Historical Experience Of Household Leveraging Does Not Paint A Pretty Picture For Canada Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story Chart 7Upcycles In Household Leveraging Correspond To Downcycles In Real Spending Upcycles In Household Leveraging Correspond To Downcycles In Real Spending Upcycles In Household Leveraging Correspond To Downcycles In Real Spending As a final point, Chart 7 underscores a sobering fact: The U.S. has only seen two instances of a 3% or greater average annual rise in household debt-to-GDP over the course of a decade: the first was in the 1920s, and the second was from 1998 to 2007. Clearly, in both cases the rise in debt ended very poorly for the U.S. economy. This, along with the prevalence of serious debt crises following credit binges similar in magnitude to Canada's experience, makes it clear that a credit-driven downturn in spending is a highly probable event for the Canadian economy over the long run, rather than a risk. Bottom Line: The available historical evidence suggests that the substantial leveraging of Canadian households that has already occurred will ultimately cause a serious credit-driven downturn. Debunking Some Housing Market Myths: It's Worse Than You Think Chart 816 Years Of Too-Easy Money 16 Years Of Too-Easy Money 16 Years Of Too-Easy Money The risk that the Bank of Canada will eventually "over-tighten" is magnified by the fact that there is still an ongoing debate within Canada about whether any housing market imbalances even exist. Many market participants still employ several arguments about the Canadian housing market that, at first blush, appear to mitigate the risk of serious long-term consequences of Canada's debt boom. But these arguments are flawed, and an in-depth review of these fallacies highlights the economic risk of higher interest rates. Myth #1 - Sustainable Demand And Affordability The first myth about Canada's housing market is that the rise in house prices and household debt is sustainable because of how long the boom has lasted without consequence. However, besides the ominous historical experience highlighted in Charts 6 and 7 above, Chart 8 makes it clear that the substantial build-up in Canadian household debt since 2000 has occurred primarily due to too-easy monetary policy, rather than legitimate housing market fundamentals. The chart presents Canadian household debt-to-GDP versus the Bank of Canada's target for the overnight rate. The dotted line in panel 2 is a Canadian version of the well-known Taylor rule of monetary policy, with panel 3 showing the difference between the actual policy rate and that prescribed by the rule. The chart shows that the rise in household debt-to-GDP began precisely when the policy rate fell below the Taylor rule, and that this gap has persisted for the past 16 years. We acknowledge that the Bank of Canada felt it was necessary to keep interest rates relatively low during the last economic cycle because of the persistent strength in the Canadian dollar (which acts to restrain exports). But whatever drag on growth that occurred from a strong currency was not large enough to prevent low interest rates from sparking an enormous rise in household leverage. Myth #2 - No Foreign Money Effect The second myth about the Canadian housing market is that there is no substantial effect on house prices from foreign money and that, by extension, foreign transaction taxes should be discouraged. To us, the issue is not the specific residency status of a particular buyer, but rather whether the housing market is being supported by an inflow of foreign capital. While data limitations make it difficult to prove with certainty that Canada has been struck with a tidal wave of capital from China (with Hong Kong acting as the conduit), Charts 9 and 10 show that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. The story that emerges from the charts is that the peak in Chinese real GDP growth in 2010 marked the beginning of significant capital outflow from the country, which appears to have moved through Hong Kong, and was perhaps accelerated by Xi Jinping's crackdown on cronyism that began in 2013. Panel 2 of Chart 9 shows that the average absolute value of Hong Kong's "net errors and omissions" line from the balance of payments spiked after mid-2010,2 as did Canada's "other investment liabilities" with a lag. Chart 10 shows that this period also saw a sharp rise in visitor arrivals to Canada from China and Hong Kong, a rise in the share of Canadian bank loans to nonresidents, and a meteoric rise in house prices in Vancouver and Toronto. Chart 11 presents data from Global Financial Integrity, a Washington-based think tank that tracks illicit financial flows globally. While the data is only available with a lag, the chart shows that GFI's estimate of illicit financial outflows from China has risen significantly following the global financial crisis, which is consistent with the narrative presented in Charts 9 and 10. Chart 9Very Strong Circumstantial Evidence... Very Strong Circumstantial Evidence... Very Strong Circumstantial Evidence... Chart 10...Of Foreign Capital Inflows ...Of Foreign Capital Inflows ...Of Foreign Capital Inflows Chart 11Clear Evidence Of Chinese Capital Flight Clear Evidence Of Chinese Capital Flight Clear Evidence Of Chinese Capital Flight Myth #3 - Tight Supply The third myth concerning Canadian housing is the argument that housing supply is tight, which justifies the exponential move in house prices. First, it should be noted that while residential investment as a share of GDP was indeed low in the late-1990s, it rose back to its long-term average within the first three years of the housing boom, and has recently risen to a 27-year high (Chart 12). A similar trend can be observed in housing starts and the number of unsold housing inventories. As such, it seems difficult to make the case that the extraordinary rise in house prices and household debt that we have observed over the past 16 years is ultimately due to scarce housing supply. Chart 13 makes this point more saliently, by presenting a scatterplot of the median house price-to-income ratio versus the population density of several major global markets. Ultimately, in any true market economy, genuine housing supply constraints must be related to high density or else there would be ample room to build additional housing units. Two points are noteworthy: Chart 12There Is No Supply Problem There Is No Supply Problem There Is No Supply Problem Chart 13'There's Nowhere To Build!': Yeah, Right! Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story The median house price-to-income ratio for Toronto and Vancouver deviate enormously from the level that would be implied by their density given the relationship across global housing markets. Based purely on this analysis of relative density, Toronto and Vancouver house prices are 80% and 140% overvalued, respectively. Around the globe, the housing markets that appear to be the most overvalued relative to population density appear to be the geographically closest to China (Vancouver, Australia, Hong Kong, and the West Coast of the U.S.), which echoes our conclusions about foreign capital inflow above. Myth #4 - A Healthier Canadian Household Debt Distribution The fourth myth concerning Canadian housing is the idea that the household debt binge that we have observed has been a "healthier" rise than what occurred in the U.S. during the last economic cycle. The argument is that the rise in debt in the U.S. from 2001 - 2007 predominantly occurred among "subprime" borrowers, and that this is not occurring in Canada. Comparing Canada to the U.S. last cycle is difficult due to the lack of data on the distribution of Canadian household debt-to-income ratios by income percentile. However, some inferences can be drawn from the OECD's wealth distribution database, and they suggest that Canadian household debt is, in fact, quite concentrated. Chart 14 presents the relationship between the number of households with debt and the median debt-to-income ratio of indebted households, from 2010 to 2012 (depending on the observation). The chart shows that while only about half of Canadian households are indebted (in line with the average of the countries shown and below that of the U.S.), among those with debt the median debt-to-income ratio is substantially higher than most other countries. This is also reflected in Chart 15, which shows that Canada has a high rank of significantly indebted households as a share of all indebted households,3 more so that the U.S. Investors should note that Canada's rank today is likely to be higher than that shown in Chart 15, given that several other highly indebted countries (such as the Netherlands and Portugal) have actually experienced household deleveraging since 2010. Chart 14High Concentration... Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story Chart 15...Of Household Indebtedness Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story Myth #5 - The "CMHC Backstop" The fifth and final myth concerning Canadian housing is the fact that the economy is not significantly exposed to a housing market downturn because of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's mortgage insurance coverage protects Canadian banks. It is true that the CMHC can act as a backstop for the economy by helping to mitigate mortgage default losses. But Chart 16 highlights that there have been some substantial changes over the past few years in the CMHC's footprint in the mortgage market that casts significant doubt on whether it would be able to materially blunt the losses that are likely to occur from systemic mortgage defaults. First, the chart shows that while half of mortgages in Canada had CMHC insurance coverage in 2010, this has fallen by 14 percentage points in just six years (to 36%). This means that almost 2/3rds of Canadian mortgages are not CMHC-insured. Second, while the CMHC has been aggressive in building equity over the past several years (perhaps in anticipation of a significant housing bust!), this equity buffer is still small relative to its total loans (9%) and is fractional as a share of total Canadian residential mortgage credit (1.5%). As such, while we agree that the CMHC is an effective backstop against idiosyncratic risk in the mortgage market, it is simply too small to act as a credible buffer against large-scale losses. Bottom Line: Several myths about Canada's housing market have obscured the true extent of its credit market imbalances, heightening the risk that policymakers will ultimately overplay their hand when tightening monetary conditions. When Will The Party Come To An End? From our perspective, the most likely catalysts for a credit-driven downturn in spending are a reversal of the factors that drove the rise in household debt in the first place. Chart 17 presents a three-phase view of the rise in household debt-to-income since 2000, and summarizes the major drivers of rising leverage in each phase given our analysis above: persistently easy monetary policy (phase I), fiscal and monetary easing (phase II), and foreign capital inflow (phase III). Given this, higher interest rates, fiscal drag, and/or a shock to foreign capital would appear to be the most likely triggers for a credit-driven downturn: Chart 16A Substantially Lower CMHC Footprint A Substantially Lower CMHC Footprint A Substantially Lower CMHC Footprint Chart 17The Major Drivers Of Rising Household Leverage The Major Drivers Of Rising Household Leverage The Major Drivers Of Rising Household Leverage Higher Interest Rates: Tighter monetary policy is an obvious (and most likely) trigger for a major reversal in the Canadian housing market. It is not yet clear how aggressively the Bank of Canada will raise interest rates over the coming 6-12 months, but Chart 18 highlights that the household debt service ratio will quickly rise to a new high even if the Bank of Canada hikes rates by 150 bps over a two-year period, owing to the relatively short maturity of Canadian mortgage contract terms. Still, the chart shows that this does not occur until mid-2019 at the earliest. Fiscal Drag: IMF forecasts for Canada's cyclically-adjusted primary balance suggest that government spending and investment will remain a positive contributor to growth into next year (Chart 19). But beginning in 2019, fiscal policy is forecast to become a persistent drag on growth, and it is even possible that the sharp deceleration in fiscal thrust set to occur next year could act as the proximate cause of serious problems in the Canadian housing market. Chart 18Not An Imminent Threat, But Watch Out Not An Imminent Threat, But Watch Out Not An Imminent Threat, But Watch Out Chart 19Fiscal Drag Set To Begin In 2019 Fiscal Drag Set To Begin In 2019 Fiscal Drag Set To Begin In 2019 Chart 20Macroprudential Measures Didn't Kill The Vancouver Housing Market Macroprudential Measures Didn't Kill The Vancouver Housing Market Macroprudential Measures Didn't Kill The Vancouver Housing Market A Domestically-Driven Shock To Foreign Capital Inflow: Some investors have pointed with concern to dramatic declines in the sales-to-listings ratios in Vancouver and Toronto following foreign taxation announcements in these markets. We agree that the impact of new or existing macroprudential measures may eventually cause a severe fallout in the housing market, but for now the experience of Vancouver suggests that such an event is not imminent. Chart 20 presents the 3- and 12-month rate of change in Vancouver house prices, with the vertical line denoting the announcement of the foreign transaction tax. While it is clear that the tax sharply slowed the rate of appreciation in Vancouver house prices, it did not cause an outright decline (the 3-month rate of change only briefly turned negative before returning to positive territory). Cyclically, we would become more concerned were we to observe a combination of additional restrictions on foreign capital inflow, higher minimum down payment thresholds for houses priced at or below median levels, and a significantly lower allowable gross/total debt service ratio. An Externally-Driven Shock To Foreign Capital Inflow: We noted earlier in the report that there is strong circumstantial evidence showing that Canada's property market is benefiting from large capital inflows from China, with Hong Kong acting as the conduit. Given this, the Canadian housing market could be subject to a shock from exogenous changes in the flow of this capital, perhaps triggered by cyclical changes in China's economy or, more likely, actions by Chinese policymakers to materially slow the pace of capital flight. While it is very difficult on a high frequency basis to track whether the impact of foreign capital on Canada's housing market is growing or weakening, the indicators shown in Charts 9 and 10 on page 9 form the basis of our monitoring effort. The list above has focused on potential triggers that are specific to the factors that led to the build-up in Canadian household debt. Clearly there are additional macro factors that could trigger the onset of a major debt payback period in Canada, and chief among these would be the next U.S. or global recession. For example, we recently noted how continued tightening from the Fed could set the stage for a U.S. recession in 2019, which could easily trigger either a prolonged period of stagnant Canadian growth or an active deleveraging event.4 Bottom Line: There are multiple potential triggers that could eventually spark a credit-driven downturn in Canada, but none of them seem likely to have a major impact on the economy over the coming 6-12 months. Investment Implications Canadian household leverage has risen enormously over the past 16 years, and a detailed analysis of Canada's housing market shows that an eventual credit-driven downturn in spending is a highly probable event for the Canadian economy over the long run (rather than a risk). However, among the most probable triggers for a serious housing market shock, only higher interest rates are set to occur over the coming year. Given that monetary tightening will be gradual in its pace, it does not seem probable that a major downturn in spending is imminent. From an investment standpoint, these conclusions imply the following stance towards Canadian dollar assets over the coming 6-12 months: Overweight the Canadian dollar: The cyclical improvement in the Canadian economy, along with our bullish view on oil prices, suggests that the Canadian dollar is set to appreciate over the coming year. We acknowledge that our constructive view on oil prices is contrarian and that, for now, we are ahead of the market. Continued weakness in oil prices remains the chief risk to a bullish stance on the CAD. But our detailed analysis of the global oil market strongly implies that the current level of oil inventories is too high and is set to draw materially over the coming months, which will be undoubtedly positive for oil prices barring the development of a major global demand shock. Maintain Canadian equities on upgrade watch: Canadian equities have materially underperformed their global peers over the past six years, due to fairly significant de-rating from overvalued levels as well as a downtrend in relative 12-month forward earnings (mostly vs the U.S.; Chart 21). Relative performance in common-currency terms has also been hurt by a declining Canadian dollar. Looking out over the next year, there are at least some tentative signs to be optimistic about Canadian stocks. First, Chart 22 highlights that Canadian stocks are now moderately cheap relative to their global peers based on a composite valuation indicator. Second, our expectation of an uptrend in oil prices would likely bolster relative forward earnings, and could act as a re-rating catalyst for the broad market. Chart 21Multiples And Earnings Have Worked Against Canadian Stocks Multiples And Earnings Have Worked Against Canadian Stocks Multiples And Earnings Have Worked Against Canadian Stocks Chart 22No Longer Expensive No Longer Expensive No Longer Expensive Underweight Canadian bonds within a hedged global fixed-income portfolio: Canadian government bonds have recently underperformed their global peers, and this trend is likely to continue in response to tighter monetary policy. Over the longer term, the likelihood of a major credit-driven downturn in spending means that the secular investment implications for Canada are precisely the opposite of that described above. This means that investors should pursue a "two-staged" approach to investing in Canadian assets. The fact that the Canadian economy is currently accelerating and a significant reversal in the Canadian housing market does not seem to be imminent means that there is an opportunity for Canadian assets to potentially outperform (or underperform in the case of government bonds) over the coming 6-12 months. Such a period of cyclical improvement would likely (temporarily) dampen investor concerns about a major housing market correction, creating much better "selling conditions" for Canadian risky assets than from current levels. We acknowledge that the "two-stage" nature of this strategy is nuanced, and we have provided a checklist of potential triggers for the housing market in this report so that investors can gauge the likelihood that a material payback period is about to begin. We will continue to monitor both the cyclical improvement in the Canadian economy and the magnitude of imbalances in the household sector, and will provide investors with regular updates as they develop. Stay tuned! Bottom Line: Investors should pursue a "two-staged" approach when allocating to Canadian assets. Favor a pro-cyclical stance over the coming 6-12 months, but look to shift to a bearish structural view at some point beyond the immediate investment horizon. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Appendix A A Quick Recap Of Home Capital: Not A Systemic Issue In April, the share price of Home Capital Group (a Canadian non-bank mortgage lender) collapsed by 75% in response to a major liquidity crisis for the firm. The crisis ultimately stemmed from a set of mortgage loans with falsified income documentation, which to many outside observers was strongly reminiscent of the aberrant practices of U.S. subprime lending institutions during the last cycle that eventually spawned the global financial crisis. However, as highlighted below, Home Capital Group's problems were largely idiosyncratic (i.e., not systemic) in nature: Home Capital's business model involves lending to Canadians who lack a stable credit history, but who are generally otherwise creditworthy (commonly referred to as "near-prime" borrowers). Since these borrowers subsequently build a credit history by staying current on their mortgage loans with Home Capital, they often switch to a big-five bank after the term of the loan is complete. As such, Home Capital faces substantial client retention challenges, which is an idiosyncratic income statement problem rather than a balance sheet problem with systemic implications. To combat the tendency of its loan book to shrink, in 2014 Home Capital increased the size of its sales force by partnering with a set of established mortgage brokers. Some of the loans that had been originated by these brokers had falsified income documentation, which led to an internal investigation. Following the investigation, the company failed to disclose the results to investors during a period where the company's operating performance was impacted by the fraud. This eventually led to enforcement action from the Ontario Securities Commission. The disclosure of enforcement, along with several other events (such as the termination of its CEO in late-March) severely eroded investor confidence in the firm and essentially caused a bank run. From a macro perspective, there are two important takeaways from this series of events. First, it is important to note that Home Capital experienced a liquidity rather than a solvency crisis. While the former can, of course, lead to the latter, the run on Home Capital did not occur because of deteriorating loan performance, unlike what occurred in the U.S. with the subprime market. Indeed, Home Capital's first quarter results show that net impaired loans as a percent of gross loans have continued to trend lower over the past several quarters (Chart A1). Second, the fact that Home Capital's mortgage book tends to shrink underscores the underlying creditworthiness of at least some of its borrowers, because these households would probably not be able to shift their mortgages to the big-five banks if loan qualification was an issue. As a final point, Chart A2 presents some perspective about the apparent prevalence of mortgage fraud in Canada by showing the number of U.S. mortgage loan fraud suspicious activity reports (SARs) in the lead-up to the subprime financial crisis. The chart not only shows the sharp rise in the number of SARs from 2002-2003 to 2007-2008, but it also shows that the volume of reports numbered in the tens of thousands. By contrast, Canadian news stories reporting on a rise in the number of mortgage fraud complaints in Canada quote a trivially small number of cases. For example, a recent article from the Vancouver Sun stated that British Colombia's Financial Institutions Commission statistics "show complaints roughly doubled from 109 in 2013 to about 200 in 2016, and about a third of complaints allege loan application fraud."5 Chart A1No Deterioration In Loan Performance Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story Chart A2No Evidence That This Is Happening In Canada Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story While it is technically correct to state that this is a doubling in the rate of fraud cases, it is from what appears to be an extremely small base. Adjusting by a factor of 10 to account for the difference in population, Canada would need to see 3,000-to-6,000 cases of mortgage fraud per year in order to be comparable to what occurred in the U.S. in the latter half of the housing market bubble. There is simply no evidence that mortgage fraud on this scale of magnitude is occurring. 1 See Appendix A on page 19 for a review of the Home Capital debacle and why concerns of systemic mortgage fraud are quite likely overblown. 2 If Hong Kong has been a conduit for capital flight from China, the flow of capital would only temporarily show up in Hong Kong's balance of payments. For example, one quarter of significant capital inflow might be followed by a quarter of significant capital outflow as the money enters from China and exits towards the rest of the world. As such, we use the absolute value of Hong Kong's net errors and omissions line to see whether the magnitude of the flow has increased. 3 Defined as having a debt-to-income ratio in excess of 3. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession," dated June 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Sam Cooper, "Regulator Tracks The Rise In Mortgage Fraud Complaints In B.C. As House Prices Jump," Vancouver Sun, June 19, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Coordinated Hawkishness: Central bankers are in the process of taking back the easier monetary policy that followed the deflationary 2014/15 oil shock. Bond yields still have more upside to catch up to the solid pace of global growth and diminishing economic slack. Maintain a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration. ECB Taper Tantrum: The recent European bond sell-off is following a similar pattern to both the 2013 Fed Taper Tantrum and the 2015 Bund Tantrum, suggesting a potential target of 1% on the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield by year-end. Stay underweight Euro Area government bonds. Canada: With the Canadian economy looking very strong, and with the Bank of Canada signaling a desire to begin normalizing monetary policy, the current underperformance of Canadian government bonds will continue. We are maintaining our tactical bearish positions on Canadian bonds, and are also adding a new strategic underweight position (2 out of 5) in our model bond portfolio. Feature A Regime Shift, Not A Regime Change Interest rate risk has returned with a vengeance in global fixed income markets over the past couple of weeks. A string of relatively hawkish policymaker comments has triggered a quick and sharp bond sell-off, as investors reprice the odds of what is looking now like a coordinated recalibration of global monetary policies. Longer-dated bonds have gotten pummeled as yield curves have bear-steepened in most countries, with 30-year government bond prices falling between -5% and -7% in a matter of days (Chart of the Week). With global growth looking very strong at the moment, policymakers are being forced to respond by looking to unwind some of the easing that took place after the crash in oil prices in 2014/15. With that deflation scare now firmly in the rearview mirror, central bankers are having to signal a move away from the emergency stimulus from 2015. The rapid yield responses seen so far suggest that the communication of that subtle policy shift - becoming "less dovish" rather than "more hawkish" - must be handled delicately, or else financial markets may riot and possibly short-circuit the current economic upturn. This yield surge has done very little to dampen investor enthusiasm for risk assets, so far. Equity prices and corporate credit spreads, both in the developed world and emerging markets (EM), have only moved modestly despite the large move in government bond yields (Chart 2). This suggests that the latter was most mispriced compared to the current solid pace of global economic growth. Chart of the WeekA Painful Repricing A Painful Repricing A Painful Repricing Chart 2Risk Assets Remain Unfazed Risk Assets Remain Unfazed Risk Assets Remain Unfazed With the benefit of hindsight, it now appears that the decline in global bond yields in the spring was an outsized response to a few below-consensus data prints on U.S. economic growth and inflation. Importantly, the numbers in the U.S. are starting to improve again, as indicated by the strong jump in the ISM indices and employment (+220k) in June. Many of our most reliable leading indicators and models are all pointing to further acceleration in U.S. growth in the next few quarters (Chart 3). The U.S. inflation data continues to disappoint, both in terms of price indices and wage growth. Growth in Average Hourly Earnings has drifted lower since the most recent peak, while core PCE inflation is only 1.4%. The latest commentary from the Fed, including the minutes from the June FOMC meeting released last week, suggests that this downdraft in inflation should prove to be temporary and stronger growth should lead to faster inflation. We would agree with that assessment. The U.S. unemployment rate at 4.4% remains below most measures of full employment, while other reliable indicators of labor market tightness, such as the spread between the "jobs plentiful" and "jobs hard to get" components of the U.S. consumer confidence report, are also pointing to an eventual reacceleration of wages (Chart 4, top panel). Meanwhile, the Cleveland Fed Median CPI is hovering around 2.5%, well above the current 5-year/5-year forward cost of inflation compensation embedded in U.S. TIPS prices of 1.83% (middle panel). Furthermore, the Phillips Curve based core PCE inflation model developed by our colleagues at U.S. Bond Strategy is signaling a rebound of core PCE inflation back above 1.9% by year-end, in a scenario of no change in the unemployment rate or U.S. dollar from current levels (bottom panel). Chart 3U.S. Growth Will Rebound U.S. Growth Will Rebound U.S. Growth Will Rebound Chart 4U.S. Inflation Will Rise U.S. Inflation Will Rise U.S. Inflation Will Rise Our base case scenario for the Fed is that additional tightening will come in 2017. First through an announcement on starting the process of reducing the Fed's balance sheet, through "tapering" the reinvestment of proceeds from maturing bonds held by the Fed, at the September FOMC meeting. After that, the next rate hike will not be until December. This will allow the Fed to see more inflation prints to confirm its own expectation that inflation will soon rebound before delivering more policy tightening. Of course, if the next couple of inflation releases surprise to the upside, then perhaps a rate hike is possible at the September meeting alongside the announcement on the Fed's balance sheet (which is basically a done deal, at this point). For now, we see the Fed staying cautious, especially given the increasing number of FOMC members who are becoming concerned with the lack of U.S. inflation, according to the June minutes. As for the other major developed economy central banks, this "old-school" cyclical upturn is boosting both capacity utilization and pipeline inflation (Chart 5). Combined with the other measures that have been showing diminished economic slack, like unemployment rates and output gaps, this will give policymakers confidence in their own medium-term growth and inflation forecasts. This will also embolden central bankers to remove some policy accommodation. Our own Central Bank Monitors are indicating a need for tighter monetary policy in every major developed economy except Japan. That is confirmed by Taylor Rule estimates for interest rates. In Chart 6, we present simple Taylor Rule projections for the policy rate in the U.S., Euro Area, U.K., Japan, Canada and Australia. The formula takes potential GDP growth (OECD estimates) and then adds current realized inflation, ½ of the deviation of inflation from the central bank target and ½ of the output gap.1 We also show projections for the Taylor Rule over the next two years, using individual central bank forecasts for inflation and IMF projections for potential growth and the output gap. We then compare those Taylor Rule forecasts with the rate expectations priced into Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curves. Chart 5An "Old-School" Cyclical Upturn An "Old-School" Cyclical Upturn An "Old-School" Cyclical Upturn Chart 6Rates Too Low, According To The Taylor Rule Rates Too Low, According To The Taylor Rule Rates Too Low, According To The Taylor Rule The first point to note is that policy rates are below the Taylor Rule "equilibrium" level everywhere except Japan, where the 0% interest rate looks appropriate given the lack of actual inflation. Secondly, the Taylor Rule rates are projected to rise in the U.S., Euro Area, Japan and Canada, while remaining around current levels in the U.K. and Australia. Thirdly, the projected rates using Taylor Rule estimates are well above the current path of rates discounted in OIS curves. We do not expect central banks to deliver anywhere near the amount of tightening suggested by these simple Taylor Rules over the next couple of years. Policymakers will likely tolerate some degree of higher realized inflation to ensure that inflation expectations can return to, and sustainably stay at, central bank target levels. This means keeping interest rates below equilibrium levels for as long as possible. However, if central banks believe their own current inflation forecasts (which we have used in our Taylor Rule estimates), then policy rates do have room to move higher without becoming restrictive (i.e. above the Taylor Rule estimates). The markets clearly disagree with these Taylor Rule projections, with much lower OIS rates expected in the next few years. The markets may turn out to be correct. At the moment, however, the gap between the Taylor Rule rate forecasts and market pricing is too large, which suggests there is additional scope for bond yields to rise. Even if central banks ignore their own forecasts of higher inflation and keep rates on hold, this will put upward pressure on bond yields via higher inflation expectations. In other words, the path of least resistance for bond yields is up - at least until there is a major financial market event, like a big pullback in equity prices or widening of corporate bond spreads. Yet until there is evidence that global growth is rolling over and decelerating, a "risk-off" event like that is unlikely. Investors should maintain below-benchmark duration exposure, and overweight allocations of corporate debt to government bonds, in the next 3-6 months. Watch the path of leading economic indicators before looking to reverse those positions. Bottom Line: Central bankers are in the process of taking back the easier monetary policy that followed the deflationary 2014/15 oil shock. Bond yields still have more upside to catch up to the solid pace of global growth and diminishing economic slack. If It Walks Like A Tantrum And Talks Like A Tantrum ... The spike in Euro Area bond yields since June 26th has raised concerns that another bond "tantrum" is unfolding, similar to U.S. Treasury sell-off in 2013 and the German Bund sell-off in 2015. In both cases, bond yields jumped rapidly as investors repriced the outlook for central bank policy. The recent comments from the European Central Bank (ECB) are signaling that a change in its asset purchase program, which is set to end on December 31st, is highly likely and were the trigger for the backup in European yields. We have already shown in previous reports how the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield has been following the same directional path as the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield in the months leading up to the 2013 Taper Tantrum.2 We benchmarked the two markets for the peak in our Months-to-Hike indicator for the timing of the first rate hike priced into OIS curves. In Chart 7, we show the same comparison for the various slopes of yield curves for U.S. Treasuries and German government bonds. Again, the German curve is following the Fed Taper Tantrum experience, which implies more bear-steepening pressure on yields over the rest of 2017. In Chart 8, we show a similar "cycle-on-cycle" comparison of German bonds today compared to the spring of 2015 during the Bund Tantrum episode. That sell-off took place over a much shorter time horizon than the U.S. Taper Tantrum, with the entire sell-off condensed to just over a month. The current backup in German yields looks to be following a similar pattern to the Bund Tantrum, suggesting that this move could take the benchmark 10-year yield back to 1% before it is done. Chart 7Taper Tantrum 2.0?... Taper Tantrum 2.0?... Taper Tantrum 2.0?... Chart 8...or Bund Tantrum 2.0? ...or Bund Tantrum 2.0? ...or Bund Tantrum 2.0? There are major differences between today and the 2015 episode - European economic growth is much faster, the output gap is narrower, and realized inflation is higher than it was two years ago (bottom two panels). The 2015 Tantrum was triggered by two events: a rise in European inflation back above 0% that led to a (misguided) belief among investors that the ECB, which had just started its asset purchase program, would quickly look to exit that program; a massive unwind of long positions in core European bond markets, made worse as speculators who were betting on a reversal of the initial jump in Bund yields got stopped out as yields continued to climb. Roll the tape to 2017, and the growth and inflation backdrop is much different. Now, the ECB is indeed talking openly about exiting/tapering its asset purchase program, supported by a solid European growth backdrop. There is likely less speculative positioning in European markets given the painful experience of the Bund Tantrum. However, with the ECB now owning significant shares of European bonds after two years of steady buying, the potential for a jump in yields driven by less-liquid markets may still be there. Net-net, the current Bund sell-off has additional upside when compared to the previous Tantrums, suggesting the Bund yield could rise to 1% before this move is done. Watch the performance of European equities and the euro for signs that the pain trade in Bunds could stall before 1%. If equities break lower or the Euro breaks higher (or both), the ECB commentary about the timing of a taper could take a more dovish turn. This is not our base case, though. Bottom Line: The recent European bond sell-off is following a similar pattern to both the 2013 Fed Taper Tantrum and the 2015 Bund Tantrum, suggesting a potential target of 1% on the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield by year-end. Stay underweight European government bonds. Move To An Underweight Stance On Canada This week, the Bank of Canada (BoC) meets to determine the next move for Canadian monetary policy. For the first time since 2010, that move will likely be a rate hike. The Canadian economy is booming, and the strength is starting to bump up against capacity constraints. The strong performance of real GDP growth in Q1 (+3%) looks to be followed up by a similar growth rate in Q2. The BoC's latest 2017 Business Outlook Survey made for great summer reading, as expectations for sales, capital spending and employment all remained quite strong (Chart 9). Firms were reporting that an increasing share of capital spending intentions were for the purposes of increasing capacity to accommodate stronger demand, a sign that Canadian businesses are becoming more optimistic that the economic upturn is sustainable. Hiring intentions hit the highest level ever recorded in the Survey, with firms also reporting an increase in employment to meet up with stronger demand. Current Canadian inflation rates remain subdued, but a pickup in output prices is expected over the next 12 months according to the Business Outlook Survey (bottom panel). A net positive number of respondents reported capacity constraints and labor shortages for the first time in the three years that those questions have been asked as part of the Survey. The BoC's growth forecasts are clearly too low and will likely be revised upward at this week's policy meeting, when a new Monetary Policy Report will be presented. This will likely be the reason for a rate hike to either be delivered this week, or strongly hinted at for the next policy meeting. Given the recent comments from BoC Governor Stephen Poloz and other BoC officials discussing the improving health of the economy and the need to "take back" the 50bps of rate cuts in 2015 as oil prices were collapsing, a rate hike is the more likely outcome this week. Already, the markets have moved to price in a more hawkish BoC, with a full 75bps of hikes expected over the next 12 months. This has helped out bearish Canadian rates trades in our Tactical Overlay Portfolio (see Page 15 and Chart 10), which were positions that benefitted from a stronger Canadian economy and more hawkish BoC. With Canadian policy rates still well below equilibrium (see our Taylor Rule estimates shown earlier), and with leading economic indicators still pointing towards accelerating Canadian economic growth in the coming quarters, the case for the BoC to leave rates at these current depressed levels is not a strong one. Chart 9A Robust Canadian##BR##Growth Upturn A Robust Canadian Growth Upturn A Robust Canadian Growth Upturn Chart 10Sticking With Our Winning##BR##Tactical Canadian Trades Sticking With Our Winning Tactical Canadian Trades Sticking With Our Winning Tactical Canadian Trades We see the recent underperformance of Canadian government bonds as the start of a more prolonged trend, thus we are opening up a new strategic position in our model bond portfolio: cutting our Canada country allocation to underweight (2 out of 5). As Canada is only a small part of our benchmark index (only 1%), we are increasing our U.S. exposure as an offset to our lower Canadian weighting. This will not change our below-benchmark allocation to U.S. Treasuries, while making our new position a more explicit bet on additional widening of the Canada-U.S. bond spread. Chart 11Canada Rates Strategy Summary:##BR##Move To Underweight Canada Rates Strategy Summary: Move To Underweight Canada Rates Strategy Summary: Move To Underweight If the economy improves enough to continue absorbing economic slack and put upward pressure on inflation, both realized and expected, then the potential for higher Canadian yields and a flatter Canadian curve - as the BoC becomes even more hawkish - will also increase (Chart 11). One huge caveat to this trade is the state of the Canadian housing market. Even a small move in policy interest rates could have a huge impact on the demand for Canadian housing and the health of Canadian household finances. A recent private-sector survey showed that 70% of Canadian homeowners could not manage even a 10% rise in their interest payments.3 Given the extreme valuations in the Canadian housing market, and some of the recent macro-prudential measures taken to deter speculation in the booming Vancouver and Toronto markets, there is potential for a larger housing downturn after a few BoC rate hikes. This will not prevent the BoC from normalizing rates, but if the housing market responds poorly and there is a spillover into concerns about the state of Canadian banks, then any backup in Canadian bond yields will be short-lived. This is a risk and not our base case over the next year, however. Bottom Line: With the Canadian economy looking very strong, and with the Bank of Canada signaling a desire to begin normalizing monetary policy, the current underperformance of Canadian government bonds will continue. We are maintaining our tactical bearish positions on Canadian bonds, and are also adding a new strategic underweight position (2 out of 5) in our model bond portfolio. Tactical Trade Update We have been recommending a position in our Tactical Overlay Table since March to position for additional Fed rate hikes, shorting the January 2018 fed funds futures contract. That contract is now priced for the fed funds rate to increase 15bps between now and the end of the year. Given that even an optimistic economic scenario would likely only result in one more 25bp increase in the funds rate by year-end, there is no longer much potential for further gains in this trade. We are closing the position this week, taking a tiny profit of +1bp. Chart 12Roll Our Short Fed Funds##BR##Futures Trade To July 2018 Roll Our Short Fed Funds Futures Trade To July 2018 Roll Our Short Fed Funds Futures Trade To July 2018 Looking further out, we now see an attractive new opportunity to short the July 2018 fed funds futures contract. That contract is currently priced for only 32bps of rate hikes between now and next June (Chart 12), and would therefore turn a profit in the event of two or more rate hikes during that timeframe. We are opening the new trade today, shorting the July 2018 contract. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 We show the inflation gap as the difference between realized inflation and the inflation target, using the actual inflation rate that the central bank is targeting. This could be headline inflation, as in the U.S. and Euro Area, or core inflation, as in Japan. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Central Banks Are Now Playing Catch-Up", dated July 4 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/the-debt-truth-unexpected-expenses-could-spell-big-trouble-for-millennial-homeowners-623825354.html Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Dangerous Duration Dangerous Duration

Highlights Duration: Investor optimism about U.S. growth and inflation will return in the coming months. Remain at below-benchmark duration and enter a short position in the July fed funds futures contract. Close short positions in the January contract for a small gain. Credit Spreads: Spreads are at risk of widening as Fed rate hike expectations ramp up in the second half of the year, though we would be inclined to view a Fed-driven back-up in spreads as a buying opportunity. Bank Bonds: Banks continue to shore up their balance sheets and are likely to see rising profits in the coming months. Bank bonds also offer a spread advantage compared to other similarly risky sectors. Feature Chart 1Synchronized Global Selloff Synchronized Global Selloff Synchronized Global Selloff The bond selloff is now two weeks old. What began as a reaction to perceived hawkish policy shifts from central banks outside of the U.S. - the European Central Bank in particular - is now morphing into a selloff built on optimism about U.S. growth. Needless to say, we think the recent bearish price action has further to run. Global participation makes it more likely that the weakness in U.S. Treasuries will persist because it prevents the dollar from strengthening as yields move higher (Chart 1). In recent years, most U.S. bond selloffs have been met with an appreciating exchange rate. The stronger dollar then caused investors to lower their U.S. growth expectations, and capped the upside in yields. We view the dollar's current stability as a bearish signal for U.S. bonds. But it has not just been non-U.S. factors driving the uptrend in yields. Last week's positive ISM and employment figures are ushering in renewed optimism about U.S. growth. We also think that U.S. growth is poised to bounce back in the second half of the year, and the Fed is inclined to agree. The Fed's median projection calls for one more 25 basis point rate hike before the end of the year, and we also expect the committee to announce the run-off of the balance sheet in September. With the market still only priced for 15 bps of hikes between now and year-end, there remains scope for further upside surprises. Of course, this forecast for balance sheet run-off in September and another rate hike in December hinges on a second-half snapback in growth, continued strength in labor markets and a rebound in core inflation. Growth Is On The Way Although GDP growth averaged just 1.75% during past two quarters, all signs suggest that the next two quarters will be much stronger. As was mentioned above, both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing ISM surveys delivered strong readings in June. The manufacturing ISM came in at 57.8 and the non-manufacturing survey came in at 57.4, both signal stronger GDP growth in the coming months (Chart 2). The crucial new orders-to-inventories figure calculated from the manufacturing survey is also displaying remarkable strength (Chart 2, bottom panel). We can also infer the current trend in growth from the employment and productivity data. In fact, aggregate hours worked - a combination of total employment and average weekly hours - plus labor productivity growth is more or less equivalent to GDP (Chart 3). After last week's payrolls report, aggregate hours worked are now growing at 1.99% year-over-year. If we combine that growth rate with quarterly productivity growth of 0.7%, the average since 2012, we get a tracking estimate of just below 2.7% for GDP growth. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model also currently expects that second quarter growth will be 2.7%. Chart 2PMIs Point To Stronger Growth... PMIs Point To Stronger Growth... PMIs Point To Stronger Growth... Chart 3...As Does The Labor Market ...As Does The Labor Market ...As Does The Labor Market Labor Markets: Watching The Participation Rate Last week's jobs report showed that the economy added 222k jobs in June, and that the prior two months were also revised higher. This pushed the 3-month moving average up to +180k jobs per month, right in line with the +187k jobs per month averaged in 2016. However, despite robust payroll gains, the unemployment rate actually ticked higher in June. This is because many previously sidelined workers re-entered the labor force, pushing the labor force participation rate up to 62.8%. Going forward, for the Fed to have confidence that wage growth and inflation will continue to rise, the unemployment rate will have to remain under downward pressure (Chart 4). As long as the labor force participation rate remains flat (or declines) this should be relatively easy to achieve. We calculate that the economy needs to add just above 117k jobs per month for the unemployment rate to continue falling. However, if we assume a higher labor force participation rate of 63.2%, we would need to add 195k jobs per month, a much higher hurdle.1 We detailed the main drivers of the labor force participation rate in a recent report,2 and while we do not see much potential for a significant increase in the participation rate, its trend is critical for the monetary policy outlook and should be monitored closely going forward. Inflation: Is The Fed Too Sanguine? The most important question for policymakers is whether inflation will rebound in the second half of the year. While the Fed will probably start winding down its balance sheet in September no matter what, another rate hike in December is likely contingent on core inflation showing some signs of strength in the next few months. We have previously written3 that if the Fed were to proceed with a December rate hike in the face of low and falling inflation, the market would start to price in a "policy mistake" scenario. The yield curve would flatten, credit spreads would widen, TIPS breakevens would narrow and long-dated Treasury yields could even decline. However, we do expect that core inflation will trend higher in the coming months, mostly driven by strength in the core services (excluding shelter and medical care) component. That component is historically the most sensitive to tight labor markets and rising wage growth (Chart 5). Chart 4Falling Unemployment Rate = ##br##Rising Inflation Falling Unemployment Rate = Rising Inflation Falling Unemployment Rate = Rising Inflation Chart 5A Boost From Import##br## Prices Is Coming A Boost From Import Prices Is Coming A Boost From Import Prices Is Coming Although it is unlikely to be a long-run driver of inflation, the core goods component also has some upside in the coming months in response to recent dollar weakness and rising non-oil import prices (Chart 5, bottom 2 panels). Investment Strategy Chart 6Too Few Hikes In The Price Too Few Hikes In The Price Too Few Hikes In The Price We think U.S. growth and inflation are poised to snap back during the second half of the year, probably by enough for the Fed to deliver another hike before year-end. We therefore continue to recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. We have also been advising clients to hold short positions in the January 2018 fed funds futures contract since March 21.4 That contract is now priced for the fed funds rate to increase 15 bps between now and the end of the year. Given that even an optimistic economic scenario would likely only result in a 25 bps increase in the funds rate, there is not much potential for further gains in this trade. We close this position, booking a small profit of +1 bp. Looking further out, we now see an attractive opportunity to short the July 2018 fed funds futures contract. That contract is currently priced for 32 bps of rate hikes between now and next June (Chart 6), and would therefore turn a profit in the event of two or more rate hikes during that timeframe. Bottom Line: Investor optimism about U.S. growth and inflation will return in the coming months. Remain at below-benchmark duration and enter a short position in the July fed funds futures contract. Close short positions in the January contract for a small gain. Credit Spreads: When Good News Is Bad News Chart 7High Risk Of A Near-Term Selloff High Risk Of A Near-Term Selloff High Risk Of A Near-Term Selloff Renewed optimism on U.S. growth and inflation could ironically pose a problem for credit spreads, at least in the very short term. As we have often discussed in the context of our Fed Policy Loop,5 hawkish shifts in Fed policy tend to result in wider credit spreads and tighter financial conditions more broadly. Fortunately, these periods are usually short lived. Once financial conditions tighten, the Fed backs away from its hawkish stance, allowing financial conditions to ease once again. An extreme example of this dynamic is the 2014/15 selloff in credit markets. Of course, the plunge in oil prices and related stress in the energy sector was the chief catalyst, but what is often overlooked is that Fed rate hike expectations were also quite elevated during that period (Chart 7). It is the combination of stress in the energy sector and unsupportive Fed policy that resulted in the prolonged rise in spreads. A more benign example is the price action from this past March. Junk spreads widened from 344 bps on March 2 to 406 bps on March 22, as rate hike expectations ramped up heading into the March FOMC meeting. Ultimately, this period of spread widening represented a buying opportunity in credit markets. It is a March 2017 style selloff that we see as quite likely in the coming months as growth recovers by just enough to give the Fed cover for another rate increase. Bottom Line: Credit spreads are at risk of widening as Fed rate hike expectations ramp up in the second half of the year. But with inflation and inflation expectations still well below target, the Fed will ultimately be forced to remain supportive. We would therefore view any period of Fed-driven weakness in credit markets as a buying opportunity. Bank Bonds: Still A Strong Buy The Federal Reserve released the results of its annual bank stress tests last month and for once it did not object to the capital plans of any of the 34 participating bank holding companies, a recognition of the fact that banks have dramatically boosted their capital ratios since the first round of stress tests in 2009 (Chart 8). For the most part bank profit growth has also outpaced debt growth during this period, with the exception of last year when profit growth turned negative and debt growth surged (Chart 8, panel 2). A large portion of last year's increase in debt growth was likely a response to the new Total Loss Absorbing Capital (TLAC) regulations which require banks to issue a specified minimum amount of securities that can be easily written off in case of bankruptcy. This includes capital and long-term unsecured debt. Regardless, bank debt growth has already fallen back close to zero and we see upside for bank profits in the next 6-12 months. Meanwhile, non-financial corporate profits have had a much more difficult time outpacing debt growth in recent years (Chart 8, bottom panel). Bank Profits On The Rise A number of forward looking loan growth indicators suggest that credit and capital formation are on an upward trajectory (Chart 9). Our U.S. Equity Strategy service's proprietary Capex Indicator,6 consumer and business confidence, manufacturing new orders and our own C&I loan growth model all point to accelerating loan growth in the coming months. Net interest margins also have scope to widen. A recent blog post from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York7 showed that net interest margins are sensitive to both the level of interest rates and the slope of the yield curve (Chart 10). Lower rates and a flatter curve have both compressed margins in recent years. In addition, net interest margins tend to narrow when banks take less risk on the asset side of their balance sheets, we proxy this by showing banks' risk-weighted assets as a percent of total assets (Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 8Bank Health Still Improving Bank Health Still Improving Bank Health Still Improving Chart 9Loan Growth Will Accelerate Loan Growth Will Accelerate Loan Growth Will Accelerate Chart 10A Higher, Steeper Curve Will Help NIMs A Higher, Steeper Curve Will Help NIMs A Higher, Steeper Curve Will Help NIMs Going forward, higher rates and a steeper yield curve8 will apply widening pressure to net interest margins. Similarly, risk-weighted assets have already risen considerably as a fraction of total assets and will increase further as the Fed starts to drain reserves from the banking system. Bank Bonds Are Still Cheap The truly remarkable thing is that even though banks have been raising capital while the non-financial sector has been taking on leverage, bank spreads still look attractive compared to most non-financial sectors after adjusting for credit rating and duration (Chart 11). This is true for both senior and subordinated bank debt. As can be seen in Chart 11, senior bank debt has a low duration-times-spread (DTS) compared to the overall index. This means that it acts as a "low-beta" sector, underperforming the investment grade benchmark during rallies and outperforming during selloffs. Conversely, subordinate bank bonds are a high-DTS sector. They tend to outperform during rallies and underperform during selloffs (Chart 12). Chart 11Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Summer Snapback Summer Snapback LegendCorporate Sector Abbreviations Summer Snapback Summer Snapback Chart 12Add "Beta" With Subordinate Bank Debt Add "Beta" With Subordinate Bank Debt Add "Beta" With Subordinate Bank Debt While we strongly recommend grabbing the extra spread available in both senior and subordinate bank debt relative to other similarly risky alternatives, subordinate bank bonds look particularly attractive in the current environment. This is because they both add some pro-cyclical risk ("beta") to a corporate bond portfolio and offer a spread advantage compared to other similarly risky bonds. Bottom Line: Banks continue to shore up their balance sheets and are also likely to see rising profits in the coming months. Meanwhile, bank bonds still offer a spread advantage compared to other similarly risky sectors. Remain overweight both senior and subordinate bank debt. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 These calculations assume population growth of 0.08% per month, or 1% per year. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Scenarios For Treasury Yields In 2017", dated June 20, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Scenarios For Treasury Yields In 2017", dated June 20, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Unfazed", dated June 12, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 7 http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2017/06/low-interest-rates-and-bank-profits.html 8 For further details on the case for a bear-steepening yield curve please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Near record high levels for stocks are not an impediment to gains in the stock-to-bond ratio in the next 12 months. Minutes from June's FOMC meeting confirmed that policymakers agree that monetary policy should continue to normalize in the coming quarters. None of the main indicators that have provided some leading information in the past are warning of an equity bear market. Solid ISM and industrial production readings herald bullish profit growth in the second half the year. Treasury yields are headed higher in 2017, supporting our stocks over bond view. Within the U.S. bond market, we prefer short over long duration and investment-grade and high-yield bonds over high-quality debt; MBS will be hurt more than Treasuries as the Fed pares its balance sheet. Feature U.S. stocks will continue to reach all-time highs if inflation remains low, the economic backdrop fosters EPS growth and the Fed only gradually raises rates. We expect these conditions to stay in place in the second half of 2017 and into 2018, allowing stocks to outrun bonds. We note below that neither valuations nor technicals are flashing a red warning sign. Chart 1 shows that most of the time, even when equities are at record highs, valuations are above average (but not extreme) and the Fed is slowly removing accommodation, stocks can still rise. Moreover, none of the indicators that provided leading information in the past now warn of an equity bear market. Chart 1Macro Conditions Favorable For More Gains In Equities Macro Conditions Favorable For More Gains In Equities Macro Conditions Favorable For More Gains In Equities Chart 2Labor Market Strong But Wages Still Stagnant Labor Market Strong But Wages Still Stagnant Labor Market Strong But Wages Still Stagnant The June jobs report suggests that the environment of solid economic growth and still muted wage pressures remains in place, a positive backdrop for equity markets. The report showed that the economy added 222,000 jobs in June, well above the consensus forecast of 178,000. Prior months were also revised higher by 47,000 pushing the 3-month moving average up to 180,000 jobs per month. This is right in line with the 187,000 jobs per month averaged in 2016. Despite robust payroll gains, the unemployment rate actually ticked higher in June, from 4.3% to 4.4%, as previously sidelined workers were drawn back into the labor force. Meanwhile, wage growth continues to underwhelm, rising only 0.2% in June with the year-over-year growth rate holding steady at 2.5%. The deceleration in the 3 month change in average hourly earnings from 2.7% in December 2016 to 1.9% in June challenges the Fed's view on inflation (Chart 2). The recent moderation in wage growth is not yet severe enough to prevent the Fed from delivering one more rate hike before year-end. However, if the labor force participation rate continues to increase, and especially if this increase occurs alongside a rising unemployment rate, then the Fed's forecast of gradually accelerating wages will come into question. Fed Minutes: No Change To Our Base Case Minutes from June's FOMC meeting show that the debate among policymakers over monetary policy centers on the timing and pace of normalization in the coming quarters. The minutes did not provide any new insight about the Fed's plans to shrink its balance sheet. This will be done using caps on the monthly amount of principal repayments from the Fed's security holdings that will not be rolled over. These caps will rise over time on a pre-set path. The FOMC is still debating the timing of the start of this process. The FOMC was reasonably pleased with the tone of recent economic data, which support the view that GDP has bounced back from a soft patch in the first quarter. The June manufacturing and services ISM surveys, released since the FOMC meeting, undoubtedly reinforced policymakers' confidence in the underlying growth trajectory (see below for more details). The FOMC participants discussed at length the recent pullback in core measures of consumer price inflation. Most policymakers are willing for the time being to believe that inflation is driven primarily by temporary one-off factors. Others are worried that it will be more enduring. The moderation in three-month rates of change of prices this year was widespread across sectors of the CPI (i.e. it is not merely the result of one-offs). Inflation according to the Fed's favored measure, the core PCE price index, has also moderated this year although the disinflation has not been as broadly based as in the CPI (Chart 3). Much of the FOMC's debate focused on the relationship between labor market tightness and inflation. The doves want to see inflation rise closer to the 2% target before tightening even more. The hawks worry that the relationship could be non-linear, which means that a further undershoot of unemployment below estimates of full employment could suddenly generate a surge in inflation. At a minimum, an undershoot could boost risks to financial stability by promoting excess risk-taking in the financial markets. The minutes reveal that the worries about the impact of easing financial conditions on financial stability have intensified since the start of the year. Inflation forecasting has been particularly tricky since the Great Recession for both the Fed and other economic prognosticators. Admittedly, it is difficult to explain the sudden and broadly-based inflation deceleration, even in sectors that have nothing to do with oil prices, shifts in the currency or wage growth. That said, the model shown in the top panel of Chart 4 suggests that core CPI inflation will edge higher in the coming months. This reflects the acceleration in ECI wage growth (feeding into higher core services inflation) and in core goods inflation (reflecting rising import prices), which more than offset the slight moderation in our projection for shelter inflation. Chart 3Inflation Readings Must##BR##Improve In Next Few Months Inflation Readings Must Improve In Next Few Months Inflation Readings Must Improve In Next Few Months Chart 4Core CPI Should Edge Higher##BR##In Coming Months Core CPI Should Edge Higher In Coming Months Core CPI Should Edge Higher In Coming Months Bottom Line: The minutes did not change our base case outlook; the FOMC will announce in September that it will begin to shrink the Fed's balance sheet shortly thereafter. The next rate hike will occur in December. Nonetheless, this forecast hangs importantly on the assumption that core inflation edges higher in the coming months. We think it will, but uncertainty is high. Monitoring The Bear Market Barometer The FOMC's seeming determination to stick with the current tightening timetable raises question marks over the equity market, especially given elevated valuations. Chart 5Equity Bear Market Indicators Equity Bear Market Indicators Equity Bear Market Indicators BCA's Chief Economist, Martin Barnes, highlighted the best "equity bear market" indicators to watch in a 2014 Special Report1. 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, extreme overvaluation is not present and technical indicators are not flashing red. Some indicators related to each of these fundamental factors are shown in Chart 5: Monetary Conditions: The yield curve is flat by historical standards, but it is far from inverted. Moreover, real short-term interest rates are usually 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 well above the zero line, a threshold that in the past has warned of a downturn in stock prices. Valuation: Our composite valuation indicator is still shy of the +1 standard deviation level that defines over-valued. However, this is due to 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 stretched. Economic Outlook: Economic data, such as the leading economic indicator and ISM, have been unreliable bear market signals. We do not see anything that indicates that a recession is on the horizon. U.S. growth will 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, all 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 is a bad sign when EPS growth tops out. This is often preceded by a peak in industrial production growth. We expect EPS growth to continue to accelerate for at least a few more months, but we are closely watching industrial production. Bottom Line: The equity market is vulnerable to unforeseen shocks given stretched valuation. Nonetheless, none of the indicators that have provided leading information in the past warn of an equity bear market. ISM Above 50 Supports 2H Profit Outlook The elevated level of ISM sets the stage for EPS growth to gather speed in the second half of 2017. Industrial production is a good proxy for sales of S&P 500 companies (Chart 6). A rollover in the 12-month change in IP would challenge our view. However, strong readings on the ISM, which tracks IP, suggest that IP should accelerate in the next six months (Chart 6, panel 1). Chart 6Solid Backdrop For Earnings And Sales Solid Backdrop For Earnings And Sales Solid Backdrop For Earnings And Sales At 57.8 in June, the ISM has rebounded from the recent low of 47.9 in 2015. Investors wonder if it will roll over again or simply fluctuate at a high level. The leading components of ISM, including the new orders index and the new orders-to-inventory ratio, indicate that the ISM will remain above 50 in the months ahead (Chart 7). Moreover, the new export orders component of the ISM has also surged. The implication is that foreign demand (rather than domestic consumer or business spending) is leading the U.S. manufacturing sector. In fact, the 3- and 12-month change in the industrial production indices in advanced economies outside the U.S. have outpaced domestic growth (Chart 8). Chart 7IP Poised To Accelerate IP Poised To Accelerate IP Poised To Accelerate Chart 8U.S. IP Lagging Other Developed Markets U.S. IP Lagging Other Developed Markets U.S. IP Lagging Other Developed Markets Bottom Line: Firm readings on ISM are an indication that our bullish profit story for 2017 remains intact. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds. Inflection Point The increase in Treasury yields since late June indicates that growth expectations had become overly pessimistic. Our assessment is that U.S. growth will remain above trend for the rest of 2017. The implication for investors is that Treasury bond yields will move higher, the yield curve will bear-steepen, and that credit will outperform Treasuries in the second half of 2017. Moreover, we expect MBSs to underperform. According to our U.S. Bond Strategy service2, Treasury yields are poised to follow the economic surprise index higher in the coming months. Extreme net long positioning in the futures market supports the view. The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (which is based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.52%. Our 3-factor version of the model, which also includes the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.45% (Chart 9). Investors should continue to position for a steeper curve by favoring the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. Small positive excess returns, consistent with carry, remain the most likely scenario for investment- grade credit, where we recommend an overweight. We do not see the potential for much spread tightening from current levels. However, a large spread widening would be equally unlikely given the favorable backdrop of steady growth and muted inflation. We recommend an overweight in the high-yield market. We expect the decline in the 12-month trailing speculative default rate to continue for the rest of the year, aided by a moderation in energy sector defaults (Chart 10, bottom panel). This means that the current compensation offered by junk spreads in excess of expected default losses stands at 221 bps, in line with its historical average (Chart 10, panel 3). In last week's Weekly Report3 our U.S. Bond Strategy team showed that a default-adjusted spread of 221 bps is consistent with excess returns close to 150 bps during the next 12 months. Chart 9Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models Chart 10High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview Our Energy Sector Strategy team stated in a Weekly Report4 last week that our base case of $50-$60/bbl WTI crude oil prices by the end of 2017 should keep high-yield energy spreads contained. We remain underweight MBSs. Nominal MBS spreads are already very tight compared with previous levels, and they appear even tighter relative to trends in net issuance. While refinancing activity will remain depressed, we see potential for option-adjusted spreads to follow net issuance higher, even as the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) remains low. The Fed's exit from the MBS market, which could occur as early as September, represents an additional upside risk for spreads. Bottom Line: Rates have bounced up after undershooting between March and the end of June. Loftier inflation readings are needed to sustain the bounce. Higher rates in the rest of 2017 support our stocks-over-bond stance. Within the U.S. bond market, we favor short duration over long, and credit over high-quality. MBSs will be hurt more than Treasurys as the Fed begins to shrink its balance sheet. 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 BCA Special Report "Timing The Next Equity Bear Market, " dated January 24, 2014, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Inflection Point", dated July 5, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "HY Debt Update: Offshore Drilling & Transportation Getting Left Behind", dated July 5, 2017, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com.