Labor Market

Highlights Markets have gone too far in pricing out the Republican's market-friendly policy agenda. The President desperately needs a win ahead of mid-term elections. A bill that at least cuts taxes should be forming by year end. The risk is that continued political turbulence, now including the possibility of impeachment, distracts Congress and delays or completely derails tax reform plans. Fortunately for the major global equity markets, corporate profits are providing solid support. We expect U.S. EPS growth to accelerate further into year end, peaking at just under 20%. The projected profit acceleration is even more impressive in the Eurozone and Japan. Corporations are still in a sweet spot in which the top line is growing but there is no major wage cost pressure evident yet. U.S. EPS growth is well ahead of both Japan and the Eurozone at the moment, but we expect some "catch up" by year end that will favor the latter two bourses in local currency terms. EPS growth will fall short of bottom-up estimates for 2017, but what is more important for equity indexes is the direction of 12-month forward EPS expectations, which remain in an uptrend. The positive earnings backdrop means that stocks will outperform bonds for the remainder of the year even if Congress fails to pass any market-friendly legislation. The FOMC is "looking through" the recent soft economic data and slower inflation, and remains on track to deliver two more rate hikes this year. The impact of the Fed's balance sheet runoff on the Treasury market will be limited by several factors, but a shrinking balance sheet and Fed rate hikes will force bond yields to rise faster than is currently discounted. Policy divergence will push the dollar higher. The traditional relationship between the euro/USD and short-term yield differentials should re-establish following the French election. The euro could reach parity before the next move is done. "Dr. Copper" is not signaling that global growth will soften significantly this year. Chinese growth has slowed but the authorities are easing policy, which will stabilize growth and support base metals. That said, we remain more upbeat on oil prices than base metals. Feature Investors have soured on the prospects for U.S. tax reform in recent weeks, but the latest travails in Washington inflicted only fleeting damage on U.S. and global bourses. The S&P 500 appears to have broken above the 2400 technical barrier as we go to press. Market expectations for a more tepid Fed rate hike cycle, lower Treasury yields and related dollar softness undoubtedly provided some support. But, more importantly, corporate profits are positively surprising in the major economies and this is not just an energy story. The good news on company earnings should continue to drive stock prices higher this year in absolute terms and relative to bond prices. It is a tougher call on the dollar and the direction of bond yields. We remain short duration and long the dollar, but much depends on the evolution of U.S. core inflation and fiscal policy. A Death Knell For U.S. Tax Reform? Chart I-1 highlights that the market now sees almost a zero chance that the Republicans will ever be able to deliver any meaningful tax cuts or infrastructure spending. Many believe that mushrooming political scandals encumbering President Trump will distract the GOP and delay or derail tax reform. Indeed, impeachment proceedings would be a major distraction, although this outcome would not necessarily lead to an equity bear market. The historical record shows that the economy is much more important than politics for financial markets. BCA's geopolitical strategists looked at three presidential impeachments, covering the Teapot Dome Scandal (April 1922 to October 1927), Watergate (February 1973 to August 1974) and the President Clinton's Lewinsky Affair (January 1998 to February 1999).1 Watergate was the only episode that coincided with a bear market, but it is difficult to pin the market downturn on Nixon's impeachment since the U.S. economy entered one of the worst post-war recessions in 1973 that was driven by tight Fed policy and an oil shock. Impeachment would require that Trump loses support among the Republican base, which so far has not happened. The President still commands the support of 84% of Republican voters (Chart I-2). Investors should monitor this support level as an indicator of the President's political capital and the risk of impeachment. Chart I-1Fading Hopes For Tax Reform We believe that markets have gone too far in pricing out Trump's market-friendly policy agenda. The President desperately needs a win ahead of mid-term elections, and tax reform and deregulation are two key areas where the President and congressional Republicans see eye to eye. The odds are good that an agreement to cut taxes will be formed by year end. Congressional leaders want tax reform to be revenue neutral, but finding sufficient areas to cut spending will be extremely difficult. They may simply require that tax cuts are paid for in a 10-year window. This makes it possible to lower taxes upfront and promise non-specific spending cuts and revenue raising measures down the road. Or, Congress may pass tax reform that is not revenue neutral through the reconciliation process, which would require that tax cuts sunset at some point in the future. Tax cuts would give stocks a temporary boost either way but, as we discuss below, it may be better for corporate profits in the medium term if Congress fails to deliver any fiscal stimulus. Profits, Beats And Misses While economists fret over the soft U.S. economic data so far this year, profit growth is quietly accelerating in the background (Chart I-3). On a 4-quarter moving total basis, S&P 500 earnings-per-share were up by more than 13% in the first quarter (84% reporting). We expect growth to accelerate further into year end, peaking at about 18%, before moderating in 2018. Profit growth is accelerating outside of the energy sector. The projected acceleration in EPS growth is equally impressive in the Eurozone and Japan. The favorable profit picture in the major economies reflects two key factors. First, profits are rebounding from a poor showing in 2015/16, when EPS was dragged down by the collapse in oil prices and a global manufacturing recession. Oil prices have since rebounded and global industrial production is recovering as expected (Chart I-4). Our short-term forecasting models for real GDP, based on a mixture of hard data and surveys, continue to flag a pickup in economic growth in the major economies (Chart I-5). Chart I-3Top-Down Profit Projection Chart I-4EPS Highly Correlated With Industrial Production Chart I-5GDP Growth Poised To Accelerate The U.S. model's forecast paints an overly rosy picture, but it does support our view that Q1 softness in the hard data reflected temporary factors that will give way to a robust rebound in the second and third quarters. The Eurozone economy is really humming at the moment, as highlighted by our model and recent readings from the IFO and purchasing managers' surveys. Indeed, these indicators are consistent with real GDP growth of nearly 3%! Our GDP models are also constructive for Japan and the U.K., although not nearly as robust as in the U.S. and Eurozone. Chart I-6Profit Margins On The Rise Second, the corporate sectors in the major economies are still in a sweet spot in which the top line is growing but there is no major wage cost pressure evident yet. This is the case even in the U.S., where labor market slack has largely been absorbed. Indeed, margins rose in Q1 2017 for the third quarter in a row (Chart I-6). Our indicators suggest that the corporate sector has gained some pricing power at a time when wage gains are taking a breather.2 The hiatus of wage pressure may not last long, and we expect the "mean reversion" in profit margins to resume next year. But for now, our short-term EPS growth model remains upbeat for the next 3-6 months (not shown). Profit margins are also on the rise in Japan and the Eurozone. Margins in the latter appear to have the most upside potential of the three major markets, given the fact that current levels are still depressed by historical standards, and that there remains plenty of slack in the European labor market. We are not incorporating any margin expansion in Japan because they are already very high. Nonetheless, we do not expect any "mean reversion" in margins over the next year either, because the business sector is going to great lengths to avoid any increase in the wage bill despite an extremely tight labor market. U.S. EPS growth is well ahead of both Japan and the Eurozone at the moment, but we expect some "catch up" by year end: The U.S. is further ahead in the global profit mini recovery and year-ago EPS comparisons will become more difficult by the end of the year. The drag on corporate profits in 2017 from previous dollar strength will be larger than the currency drag in the Eurozone according to our models, assuming no change in trade-weighted exchange rates in the forecast period (Chart I-7). The pass-through of past yen movements will be a net boost to EPS growth for Japanese companies this year.3 Currency shifts would favor the Japanese and the Eurozone markets versus the U.S. even more if the dollar experiences another upleg. We expect the dollar to appreciate by 10% in trade-weighted terms. A 10% broad-based dollar appreciation would trim EPS growth by 2½ percentage points, although most of this would occur in 2018 due to lags (Chart I-8). Eurozone and Japanese EPS growth would receive a lift of 2 and ½ percentage points, respectively, as their currencies depreciate versus the dollar. Chart I-7Currency Impact On EPS Growth Chart I-8A 10% Dollar Rise Would Trim Profits Finally, the fact that profits in Japan and the Eurozone are more leveraged to overall economic growth than in the U.S. gives the former two markets the edge as global industrial production continues to recover this year and into 2018. Japanese and Eurozone equity market indexes also have a higher beta with respect to the global equity index. The implication is that we remain overweight these two markets relative to the U.S. on a currency hedged basis. Lofty Expectations Even though the message from our EPS models is upbeat, our forecasts still fall short of bottom-up estimates for 2017. Is this a risk for the equity market, especially in the U.S. where valuations are stretched? Investors are well aware that bottom-up estimates are perennially optimistic. Table I-1 compares the beginning-of-year EPS growth estimate with the actual end-of-year outcome for 2007-2016. Not surprisingly, bottom-up analysts massively missed the mark in the recession. But even outside of 2008, analysts significantly over-estimated earnings in seven out of nine years. Despite this, the S&P 500 rose sharply in most cases. One exception was 2015, when the S&P 500 fell by 0.7%. Plunging oil and material prices contributed to an EPS growth "miss" of seven percentage points. Chart I-9 highlights that the level of the 12-month forward EPS estimate fell that year, unlike in the other years since the Great Recession. Valuations are more demanding today than in the past, but the message is that attaining bottom-up EPS year-end estimates is less important for the broad market than the trend in 12-month forward estimates (which remains up at the moment). Chart I-9S&P 500 Follows ##br##12-month Forward EPS The bottom line is that the backdrop is constructive for equities even if the Republicans are unable to push through any fiscal stimulus. In fact, it may be better for the stock market in the medium term if the GOP fails to pass any meaningful legislation. The U.S. economy does not need any demand stimulus at the moment (although measures to boost the supply side of the economy would help lift profits over the long term). The current long-in-the-tooth U.S. expansion is likely to stretch further in the absence of stimulus, extending the moderate growth/low inflation/low interest rate backdrop that has been positive for risk assets in recent years. The Fed's Balance Sheet: It's Diet Time The minutes from the May FOMC meeting reiterated that policymakers plan to begin scaling back on reinvesting the proceeds of its maturing securities of Treasurys and MBS by the end of the year. The Fed is leaning toward a gradual tapering of reinvestment in order to avoid shocking the bond market. Still, investors are rightly concerned about the potential impact of the balance sheet runoff, especially given that memories of the 2013 "taper tantrum" are still fresh. Chart I-10 presents a forecast for the flow of Treasurys available to the private sector, taking into consideration the supply that is absorbed by foreign official institutions and by the Fed. The bottom panel shows a similar calculation for the aggregate supply of government bonds from the U.S., Japan, the Eurozone and the U.K. While the supply of Treasurys has been positive since 2012, the net flow has been negative for these four economies as a whole because of aggressive quantitative easing programs. This year will see the largest contraction in the supply of government bonds available to the private sector, at US$800 billion. The flow will become less negative in 2018 even if the Fed were to keep its balance sheet unchanged (mostly due to assumed ECB tapering). If the Fed goes ahead with its balance sheet reduction plan, the net supply of government bonds from the major economies will move slightly into positive territory for the first time since 2014. There is disagreement among academics about whether quantitative easing (QE) directly depressed bond yields by restricting the supply of high-quality fixed income assets, or whether the impact on yields was solely via the "signaling effect" for the path of future short rates. Either way, balance sheet runoff will likely have some impact on bond yields. A good starting point is to employ an empirical estimate of the impact of QE. The IMF has modeled long-term Treasury yields based on a number of economic and financial variables and the stock of assets held by the Fed as a share of GDP. Just for exposition purposes, let us take an extreme example and assume that the Fed simply terminates all re-investment as of January 2018 (i.e. the runoff is not tapered). In this case, the amount of bank reserves held at the Fed would likely evaporate by 2021. This represents a contraction of roughly 10 percentage points of GDP (Chart I-11). Applying the IMF interest rate model's coefficient of -0.09, it implies that long-term Treasury yields and mortgage rates would rise by 90 basis points from the "portfolio balance" effect alone. Chart I-11Fed Balance Sheet Runoff Scenario However, it is more complicated than that. The impact on yields is likely to be tempered by two factors: The balance sheet may never fully revert to historic norms relative to GDP. Some academic experts are recommending that the Fed maintain a fairly large balance sheet by historical standards because of the need in financial markets for short-term, risk-free assets that would diminish if there are fewer excess bank reserves available. Banks, for example, are required by regulators to hold more high-quality assets than they did in the pre-Lehman years. As the FOMC dials back monetary stimulus it will be concerned with overall monetary conditions, including short-term rates, long-term rates and the dollar. If long-term rates and/or the dollar rise too quickly, policymakers will moderate the pace of rate hikes and use forward guidance to talk down the long end of the curve so as to avoid allowing financial conditions to tighten too quickly. Thus, the path of short-term rates is dependent on the dollar and the reaction of the long end of the curve. It is difficult to estimate how it will shake out, but a recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City estimated that a $675 billion reduction in the size of the Fed's balance sheet is equivalent to a 25 basis point increase in the fed funds rate (although the authors admit that the confidence band around this estimate is extremely wide).4 We expect that the impact of runoff alone will be much less than the 90 basis point estimate discussed above. Still, the combination of balance sheet shrinkage and Fed rate hikes will lead to higher bond yields than are currently discounted in the market. Fed Outlook: Mostly About Inflation The May FOMC minutes confirmed that the FOMC is "looking through" the soft economic data in the first quarter, chalking it up to temporary factors such as shifts in inventories. They are also inclined to believe that the moderation in core CPI inflation in recent months is temporary. The message is that policymakers remain on track to deliver two more rate hikes this year, in line with the 'dot plot' forecast. The market is pricing almost a 100% chance of a June rate hike. However, less than two full rate hikes are expected over the next year, which is far too benign in our view. Investors have been quick to conclude that recent economic data have convinced Fed officials to shift from a "gradual" pace of rate hikes to a "glacial" pace. Treasurys rallied on this shift in Fed expectations and a decline in long-term inflation expectations. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has dropped to about 1.8%, the lowest level since before the U.S. election. This appears to us that the bond market over-reacted to the drop in core CPI inflation from 2.2% in February to 1.9% in April. The evolution of actual inflation will be critical to the outlook for the Fed and Treasury yields in the coming months. Our U.S. fixed-income strategists have simulated a traditional Phillips Curve model of inflation (Chart I-12).5 The model projects that core PCE inflation will reach 2.1% by December, even assuming no change in the unemployment rate or the trade-weighted dollar. Inflation ends the year not far below the 2% target even in an alternative scenario in which we assume that the dollar appreciates and that the full-employment level of unemployment is lower than the Fed currently assumes. Chart I-12U.S. Inflation Should End Year At 2% Thus, the trend in inflation should reinforce the FOMC's bias to keep tightening policy, forcing the bond market to reassess the pace of rate hikes discounted in the curve. That said, if we are wrong and inflation does not trend higher in the next 3-4 months, then it is the FOMC that will be forced to reassess and our short duration recommendation will probably not pan out on a six month horizon. Longer-term, last month's Special Report highlighted that we have reached an inflection point in some of the structural forces that have depressed bond yields. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 20, builds on that theme with a look at the impact of technological progress on equilibrium bond yields. With respect to credit spreads, the state of nonfinancial corporate sector balance sheets and the overall stance of monetary policy will continue to be the main drivers of the credit cycle. If unwinding the balance sheet leads to a premature tightening of financial conditions, then the Fed will proceed more slowly on rate hikes. The crucial indicator to watch is core PCE inflation. Credit spreads will remain fairly well contained until core PCE inflation reaches the Fed's 2% target. At that point, the pace of monetary normalization will ramp up, putting spreads at risk of widening. Stay overweight corporate bonds within fixed income portfolios for now. While the Fed's balance sheet reduction by itself may not have a big impact on the dollar, we still believe the currency has more upside because of the divergence in the overall monetary policy stance between the U.S. on one side and the ECB and Bank of Japan (BoJ) on the other. The BoJ will hold the 10-year JGB near to zero for quite some time. The ECB will also not be in a position to tighten policy for an extended period, outside of removing negative short rates and tapering QE purchases a bit further in 2018. The euro has appreciated versus the dollar even as two-year real interest rate differentials have moved in favor of the dollar since the end of March. This divergence probably reflects euro short-covering following the market-friendly French election outcome. Next up are the two rounds of French legislative elections in June. Polls support the view that Macron's En Marche and the center-right Les Republicains will capture the vast majority of seats in the legislature. Such an election outcome would make possible the passage of genuine structural reforms that would suppress wage growth and make French exports more competitive. Investors may be shocked into pricing greater odds of Euro Area dissolution when Italy comes back into focus. In the meantime, we do not see any risk factors emanating from the Eurozone that could upset the global equity applecart in the near term. Moreover, the traditional relationship between the euro/USD exchange rate and 2-year real yield differentials should now re-establish. The implication is that the euro could reach parity before the next move is done. Dr. Copper? The recent setback in the commodity pits has added to investor angst regarding global growth momentum. The LMEX base metals index is up almost 25% on a year-ago basis, but has fallen by 5% since February (Chart I-13). From their respective peaks earlier this year, zinc and copper are down about 7-10%, nickel has dropped by 18% and iron ore has lost almost half of its value. Is the venerable "Dr. Copper" sending an important warning about world growth? Chart I-13What Are Commodities Telling Us? Some of our global leading economic indicators have edged lower this year, as we have discussed in previous reports. Nonetheless, the decline in base metals prices likely has more to do with other factors, such as an unwinding of the surge in speculative demand that immediately followed the U.S. election last autumn. Speculators may be disappointed by the lack of progress on Republican promises to cut taxes and boost infrastructure spending. The main story for base metals demand and prices, however, is the Chinese real estate sector. China accounts for roughly 50% of world consumption for each of the major metals. The Chinese authorities are trying to cool the property market and transition to a more consumer spending-oriented economy, thereby reducing the dependence on exports, capital spending and real estate as growth drivers. Fiscal policy tightened last year and new regulations were introduced to limit housing speculation. The effect of policy tightening can be seen in our Credit and Fiscal Spending Impulse indicator, which has been softening since mid-2016 (Chart I-14). The economy held up well last year, but the policy adjustment resulted in a peaking of the PMI at year-end. Growth in housing starts also appears to be rolling over. Both the PMI and housing starts are correlated with commodity prices. The good news is that BCA's China Investment Strategy service does not expect a major downshift in Chinese real GDP growth this year, which means that commodity import demand should rebound: The authorities wish to slow credit growth, but there is no incentive for the authorities to crunch the economy given that consumer price inflation is still low and the surge in producer price inflation appears to have peaked. Monetary conditions have tightened a little in recent months, but overall conditions are not restrictive. Both direct fiscal spending and infrastructure investment have picked up noticeably this year (Chart I-15). Finally, the PBoC re-started its Medium-Term Lending Facility and recently made the largest one-day cash injection into the financial system in nearly four months. Chart I-14China Is The Main Story ##br##For Base Metals Demand Chart I-15Direct Fiscal Spending And ##br##Infrastructure Have Picked Up Recently Export growth will continue to accelerate based on our model (not shown). The upturn in the profit cycle and firming output prices should boost capital spending. Robust demand will ensure that housing construction will continue to grow at a healthy pace. Households' home-buying intentions jumped to an all-time high last quarter. Tighter housing policies in major cities will prevent a massive boom, but this will not short-circuit the recovery in housing construction. Fading fears about a China meltdown may give commodities a lift later this year. Our commodity strategists are particularly positive on crude oil, as extended production cuts from OPEC and Russia outweigh the impact of surging shale production, allowing bloated inventories to moderate. In contrast, the backdrop is fairly benign for base metals. Our commodity strategists do not see the conditions for a major bull or bear phase on a 6-12 month horizon. Within commodity portfolios, they recommend a benchmark allocation to base metals, an underweight in agricultural products and an overweight in oil. From a broader perspective, our key message is that "Dr. Copper" is not signaling that global growth will soften significantly this year. Investment Conclusions: Accelerating corporate profit growth in the major advanced economies provides a healthy tailwind and suggests that stocks could perform well under a couple of different scenarios in the second half of 2017. If the rebound in U.S. economic growth from the poor first quarter is unimpressive and it appears that Congress will be sidetracked by political turmoil in the White House, then the S&P 500 should benefit from the 'goldilocks' combination of healthy profit growth, low bond yields, an accommodative Fed and a soft dollar. If, instead, U.S. growth rebounds strongly and Congress makes progress on the broad outline of a tax reform bill over the summer months, then stocks should benefit from the prospect of stronger growth in 2018. Rising bond yields and a firmer dollar would provide some offset for stocks, but would not derail the equity bull market as long as inflation remains below the Fed's target. Our model suggests that U.S. inflation will remain below-target for the next several months, but could be near 2% by year end. This scenario would set the stage for a more aggressive Fed in 2018, a surge in the dollar and possibly a bear market in risk assets next year. We are therefore comfortable in predicting that the stock-to-bond total return ratio will continue to rise for at least the remainder of this year. The tough part relates to bond yields and the dollar, since the above two scenarios have very different implications for these two asset classes. Our base case is closer to the second scenario, such that we remain below benchmark in duration and long the dollar. That said, much depends on the evolution of U.S. core inflation and U.S. politics. Both are particularly difficult to forecast. A failure for core PCE inflation to pick up in the next 3-4 months and/or continuing political scandals in Washington would force us to reconsider our asset allocation. Of course, there are other risks to consider, including growing mercantilism in the U.S., Sino-American tensions and North Korea. At the top of the list are China and Italy. (1) China China remains our geopolitical strategists' top pick as the catalyst most likely to scuttle our upbeat view on global risk assets in 2017.6 Our base case assumption is that policymakers will not enact wide-scale financial sector reform, which would entail a surge in realized non-performing loans and bankruptcies and defaults, ahead of the Fall Party Congress. The regulatory crackdown so far seems merely to keep the financial sector in check for a while. The government has already stepped back somewhat in the face of the liquidity squeeze, and fiscal policy has been loosened (as mentioned above). All of the key Communist Party statements have emphasized that stability remains a priority. Nonetheless, it may be difficult for the authorities to manage the deleveraging process given nose-bleed levels of private-sector leverage. Politicians could misjudge the fragility of the financial system and investors might front-run the reform process, sending asset prices down well in advance of policy implementation. (2) Italy We have flagged the next Italian election as a key risk for markets because of polls showing that voters have become disillusioned with the euro. It appeared that an election would not take place until 2018, and we have downplayed European elections as a risk factor for 2017. However, the 5-Star Movement has now backed a proportional electoral system, which raises the chances of an autumn election in Italy. This would obviously spark turbulence in financial markets in the months leading up to the event. Turning to emerging markets, the pickup in global growth and a modest bounce in commodity prices would support this asset class. However, our view that the dollar is headed higher on the back of Fed rate hikes keeps us from getting too excited about EM stocks, bonds or currencies. Our other recommendations include the following: Within global government bond portfolios, overweight JGBs and underweight Treasurys. Gilts and core Eurozone bonds are at benchmark. Underweight the periphery of Europe. Overweight European and Japanese equities versus the U.S. on a currency-hedged basis. Overweight the dollar versus the other major currencies. Overweight small caps stocks versus large in the U.S. market. Stay exposed to oil-related assets, and favor oil to base metals within commodity portfolios. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 31, 2017 Next Report: June 29, 2017 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Overview," April 017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Currency shifts affect earnings with a lag, which in captured by our models. 4 Forecasting the Stance of Monetary Policy Under Balance Sheet Adjustments. The Macro Bulletin, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Troy Davig and A. Lee Smith. May 10, 2017. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers," dated May 23, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets ," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com II. Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds? This month's Special Report was written by Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist for BCA's Global Investment Strategy Service. The report is a companion piece to last month's Special Report, which argued that some of the structural factors that have depressed global interest rates are at an inflection point. These factors include demographic trends and the integration of China's massive labor supply into the global economy. Peter's report focuses on technology's impact on bond yields. He presents the non-consensus view that slow productivity growth likely depresses interest rates at the outset, but will lead to higher rates later on. Not only could sluggish productivity growth lead to higher inflation, it could also deplete national savings. Both factors would be bond bearish, reinforcing the other factors discussed in last month's Special Report. I trust that you will find the report as insightful and educational as I did. Mark McClellan Productivity growth has declined in most countries. This appears to be a structural problem that will remain with us for years to come. In theory, slower productivity growth should reduce the neutral rate of interest, benefiting bonds in the process. In reality, countries with chronically low productivity growth typically have higher interest rates than faster growing economies. The passage of time helps account for this seeming paradox: Slower productivity growth tends to depress interest rates at the outset, but leads to higher rates later on. The U.S. has reached an inflection point where weak productivity growth is starting to push up both the neutral real rate and inflation. Other countries will follow. The implication for investors is that government bond yields have begun a long-term secular uptrend. The market is not at all prepared for this. Slow Productivity Growth: A Structural Problem Productivity growth has fallen sharply in most developed and emerging economies (Chart II-1). As we argued in "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," there is little compelling evidence that measurement error explains the productivity slowdown.1 Yes, the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and air conditioning. No one has offered a convincing explanation for why the well-known problems with productivity calculations suddenly worsened about 12 years ago. If mismeasurement is not responsible for the productivity slowdown, what is? Cyclical factors have undoubtedly played a role. In particular, lackluster investment spending has curtailed the growth in the capital stock (Chart II-2). This means that today's workers have not benefited from the improvement in the quality and quantity of capital to the same extent as previous generations. Chart II-2The Great Recession Hit ##br##Capital Stock Accumulation However, the timing of the productivity slowdown - it began in 2004-05 in most countries, well before the financial crisis struck - suggests that structural factors have been key. These include: Waning gains from the IT revolution. Recent innovations have focused more on consumers than businesses. As nice as Facebook and Instagram are, they do little to boost business productivity - in fact, they probably detract from it, given how much time people waste on social media these days. The rising share of value added coming from software relative to hardware has also contributed to the decline in productivity growth. Chart II-3 shows that productivity gains in the latter category have been much smaller than in the former. Slower human capital accumulation. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the pace it did in the 1990s (Chart II-4). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores in mathematics and science, is edging lower in the OECD, and is showing very limited gains in most emerging markets (Chart II-5). Test scores tend to be much lower in countries with rapidly growing populations (Chart II-6). Consequently, the average level of global mathematical proficiency is now declining for the first time in modern history. Chart II-3The Shift Towards Software ##br##Has Dampened IT Productivity Gains Decreased creative destruction. The birth rate of new firms in the U.S. has fallen by half since the late 1970s and is now barely above the death rate (Chart II-7). In addition, many firms in advanced economies are failing to replicate the best practices of industry leaders. The OECD reckons that this has been a key reason for the productivity slowdown.2 Chart II-7Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Productivity Growth And Interest Rates Investors typically assume that long-term interest rates will converge to nominal GDP growth. All things equal, this implies that faster productivity growth should lead to higher interest rates. Most economic models share this assumption - they predict that an acceleration in productivity growth will raise the rate of return on capital and incentivize households to save less in anticipation of faster income gains.3 Both factors should cause interest rates to rise. The problem is that these theories do not accord with the data. Chart II-8 shows that interest rates are far higher in regions such as Africa and Latin America, which have historically suffered from chronically weak productivity growth. In contrast, rates are lower in regions such as East Asia, which have experienced rapid productivity growth. One sees the same negative correlation between interest rates and productivity growth over time in developed economies. In the U.S., for example, interest rates rose rapidly during the 1970s, a decade when productivity growth fell sharply (Chart II-9). Chart II-9U.S. Interest Rates Soared In The ##br##1970s While Productivity Swooned Two Reasons Why Slower Productivity Growth May Lead To Higher Interest Rates There are two main reasons why slower productivity growth may lead to higher nominal interest rates over time: Slower productivity growth may eventually lead to higher inflation; Slower productivity growth may deplete national savings, thereby raising the neutral real rate of interest. We discuss each reason in turn. Reason #1: Slower Productivity Growth May Fuel Inflation Most economists agree that chronically weak productivity growth tends to be associated with higher inflation. Even Janet Yellen acknowledged as much, noting in a 2005 speech that "the evidence suggests that the predominant medium-term effect of a slowdown in trend productivity growth would likely be higher inflation."4 In theory, the causation between productivity and inflation can run in either direction: Weak productivity gains can fuel inflation while high inflation can, in turn, undermine growth. With respect to the latter, economists have focused on three channels: First, higher inflation may make it difficult for firms to distinguish between relative and absolute price shocks, leading to suboptimal resource allocation. Second, higher inflation may stymie capital accumulation because investors typically pay capital gains taxes even when the increase in asset values is entirely due to inflation. Third, high inflation may cause households and firms to waste time and effort on economizing their cash holdings. There are also several ways in which slower productivity growth can lead to higher inflation. For example, sluggish productivity growth may increase the likelihood that a country will be forced to inflate its way out of any debt problems. In addition, central banks may fail to recognize structural declines in productivity growth in real time, leading them to keep interest rates too low in the errant belief that weak GDP growth is due to inadequate demand when, in fact, it is due to insufficient supply. There is strong evidence that this happened in the U.S. in the 1970s. Chart II-10 shows that the Fed consistently overestimated the size of the output gap during that period. Chart II-10The Fed Continuously Overstated The ##br##Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s Reason #2: Slower Productivity Growth May Deplete National Savings, Leading To A Higher Neutral Real Rate Imagine that you have a career where your real income is projected to grow by 2% per year, but then something auspicious happens that leads you to revise your expected annual income growth to 20%. How do you react? If you are like most people, your initial inclination might be to celebrate by purchasing a new car or treating yourself to a lavish vacation. As such, your saving rate is likely to fall at the outset. However, as the income gains pile up, you might find yourself running out of stuff to buy, resulting in a higher saving rate. This is particularly likely to be true if you grew up poor and have not yet acquired a taste for conspicuous consumption. Now consider the opposite case: One where you realize that your income will slowly contract over time as your skills become increasingly obsolete. The logic above suggests that your immediate reaction will be to hunker down and spend less - in other words, your saving rate will rise. However, as time goes by and the roof needs to be changed and the kids sent off to college, you may find it hard to pay the bills - your saving rate will then fall. The same reasoning applies to economy-wide productivity growth. When productivity growth increases, household savings are likely to decline as consumers spend more in anticipation of higher incomes. Meanwhile, investment is likely to rise as firms move swiftly to expand capacity to meet rising demand for their products. The combination of falling savings and rising investment will cause real rates to increase. As time goes by, however, it may become increasingly difficult for the economy to generate enough incremental demand to keep up with rising productive capacity. At that point, real rates will begin falling. The historic evidence is consistent with the notion that higher productivity growth causes savings to fall at the outset, but rise later on. Chart II-11 shows that East Asian economies all had rapid growth rates before they had high saving rates. China is a particularly telling example. Chinese productivity growth took off in the early 1990s. Inflation accelerated over the subsequent years, while the country flirted with current account deficits - both telltale signs of excess demand. It was not until a decade later that the saving rate took off, pushing the current account into a large surplus, even though investment was also rising at the time (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First, ##br##Followed By Higher Savings Chart II-12China: Productivity Growth Accelerated, ##br##Then Savings Rate Took Off Today, Chinese deposit rates are near rock-bottom levels, and yet the household sector continues to save like crazy. This will change over time. The working-age population has peaked (Chart II-13). As millions of Chinese workers retire and begin to dissave, aggregate household savings will fall. Meanwhile, Chinese youth today have no direct memory of the hardships that their parents endured. As happened in Korea and Japan, the flowering of a consumer culture will help bring down the saving rate. Meanwhile, sluggish income growth in the developed world will make it difficult for households to save much. Population aging will only exacerbate this effect. As my colleague Mark McClellan pointed out in last month's edition of the Bank Credit Analyst, elderly people in advanced economies consume more than any other age cohort once government spending for medical care on their behalf is taken into account (Chart II-14).5 Our estimates suggest that population aging will reduce the household saving rate by five percentage points in the U.S. over the next 15 years (Chart II-15). The saving rate could fall as much as ten points in Germany, leading to the evaporation of the country's mighty current account surplus. As saving rates around the world begin to fall, real interest rates will rise. Chart II-13China's Very High Rate Of National Savings ##br##Will Face Pressure From Demographics Chart II-15Aging Will Reduce ##br##Aggregate Savings The Two Reasons Reinforce Each Other The discussion above has focused on two reasons why chronically low productivity growth could lead to higher interest rates: 1) weak productivity growth could fuel inflation; and 2) weak productivity growth could deplete national savings, leading to higher real rates. There is an important synergy between these two reasons. Suppose, for example, that weak productivity growth does eventually raise the neutral real rate. Since central banks cannot measure the neutral rate directly and monetary policy affects the economy with a lag, it is possible that actual rates will end up below the neutral rate. This would cause the economy to overheat, resulting in higher inflation. Thus, if the first reason proves to be true, it is more likely that the second reason will prove to be true as well. The Technological Wildcard So far, we have discussed productivity growth in very generic terms - as basically anything that raises output-per-hour. In reality, the source of productivity gains can have a strong bearing on interest rates. Economists describe innovations that raise the demand for labor relative to capital goods as being "capital saving." Paul David and Gavin Wright have argued that the widespread adoption of electrically-powered processes in the early 20th century serves as "a textbook illustration of capital-saving technological growth."6 They note that "Electrification saved fixed capital by eliminating heavy shafts and belting, a change that also allowed factory buildings themselves to be more lightly constructed." In contrast, recent technological innovations have tended to be more of the "labor saving" than "capital saving" variety. Robotics and AI come to mind, but so do more mundane advances such as containerization. Marc Levinson has contended that the widespread adoption of "The Box" in the 1970s completely revolutionized international trade. Nowadays, huge cranes move containers off ships and place them onto waiting trucks or trains. Thus, the days when thousands of longshoremen toiled in the great ports of Baltimore and Long Beach are gone.7 If technological progress is driven by labor-saving innovations, real wages will tend to grow more slowly than overall productivity (Chart II-16). In fact, if technological change is sufficiently biased in favour of capital (i.e., if it is extremely "labor saving"), real wages may actually decline in absolute terms (Chart II-17). Owners of capital tend to be wealthier than workers. Since richer people save more of their income than poorer people, the shift in income towards the former will depress aggregate demand (Chart II-18). This will result in a lower neutral rate. Chart II-16U.S.: Real Wages Have Been ##br##Lagging Productivity Gains Chart II-18Savings Heavily Skewed ##br##Towards Top Earners It is difficult to know if the forces described above will dissipate over time. Productivity growth is largely a function of technological change. We like to think that we are living in an era of unprecedented technological upheavals, but if productivity growth has slowed, it is likely that the pace of technological innovation has also diminished. If so, the impact that technological change is having on such things as the distribution of income and global savings - and by extension on interest rates - could become more muted. To use an analogy, the music might remain the same, but the volume from the speakers could still drop. Capital In A Knowledge-Based Economy Chart II-19Falling Capital Goods Prices Have Allowed ##br##Companies To Slash Capex Budgets Labor-saving technological change has not been the only force pushing down interest rates. Modern economies are transitioning away from producing goods towards producing knowledge. Companies such as Google, Apple, and Amazon have thrived without having to undertake massive amounts of capital spending. This has left them with billions of dollars in cash on their balance sheets. The price of capital goods has also tumbled over the past three decades, allowing companies to cut their capex budgets (Chart II-19). In addition, technological advances have facilitated the emergence of "winner-take-all" industries where scale and network effects allow just a few companies to rule the roost (Chart II-20). Such market structures exacerbate inequality by shifting income into the hands of a few successful entrepreneurs and business executives. As noted above, this leads to higher aggregate savings. Market structures of this sort could also lead to less aggregate investment because low profitability tends to constrain capital spending by second- or third-tier firms, while the worry that expanding capacity will erode profit margins tends to constrain spending by winning companies. The combination of higher savings and decreased investment results in a lower neutral rate. As with labor-saving technological change, it is difficult to know how these forces will evolve over time. The growth of winner-take-all industries has benefited greatly from globalization. Globalization, however, may be running out of steam. Tariffs are already extremely low in most countries, while the gains from further breaking down the global supply chain are reaching diminishing returns (Chart II-21). Perhaps more importantly, political pressures for greater income distribution, trade protectionism, and stronger anti-trust measures are likely to intensify. If that happens, it may be enough to reverse some of the downward pressure on the neutral rate. Chart II-21The Low-Hanging Fruits Of ##br##Globalization Have Been Picked Investment Conclusions Is slow productivity growth good or bad for bonds? The answer is both: Slow productivity growth is likely to depress interest rates at the outset, but is liable to lead to higher rates later on. The U.S. has likely reached the inflection point where slow productivity is going from being a boon to a bane for bonds. Chart II-22 shows that the U.S. output gap would be over 8% of GDP had potential GDP grown at the pace the IMF projected back in 2008. Instead, it is close to zero and will likely turn negative if growth remains over 2% over the next few quarters. Other countries are likely to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. Chart II-22Output Gap Has Narrowed ##br##Thanks To Lower Potential Growth To be clear, productivity is just one of several factors affecting interest rates - demographics, globalization, and political decisions being others. However, as we argued in our latest Strategy Outlook, these forces are also shifting in a more inflationary direction.8 As such, fixed-income investors with long-term horizons should pare back duration risk and increase allocations to inflation-linked securities. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Dan Andrews, Chiara Criscuolo, and Peter N. Gal,"The Best versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of Public Policy," OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 5 (November 2016). 3 Consider the widely-used Solow growth model. The model says that the neutral real rate, r, is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the saving rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. All things equal, an increase in g will result in a higher equilibrium real interest rate. The same is true in the Ramsey model, which goes a step further and endogenizes the saving rate within a fully specified utility-maximization framework. In this model, consumption growth is pinned down by the so-called Euler equation. Assuming that utility can be described by a constant relative risk aversion utility function, the Euler equation states that consumption will grow at (r-d)/h where d is the rate at which households discount future consumption and h is a measure of the degree to which households want to smooth consumption over time. In a steady state, consumption increases at the same rate as GDP, n+g. Rearranging the terms yields: r=(n+g)h+d. Notice that both models provide a mechanism by which a higher g can decrease r. In the Solow model, this comes from thinking about the saving rate not as an exogenous variable, but as something that can be influenced by the growth rate of the economy. In particular, if s rises in response to a higher g, r could fall. Likewise, in the Ramsey model, a higher g could make households more willing to forgo consumption today in return for higher consumption tomorrow (equivalent to a decrease in the rate of time preference, d). This, too, would translate into a lower neutral rate. 4 Janet L. Yellen, "The U.S. Economic Outlook," Presentation to the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research, February 11, 2005. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," April 28, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Paul A. David, and Gavin Wright,"General Purpose Technologies And Surges In Productivity: Historical Reflections On the Future Of The ICT Revolution," January 2012. 7 Marc Levinson, "The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger," Princeton University Press, 2006. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The breakout in the S&P 500 above 2400 in May has further stretched valuation metrics. Measures such as the Shiller P/E and price/book are elevated relative to past equity cycles. The price/sales ratio is in a steep rise too. However, our U.S. Composite valuation metric, which takes into consideration 11 different measures of value, is still a little below the one sigma level that marks significant overvaluation. This is because our composite indicator includes valuation measures that take into account the low level of interest rates. Of course, these measures will not look as favorable when rates finally rise. Technically, the U.S. equity market has upward momentum. Our Equity Monetary Indicator has remained around the zero line, meaning that it is not particularly bullish or bearish at the moment. Our Speculation Index is high, pointing to froth in the market. The high level of our Composite Sentiment Index and low level of the VIX speaks to the level of investor complacency. The U.S. net revisions ratio jumped higher this month, and it is bullish that the earnings surprise index advanced again. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator continues to send a positive message for the S&P 500, although it is now so elevated that it suggests that there could be little "dry powder" left to buy the market. This indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. The widening gap between the U.S. WTP and that of Japan and Europe highlights that recent flows have favored the U.S. market relative to the other two. Looking forward, this means that there is more "dry powder" available to buy the Japanese and European markets. A rise in the WTPs for these two markets in the coming months would signal that a rotation into Europe and Japan is taking place. It is disconcerting that our Europe WTP suffered a pull-back over the past month. Nonetheless, we believe that accelerating corporate profit growth in the major advanced economies provides a strong tailwind and suggests that stocks remain in a window in which they will outperform bonds. U.S. bond valuation is hovering close to fair value. However, we believe that fair value itself is moving higher as we have reached an inflection point in some of the structural forces that have depressed bond yields. We also believe that the combination of Fed balance sheet shrinkage and rate hikes will lead to higher bond yields than are currently discounted in the market. Technically, our composite indicator has touched the zero line, clearing the way for the next leg of the bond bear market. The dollar is very expensive on a PPP basis, although it is less so by other measures. Technically, the dollar has shifted down this year, crossing the 200-day moving average. That said, according to our dollar technical indicator, overbought conditions have been totally worked off, suggesting that the currency is clear to move higher if Fed rate expectations shift up as we expect. Moreover, we believe that policy divergence in the overall monetary policy stance between the U.S. on one side and the ECB and BoJ on the other will push the dollar higher. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-5U.S. Earnings Chart III-6Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-7Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-8U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-9U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-10Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1110-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-12U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-13Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-14Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-15U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-17U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-18Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-19Euro Technicals Chart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-22Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-23Commodity Prices Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Sentiment Chart III-26Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-27U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-28U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-29U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-30U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-31U.S. Labor Market Chart III-32U.S. Consumption Chart III-33U.S. Housing Chart III-34U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-35U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-36Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: China EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Highlights On the European side, the key risk to our bullish DXY stance is that European growth is strong, the labor market seems to be tightening, and core CPI has perked up. These risks are real but mitigated by budding signs that European growth is at its best, by the abundance of hidden labor market slack, and by the high chance that the CPI spike was transitory. On the U.S. side of the ledger, the key risks are that wages do not pick up, that credit growth continues to act as a break on activity, and that political risks hamper fiscal dynamics. All would mean a more dovish Fed than we anticipate. These risks are mitigated by the fact that hidden U.S. labor market slack is only now low enough for wages to improve, credit looks set to turn around as financial conditions are supportive, and fiscal policy should surprise to the upside. USD/NOK has upside as Norway experiences declining inflation. Go long CAD/NOK. Feature Last week, we augmented our cyclically dollar bullish view by removing our tactical bearish bias on the USD. In our eyes, the market is underestimating the capacity of the Fed to increase rates and is also overestimating the economic impact of the fiasco surrounding Trump's alleged relationship with Russia. Despite our high conviction view that the dollar can rally 10% or more from current levels, we cannot be blind to the key risks surrounding it. This week, we explore where our stance on Europe and the Fed can go wrong. ECB Tapering = Upcoming Tightening Campaign? The key risk to our negative euro stance is the ECB. The market has moved to discount the first rate hike in Europe to happen in barely two years, an event we judge highly unlikely. However, if the market is right that a tapering of asset purchases in 2018 and a potential increase in the rates on deposit facilities to 0% are the opening salvos of an imminent campaign to push up the repo rate, the EUR/USD rally is only in its early days. Here are the key factors that would support this bullish euro view: The European economy is in a major economic upswing. Not only have PMIs surged, the IFO has hit an all-time high (Chart I-1). If this pace of growth can be maintained for an extended period of time, the European output gap will close faster than we anticipate, providing a stronger basis for the ECB to nudge all rates higher. The euro area labor market is tightening. Euro area unemployment rate is at 9.5%, only 0.7% above the OECD's estimate for NAIRU (Chart I-2). Thus, it would paint a picture where there is little slack in the economy at large and in the labor market in particular. In this environment, a continuation of the elevated growth currently experienced by the euro area could boost wages. Core inflation has picked up to 1.2% (Chart I-3). The ECB has historically displayed a tight reaction function to inflation. In the past, headline CPI mattered, but since Mario Draghi took the helm of this institution, the focus has switched to underlying pricing pressures. Thus, if euro area core inflation continues to move up, especially as U.S. core PCE inflation has weakened to 1.6%, the market will be vindicated and the euro could rebound on a more hawkish ECB. Chart I-1Europe Is Booming Chart I-2Low Labor Market Slack In Europe Chart I-3That Should Help The ECB To Hike Why Are These Factors Risks And Not Base Cases? To begin with, these factors have been discounted by the markets, a fact highlighted by the 42-month fall in the month-to-hike for the ECB since July 2016 to 24 months today. Also, as the European surprise index has outperformed the U.S. one, EUR/USD has rallied by 6%. In the process, investors have switched from being massively short the euro to being the most aggressively long in three years (Chart I-4). Risk-reversals in EUR/USD options are also at elevated levels, highlighting the potentially too-bullish disposition of investors toward the euro. On the growth front, some factors suggest that European growth may soon peak. The large improvement in the amount of industrial activity and capacity utilization in Europe relative to the U.S. was reflective of the big easing in monetary conditions that followed the collapse of the euro after 2014. But, as Chart I-5 illustrates, European industrial production needed a falling euro to beat that of the U.S., soon after the euro stabilized, the growth outperformance began to recede and is now near inexistent based on this metric. Thus, the euro rebound removes one of the key factors that supported the European economy in the first place. Chart I-4Investors Have Discounted##br## The Good News In Europe Chart I-5Europe's Growth Outperformance ##br##Was Because Of Policy Additionally, some economic data are showing disturbing signs. While Germany's IFO stands at a record high, Belgian business confidence has rolled over. In fact, export orders have been particularly weak (Chart I-6). This is of importance as Belgium has long been a logistical center for the euro area, and is a small open economy deeply integrated in the European economic infrastructure. This, therefore, portends to emerging risks to the whole euro area. Monetary dynamics too raise questions. European business confidence, a key piece of soft data that has underpinned investors increased bullishness on the euro is led by dynamics in M1 money supply. The roll over in M1 implies that business conditions in Europe are slowly passing their best period (Chart I-7). If euro area growth peaks, this also raises concerns about the state of the labor market. This is especially worrisome as we think the unemployment gap based on the OECD's estimate of NAIRU misses key elements of the European labor market slack. As we wrote last week, the key problem in Europe is labor underutilization; hidden labor market slack remains a serious concern.1 With workers in irregular contracts being a key source of job creation since the end of the 2013 recession, there are plenty of workers willing to change jobs without the incentive of a higher pay, limiting the upside in wages. Without wage growth, it will be difficult for European core inflation to continue its uptrend, especially as there are many signs that the rebound that has excited investors' imagination may have been a transitory event. Worryingly for euro bulls, our Core CPI A/D line for Europe, which tends to lead core CPI itself, rolled over last year and points to lower core CPI.2 Industrial good prices excluding energy have also been weakening for 15 months now, suggesting this inflation rebound may be an aberration (Chart I-8). Chart I-6Where Belgium Goes, ##br##So Does Europe Chart I-7Money Trends Point To A Deceleration##br## In European Soft Data Chart I-8Europe Core CPI ##br##Will Roll Over Bottom Line: Investors have become very bullish of the euro based on the fact that the economy has been very strong, the European headline unemployment rate is moving closer to NAIRU, and core inflation has perked up; raising the specter of high rates sooner than we anticipate. These economic developments need to be monitored closely, but the growth impulse in Europe is likely to soon deteriorate, broader measures of labor market slack in the euro area are far from being at full employment, and the tick up in core inflation is likely to prove to have been only a temporary blip. These forces should weigh on the euro for the rest of 2017. Maybe The Fed Will Not Tighten That Much? Meanwhile, in the U.S., investors only expect three rate hikes over the next 24 months. Markets have begun doubting the fed's capacity or resolve to hike interest rates as aggressively as we envision. A slew of disappointing data and political developments have cemented this opinion among investors. Among the most crucial factors are the following: Chart I-9Disappointing U.S. Wages Wage growth in the U.S. remains poor, especially as per average hourly earnings which are still only growing at a disappointing 2.3% rate (Chart I-9). This raises the specter that consumption will remain tepid and that inflationary dynamics will never take hold in the U.S. This risk is perceived as especially salient as core inflation and core PCE have slowed below the 2% objective of the FOMC. Slowing credit growth has also garnered a lot of attention among the public. Credit is the life blood of the economy, and this slowdown has prompted many investors to begin questioning whether or not the U.S. economy would ever be able to take off. This compounded worries around the perennially weak Q1 GDP growth. Finally, the myriad of scandals surrounding Trump and his dealings with Russia have raised much questions about his ability to ever implement fiscal stimulus. Moreover, the punitive terms associated with the repeal of Obamacare and the implementation of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) - which according to the CBO could leave as many as 23 million individuals without health insurance by 2023 and cause sharp increases in insurance premia - may dull any growth boosting impact of potential tax cuts. Thus, the political backdrop may prompt the Fed to be easier than was anticipated as recently as December 2016. Why Are These Factors Risks And Not Base Cases? To begin with, BCA still hold the view that wages in the U.S. are set to accelerate in the coming quarters. The Phillips Curve continues to be a reality, as the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker still display a tight relationship with the unemployment gap (Chart I-10). Moreover, it is often argued that the problem with today's labor market is that much of the job creation is happening in low-skilled positions. This is true, but historically, low-skilled jobs have tended to experience the most upward pressures when the job market tightens significantly. Instead, the key anchor on average hourly earnings has been the hidden labor market slack. However, today, the U-6 unemployment rate is finally ticking at 8.6%, levels where in previous cycles wage growth accelerated (Chart I-11). A rebound in GDP growth, as highlighted by the Atlanta Fed growth forecast of 4.1% in Q2, would accentuate pressures on the labor market and help realized the underlying wage pressures resulting from the current readings of the U6 unemployment rate. Chart I-10The Phillips Curve: It's Alive Chart I-11U.S. Wages Will Pick Up What could support growth? Let's begin with the credit dynamics. As we have argued, credit growth is a lagging indicator of economic activity. The improvement in the ISM through 2016 and early 2017 continues to point to a rebound in C&I loans in the U.S. (Chart I-12). Moreover, aggregate bank credit in the U.S. is already re-accelerating, suggesting that credit will once again add to economic activity, and will stop subtracting from it (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Credit Lags, And It Will Pick Up Chart I-13Momentum In U.S. Loans Is Turning Up Another positive for the U.S. economy has been the substantial easing in financial conditions resulting from the fall in the dollar and bond yields since the beginning of 2017. This easing should help economic activity over the course of the next quarters (Chart I-14). In its most recent minutes, the Fed has alluded to these forces. The fall in the dollar is already showing signs of helping. The ISM export orders index is currently ticking near 60, suggesting that the fall in the USD has had a stimulative impact on the U.S economy (Chart I-15). This is especially salient when contrasted with the euro area industrial production dynamics described above. Chart I-14U.S. Financial Conditions Will Help Growth Chart I-15The Dollar's Easing Is Evident Finally, when it comes to fiscal policy, our Geopolitical Strategy team remains adamant that tax cuts will materialize in the coming quarters. It is becoming imperative for congressional Republicans to achieve this as Trump's popularity remains dismal at the national level, which could prompt a serious electoral rout in the 2018 mid-term elections (Chart I-16). This means that fiscal easing is likely to come through, which should have an impact on asset prices and the dollar: The DXY is back to pre-election levels and the relative performance of stocks most sensitive to changes in tax policy is back to January 2016 levels. These price trends indicate that investors have massively curtailed their expectations for governmental support to growth. Chart I-16If Tax Cuts Don't Pass, Republicans Are Heading For A Huge Defeat In 2018 Moreover, the current format of the AHCA is unlikely to make it through the more moderate U.S. Senate. The loss of coverage and the insurance premia increases implied by the current plan are likely to be electoral poison in 2018, something well understood by key GOP policymakers. An AHCA still up in the air does not preclude tax cuts either. The budget deficit hole created by unfunded tax cuts will likely be patched through aggressive growth assumptions, the magic of dynamic scoring. The recently revealed Trump budget proposal itself is also unlikely to see the light of day in its current form and will evolve toward something more supportive of growth as time and negotiations pass. Bottom Line: Investors have massively curtailed their expectations of Fed tightening over the next two years. This view has been based on the lack of wage acceleration in the U.S., the poor credit growth numbers, and the uncertainty surrounding fiscal policy. These are still important risks to our bullish stance. However, we remain optimist because wage growth is only set to increase now, credit is a lagging indicator that looks about to pick up anew, financial conditions should help future U.S. economic activity, and the potential for tax cuts is far from dead. Stay long DXY. Norway's Passing Inflation Problem It was not long ago when the Norges Bank was facing the daunting task of kick starting a Norwegian economy ravaged by the collapse in oil prices while trying to contain the high inflation brought upon by the sell-off in the krone. However, following the stabilization of the NOK, this dilemma has dissipated as multiple measures of inflation have plunged. The Norges Bank is now free to maintain its dovish bias as the economy remains tired and will require easy monetary to recover going forward. Based on the effect of currency moves, inflation might reach a bottom at the beginning of next year, but it will likely stay below the central bank's target of 2.5 % for the foreseeable future (Chart I-17). Indeed, in spite of the rebound in oil prices, employment is contracting, the output gap is large, and wage growth remains deeply negative (Chart I-18). The Norges Bank is sympathetic to this view, acknowledging in its most recent monetary policy statement that inflation will hover in a 1-2% range in the coming years. Chart I-17A Stable NOK Will Keep Inflation Subdued Chart I-18No Domestic Inflationary Pressures In Norway Lastly, Norway's bubbly real estate market, the last obstacle to the Norges Bank dovish bias, is finally slowing down. Thanks to changes in regulation on residential mortgage lending at the start of the year, banks are tightening lending standards to households, a precursor to a cooling housing market (Chart I-19). With a Fed looking to increase rates, the real rate differential between the U.S. and Norway should move in favor of USD/NOK. Yet, could rising oil prices deepen the USD/NOK weakness? This seems doubtful as USD/NOK continues to be more correlated with real rate differentials than with the price of oil (Chart I-20). Nevertheless, the outlook of the krone against the AUD and the NZD is much more promising: Chart I-19No Need To Raise Rates To Curb Housing Prices Chart I-20Real Rates Matter More Than Oil Yesterday, OPEC Russia agreed to maintain their production cuts in place for the next nine months. This deal should keep the oil market in a deficit, pushing oil prices up and providing a tailwind to the NOK against non-oil commodity currencies. Chart I-21CAD/NOK: A Call On The U.S. Dollar On the other hand, the outlook for industrial metals and other commodities, which are more sensitive to the Chinese economy, continues to be worrying. Monetary conditions are still tightening in China and multiple economic activity indicators have disappointed to the downside. While base metals have already fallen considerably, we believe that additional weakness in the Chinese economy will trigger a selloff in EM assets, bringing the NZD and the AUD down with them. Finally, it may be time to sell the NOK against the CAD. The Bank of Canada struck a hawkish tone on Wednesday, stating that the Canadian economy's adjustment to lower oil prices is largely complete and that consumer spending should be supported by an improving labor market. This change in rhetoric should set the stage for a rally in CAD/NOK. Moreover, our Intermediate-Term Timing Model shows that this cross is 7% cheap, and our bullish USD view implies an outperformance of the loonie versus the krone given the tight correlation between CAD/NOK and the DXY (Chart I-21). Bottom Line: Outperformance of oil in the commodity space will help the krone outpace non-oil commodity currencies. However, the Norges Bank is likely to keep a dovish bias, which should make it difficult for the NOK to rally durably against a cheap U.S. dollar. Go long CAD/NOK. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Juan Manuel Correa Research Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled "Bloody Potomac", dated May 19, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled "The Achilles Heel Of Commodity Currencies", dated May 5, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The greenback suffered some losses following the release of Fed minutes. Puzzlingly, the rhetoric was not dovish, as markets and news outlets confirmed the prospect for a June rate hike. The result was a dollar selloff and a drop in yields. This easing in financial conditions created an additional fillip for the S&P as it traded at a record high, the opposite of what is expected with a looming rate hike. As new home sales contracted on a monthly basis and the manufacturing PMI disappointed, the U.S. soft patch continues. Nevertheless, our base case remains on par with the Fed's: the weakness in data is temporary and the Fed will hike more than the markets expect. We are already seeing this as continuing and initial jobless claims beat expectations at 1.923 million, and 234,000 respectively, and the greenback has found a footing at the 97.1 level. As this scenario further unfolds, gold will retreat as real returns increase, and the greenback will gain upward momentum. Report Links: Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction - April 21, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 The euro area continues to surprise with better than expected data: German IFO: Overall Business Climate came in at 114.6 - levels last seen in 1970; Expectations came in better than expected at 106.5; and the Current Assessment also beat expectations of 121.2, coming in at 123.2. Euro area Manufacturing PMI is at 57 for May, beating expectations of 56.5, and the Composite measure also recorded an outperformance, coming in at 56.8. On the consumer side, German Gfk Consumer Confidence Survey came in at 10.4, beating expectations of 10.2. While the euro to be overvalued on short-term metrics, and the euro area is structurally weaker than the U.S., weaker data needs to be seen for the markets to see a correction. Report Links: Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction - April 21, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data has been negative in Japan: Manufacturing PMI decreased to 52 in May from 52.7 in April. Exports growth decreased to 7.5%, from 12% the month before and underperforming expectations. Japan's all industry activity Index also underperformed expectations, contracting by 0.6% MoM. We continue to believe that Japanese economic activity will ultimately be determined by the exchange rate. The yen has appreciated since this the start of the year, therefore it is understandable that inflation and economic activity have been subdued. Taking this into account, the BoJ will continue to target a yield of 0% in JGB's, and thus the yen should suffer on a cyclical basis given that real rates differentials with the U.S. will continue to widen. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent British data has been mixed: GDP growth underperformed, coming in at 2%, decreasing from last quarter and underperforming expectations, mostly reflecting poor trade numbers. Meanwhile total business investment grew by 0.8%, outperforming expectations. We are not positive on the pound against the dollar, given that near 1.3 the pound is no longer a bargain tactically. On the other hand we expect more upside against the euro. Powerful inflationary pressures are building in the U.K., and governor Carney, previously concerned about the effects of Brexit in the economy, might be more inclined now to deal with inflation as the U.K. has proved resilient. This will put upward pressure in British rates vis-à-vis European rates. Additionally EUR/GBP has reached overbought levels, indicating it might be a good time to short this cross. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction - April 21, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 As the greenback's descent slowed down, so did the Aussie's ascent. The underlying motives for strength in the antipodean currency are misplaced. As data remains unpromising, this week followed through with further disappointments as overall construction work done contracted by 7.2% on an annual basis, with the engineering component contracting by 13%. Research by the RBA illustrates that construction work has a very close relationship with the national accounts of Australia. This could result in a slowdown in the economy - something which the RBA cannot afford amidst flailing inflationary pressures. On a more optimistic note, the commodity selloff is taking a breather. Most crucially for the AUD, iron ore futures have remained flat for almost a month after a 30% depreciation, and natural gas has been flat for almost a month. These developments have limited the AUD's downside for now. However, looming EM risks and the potential resumption of the dollar bull market represent very real risks for the AUD going forward. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 The kiwi has appreciated by about 1.5% against the dollar this week. Additionally, recent data has been positive: Visitor Arrivals yearly growth skyrocketed to 21.5% on April. The trade balance outperformed expectations coming in at -3.48 Billion The kiwi economy continues to surge, with 7% growth in nominal GDP and retail sales growth at decade-highs. Additionally, dairy prices continue to surge, and are now growing at a 60% YoY pace. For this reason we are bearish on AUD/NZD, as the Australian economy is not only in a more precarious state, but is also more sensitive to the Chinese industrial cycle. Meanwhile, we continue to be bearish on NZD/USD, as a negative view on EM assets necessarily entails a bearish view on the kiwi. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Following on from the dollar's weakness, the CAD displayed further strength after the BoC's decision statement. While keeping rates unchanged, the bank highlighted that "recent economic data have been encouraging" and that "consumer spending and the housing sector continue to be robust on the back of an improving labor market". Furthermore, the Bank more or less expects these supports to growth to "strengthen and broaden over the projection horizon". While wholesale sales increased by less than expected at 0.9%, the BoC also expects that the "very strong growth in the first quarter will be followed by some moderation in the second quarter". This is likely to keep market expectations anchored and the CAD's value intact. Additionally, oil should pare recent weaknesses as OPEC follows through on its cuts. The CAD is therefore likely to see some strength against other commodity currencies. Report Links: Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 EUR/CHF has continued to depreciate after coming close to reaching 1.1. We continue to be negative on this cross, as the Euro is likely to have limited upside from current levels. The ECB is unlikely to hike rates any time soon, as wage pressures outside of Germany continue to be muted. Furthermore, this is not likely to change any time soon, as the labor market of the periphery continues to be very rigid. Meanwhile, the SNB is likely to take off the floor from this cross next year, as core inflation and retail sales growth have both returned to positive territory. We will continue to monitor the rhetoric by the SNB to have a more clear understanding of when the removal of the floor might occur. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 The krone has rallied this week, thanks to the rise in oil prices. However real rate differentials should continue to move in favor of USD/NOK. While the fed is likely to hike more than what is currently anticipated in the OIS curve, the Norges Bank will stay dovish, given that the Norwegian economy is still too weak to sustain a rise in interest rates. Furthermore, macro prudential measures seem to be helping the Norges bank to slow down the housing market. The NOK is also likely to have downside against the CAD. The dollar bull market should help this cross rally, given the tight correlation between CAD/NOK and the DXY. Furthermore the BoC has struck a more hawkish tone as of late, which should further increase the difference between interest rate expectations in these two countries. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits -December 16, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Positive data emerged from Sweden this week as consumer confidence picked up to 105.9 from 103.7, beating expectation of a decline to 103.6. The seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate remains on a structural downtrend, coming in at 6.6% according to Statistics Sweden. In terms of crosses, USD/SEK continues to weaken due to the greenback's instability. EUR/SEK has topped out and is also showing some weakness. Against commodity currencies, the movement is mixed. The SEK has shown the most strength against the AUD, while CAD/SEK and NZD/SEK have been flat, and NOK/SEK has seen considerable strength on the back of robust oil prices. We can see the SEK being weak against oil-based currencies as we expect OPEC to remain focused on cutting global oil inventories, while AUD/SEK could see further downside due to poor fundamentals in Australia. Report Links: Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights The risk asset friendly outcomes in the French and South Korean elections are the latest examples of fading geopolitical risk, and we expect that to continue over the remainder of 2017. Although it has been well over a year since the last 10% pullback, the U.S. equity market is not "due" for a correction. For many investors, the drop in commodity prices has replaced geopolitics as the most likely cause of the next equity market correction. What is Dr. Copper's diagnosis? We re-examine our Yield and Protector portfolios to find out which assets will hold up best if there is a correction. Many investors cite the monthly report on average hourly earnings as evidence that the Fed has it wrong on the economy and the labor market. We disagree. Feature U.S. stock prices remain within striking distance of their all-time highs and many investors continue to worry about the next correction. The risk asset friendly outcomes in the French and South Korean elections are the latest examples of fading geopolitical risk, and we expect that to continue over the remainder of 2017. The market has all but ignored the recent political turmoil in Washington. For many investors, the drop in commodity prices has replaced geopolitics as the most likely cause of the next equity market correction, while others note that it's been more than 15 months since the last 10%+ correction and that we are "due" for one. But is Dr. Copper still a reliable indicator of equity market tops? And if a correction is at hand, which assets would hold up best on the way down? We also review yet another disconnect between the Fed and the market: average hourly earnings. Geopolitical Risk Continues To Fade As A Market Concern Emmanuel Macron's victory was a resounding one as French voters rejected Le Pen's anti-Europe message in last week's election. Removing the possibility of a French President that is dedicated to exiting the eurozone is obviously positive for European stocks and investor risk appetite the world over. Next up are the two rounds of legislative elections in June. Polls are sparse, but they support the view that Macron's En Marche and the center-right Les Republicains will capture the vast majority of seats in the legislature. A Macron presidency supported by Les Republicains in the National Assembly would be a bullish outcome for investors, according to our geopolitical strategists. On the international stage - where the president has few constraints - France will be led by a committed Europhile willing to push Germany towards a more proactive policy. On the domestic stage - where the National Assembly dominates - Macron's cautiously pro-growth agenda will be pushed further to the right by Les Republicains. Such an election outcome would make possible the passage of genuine structural reforms that would suppress wage growth and make French exports more competitive. The presidential election result in South Korea last week was exactly what the market expected, and should help to reduce tensions on the Korean peninsula. For now, the situation in Washington around President Trump's firing of FBI Director Comey has not had a major impact on markets. If the Democrats win the House of Representatives in 2018, our geopolitical team believes that impeachment proceedings will begin against Trump. On one hand, this means that polarization in the U.S. is about to reach record-high levels. On the other, it should motivate the GOP to get tax reform done before it is too late. Bottom Line: Investors may be shocked into pricing greater odds of Euro Area dissolution when Italy comes back into focus, but that is a risk for 2018. We expect market-friendly policies emerging from Washington this year, although the Comey affair highlights that the road will be anything but smooth. Corrections And Pullbacks In Context Geopolitical risk appear to have faded for now, but with U.S. equities at or close to all-time highs, talk of a correction is hard to avoid. We continue to favor stocks over bonds this year and suggest that any sell-off in equities will be bought not sold. A hard landing in China, major disappointment on the Trump legislative agenda, a prolonged spell of weakness in the U.S. economic data1, and an overly aggressive Fed in 2017 may all serve as catalysts for a pullback. Above average PE ratios and measures of market volatility that are at cycle lows have only added to the chorus of those saying we are "due" for a correction. History suggests otherwise. From the end of WWII through 2009, the S&P 500 has experienced, on average, two 10% corrections and 10 corrections of 5% of more during equity bull markets. Since the start of the current bull market in March 2009 we've had 22 pullbacks of 5% or more and six corrections of more than 10% (using market closing prices) Table 1. This suggests that the market has seen its fair share of pullbacks and corrections since 2009, and isn't really "due". Chart 1 takes a different approach, but reaches the same conclusion. At 15 months (325 days) since the end of the last 10% correction, the current bull market is right of the middle of the pack of all bull markets since 1932. Table 1Six S&P 500 Corrections Of 10% Or More Since March 2009: We're Not "Due" Chart 1Current Equity Bull Market Is Not Long In The Tooth Our view remains that any pullback in U.S. equities will be bought, not sold, and we favor stocks over bonds in 2017. There are few notable imbalances in the U.S. or global economies and we see an acceleration in both over the remainder of 2017. The Fed will raise rates gradually this year, and there is general agreement between the Fed and the market on the pace of hikes at least for 2017. The Fed and the market remain far apart on hikes in 2018. Our view of the economy and labor market suggests that the market will ultimately move toward the Fed's view. The U.S. corporate earnings outlook remains solid, after a very good Q1 earnings season and favorable guidance for Q2 2017 and beyond. Bottom Line: Equity pullbacks - even during bull markets - are normal and healthy. We do not believe that the market is especially "overdue" for a pullback, but when the inevitable pullback or correction occurs, we expect that investors will take the opportunity to add to equity positions and not turn the pullback into a bear market. Dr. Copper? Chart 2Metals Prices Are Rolling Over...##BR##But Is It A Signal? The recent setback in the commodity pits has added to investor angst regarding global growth momentum. The LMEX base metals index is up almost 20% on a year-ago basis, but has fallen by 8% since February (Chart 2). From their respective peaks earlier this year, zinc and copper are down about 10%, nickel has dropped by 22% and iron ore has lost almost half of its value. Is the venerable "Dr. Copper" sending an important warning about world growth? Some of our global leading economic indicators have edged lower this year, as we have discussed in recent Weekly Reports. Nonetheless, the decline in base metals prices likely has more to do with other factors, such as an unwinding of the surge in speculative demand that immediately followed the U.S. election last autumn. Speculators may be disappointed by the lack of progress on Republican promises to cut taxes and boost infrastructure spending. The main story for base metals demand and prices, however, is the Chinese real estate sector. China accounts for roughly 50% of world consumption for each of the major metals. The Chinese authorities are trying to cool the property market and transition to a more consumer spending-oriented economy, thereby reducing the dependence on exports, capital spending and real estate as growth drivers. Fiscal policy tightened last year and new regulations were introduced to limit housing speculation. The effect of policy tightening can be seen in our Credit and Fiscal Spending Impulse indicator, which has been softening since mid-2016 (Chart 3). The economy held up well last year, but the policy adjustment resulted in a peaking of the PMI at year-end. Growth in housing starts also appears to be rolling over (annual growth is shown on a 12-month moving-average basis in Chart 4 because of the extreme volatility in the series). Both the PMI and housing starts are correlated with commodity prices. Chart 3China is The Main Story##BR##For Base Metals Demand Chart 4Direct Fiscal Spending And Infrastructure##BR##Have Picked Up Recently The good news is that BCA's China Investment Strategy service does not expect a major downshift in Chinese real GDP growth this year, which means that commodity import demand should rebound: Chart 5Dr. Copper Is Not Signaling##BR##A Slowdown in Global Growth There is no incentive for the authorities to crunch the economy given that consumer price inflation is still low and the surge in producer price inflation appears to have peaked. Monetary conditions have tightened a little in recent months, but overall conditions are not restrictive. Moreover, both direct fiscal spending and infrastructure investment have picked up noticeably in recent months (Chart 4). Export growth will continue to accelerate based on our model (not shown). The upturn in the profit cycle and firming output prices should boost capital spending. Robust demand will ensure that housing construction will continue to grow at a healthy pace. Households' home-buying intentions jumped to an all-time high last quarter. Tighter housing policies in major cities will prevent a massive boom, but this will not short-circuit the recovery in housing construction. This all adds up to a fairly benign outlook for base metals. Our commodity strategists do not see the conditions for a major bull or bear phase on a 6-12 month horizon. Within commodity portfolios, they recommend a benchmark allocation to base metals, an underweight in agricultural products and an overweight in oil. We intend to update our view on oil prices in the May 22, 2017 edition of this report. Bottom Line: From a broader perspective, our key message is that "Dr. Copper" is not signaling that global growth will soften significantly this year. Chart 5 highlights that the LMEX base metals index has a high positive correlation with the U.S. stock-to-bond total return ratio on a daily change basis. However, in terms of trends and turning points, base metals are far from a reliable indicator for the stock-to-bond ratio. Where To Hide In A Stock Market Correction Over the past several years, BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy service has periodically recommended that investors add a variety of investments as portfolio "insurance" to help guard against the possibility of a material correction in equities. More recently, we have highlighted two specific forms of insurance: our yield and protector portfolios. We last discussed the protector portfolio in the October 17, 2016 and November 7, 2016 Weekly Reports2, and in today's report we revisit the issue by comparing both portfolios to a more common form of insurance: shifting from cyclical to defensive stocks within an equity allocation. Charts 6, 7, and 8 show a breakdown of the relative performance of S&P 500 defensives along with our yield and protector portfolios. Panels 2 and 3 of Charts 6, 7 and 8 present the rolling 1-year beta and alpha of each strategy vs. the S&P 500. Here, we present alpha as the difference between the actual year-over-year excess return of the portfolio (vs. short-term Treasury bills) and what would have been expected given the portfolio's beta. This measure is sometimes referred to as "Jensen's alpha". Chart 6A Modestly Low-Beta Option Chart 7A Lower Beta Than Defensives Chart 8A Negative Beta, And Positive Alpha There are several noteworthy observations from the charts: Based on the historical beta of the three portfolios vs. the S&P 500, defensive stocks are the most correlated with the overall equity market. Our protector portfolio has a negative correlation to the broad market, and our yield portfolio is somewhere in between, with a positive but relatively low beta. This is consistent with the equity composition of the three portfolios (shown in Table 2); with our protector portfolio composed entirely of non-equity assets. Table 2A Breakdown Of Three##BR##Portfolio Insurance Options After accounting for their lower beta, all three portfolios have tended to outperform the S&P in risk-adjusted terms since the onset of the global economic recovery. But this outperformance has been more significant for our yield and protector portfolios: the top panel of Charts 7 and 8 highlight that both portfolios have generated essentially the same return as equities have since the end of the recession (since the relative profile has been flat), despite exhibiting considerably less volatility than stocks. All three portfolios have experienced a relative decline vs. the S&P 500 since the election, but this has largely occurred due to passive rather than active underperformance. In other words, they have underperformed due to a failure to keep up with the S&P 500 rather than because of losses in absolute terms. There are two important conclusions from Charts 6, 7 and 8 for U.S. multi-asset investors. First, the lower beta of our yield and protector portfolios compared with S&P defensives means that the former represent a better insurance bet against a sell-off in the equity market than the latter. Second, the persistently positive volatility-adjusted returns for our insurance portfolios highlights an investor preference for these assets over the past few years, which is likely to persist over the coming 6-12 months. But investors should also recognize that this preference could eventually be subject to a reversal if the long-term economic outlook significantly improves, an event that could be catalyzed either by organic economic developments or policy decisions by the Trump administration. For now, our investment bias towards equities over government bonds makes us less inclined to favor a low beta position within a balanced portfolio. But our analysis suggests that clients who anticipate the need for portfolio insurance over the coming year should favor our yield and protector portfolios over a defensive sector allocation within an equity portfolio, and we are likely to recommend an allocation to these portfolios for all clients were we to see any material progression towards the sell-off triggers that we identified earlier in the report. Bottom Line: Investors seeking some protection against a potential equity market sell-off should favor our yield and protector portfolios over defensive sector positioning. We do not currently recommend these portfolios for all clients, but we are likely to do so if our key sell-off trigger "red lines" are breached. What's Up With Wage Growth? On the surface, the April jobs report-released in early May seemed to send mixed signals to investors and the Fed about the health of the labor market3. Our view remains that the economy is growing fast enough to tighten the labor market, push up wages and ultimately inflation, which will lead the Fed to raise rates twice more in 2017. But even though the economy is very close to full employment and the output gap has nearly closed, patience is required. Although it's a close call, the next hike is likely to come next month. Markets remain somewhat skeptical of this view, and have only priced in 39 bps of tightening by the end of the year, and have not yet fully priced in a June rate hike. The lack of wage growth (up just 2.5% year-over-year in April according to average hourly earnings (AHE)) remains a key source of the market's skepticism about the pace and timing of Fed rate hikes. Many investors cite the monthly report on average hourly earnings as evidence that the Fed has it wrong on the economy and the labor market. Does the Fed see something the market does not? Or is it the other way around? Markets tend to focus on data that are timely. That requirement certainly fits the AHE. The monthly wage measure is the most timely data point on labor compensation. While timeliness is an important factor when assessing the health of the labor market, it is also critically important to watch what the Fed watches. Investors should note that the AHE data is only one of at least four measures of labor compensation the Fed mentions in its Semi Annual Monetary Report to Congress. Since Fed Chair Yellen took office in 2014, the Fed has specifically referenced (and charted together) three measures of labor compensation in the report: Average hourly earnings Employment Cost Index and Compensation per Hour in the nonfarm business sector, and Chart 9The Fed Tracks All Four Of##BR##These Compensation Measures The Atlanta Fed's Wage Tracker was mentioned in the June 2016 Monetary Policy Report, and the Fed added it to the chart of the other three metrics in the most recent report, released in February 2017. As Chart 9 shows, all have moved higher in recent years, although it is clear that AHE has lagged the others. Given the attention it receives in the financial news media on and just after "Employment Friday" each month, it may surprise investors to learn that neither AHE nor wages were directly mentioned in any of the FOMC statements since Yellen took charge. However, wage growth (or lack thereof) has been a topic of discussion at all but a few of the 13 post FOMC press conferences Yellen has held. When asked about wages, she is careful to note that the Fed watches a wide range of indicators of labor compensation, but has lamented the lack of progress on wages. In her most recent press conference, Yellen noted that "I would describe some measures of wage growth as having moved up some. Some measures haven't moved up, but there's some evidence that wage growth is gradually moving up, which is also suggestive of a strengthening labor market." Average hourly earnings are routinely mentioned in the FOMC minutes, but only alongside mentions of the other metrics noted above. On balance, average hourly earnings are viewed by the Fed - and therefore should be viewed by the market - as one of several indicators of the health of the labor market, but not the only indicator. Chart 10 shows that only a third of industries have seen an acceleration in wage increases over the past year, which supports the market's view that the economy is not growing quickly enough to push up wages and inflation. A recent report by the Kansas City Fed4 takes a different view. Using a bottom-up approach, the author points out that only a few industries (mostly in the goods producing sector of the economy) have accounted for much of the rise in wages, notably manufacturing, construction and wholesale trade. Financial services, retail trade, professional and business services and leisure and hospitality - all service sector industries - have been the laggards. The study done by the economists at the Kansas City Fed shows that although earnings growth has lagged in those more service-oriented industries since 2015, hours worked have seen faster growth than in the mainly goods producing sector (chart not shown). This suggests to the author - and we concur - that labor demand has been strong in the past few years in areas that have not seen much wage growth. As the labor market continues to tighten, wages in these industries may accelerate, but patience may be required. Chart 11 shows that it takes two to three years after a bottom in the output gap for a decisive turn higher in ECI or AHE. While this cycle has seen a more shallow recovery - especially in AHE - both have moved higher since the output gap bottomed out in 2009/2010. Chart 10Only 33% Of Industries Have Seen##BR##Wage Acceleration Over The Past 12 Months Chart 11Measures Of Labor Compensation Move##BR##Higher After Output Gap Bottoms Out Bottom Line: Investors are always wise to watch what the Fed watches. The evolution of wage growth will be critical to FOMC policymakers, because a clear acceleration will confirm that the economy is truly at full employment and, thus, at risk of overheating. We do not expect a surge in wages, but a steady upward trend will keep the Fed on a gradual tightening path. 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 Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Growth, Inflation And The Fed", dated May 8, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Reports "Portfolio Insurance: What, How, When?", dated October 17, 2016 and "Policy, Polls, Probability", dated November 7, 2016, both available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Growth, Inflation And The Fed" dated May 8, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 See "Wage Leaders and Laggards; Decomposing the Growth in Average Hourly Earnings" The Macro Bulletin, February 15, 2017; Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Highlights The U.S. unemployment rate stands 0.1 points below the FOMC's year-end projection and 0.4 points below its estimate of NAIRU. If the unemployment rate keeps falling, it will have nowhere to go but up - and the U.S. has never been able to avoid a recession whenever the unemployment rate has risen by more than one-third of a percentage point. So far the FOMC has failed in its efforts to tighten monetary policy. U.S. financial conditions have actually eased sharply since the Fed resumed hiking rates in December. The Fed will turn more hawkish over the coming months. Stay short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract and position for a stronger dollar. What happens in the euro area has become increasingly irrelevant for what happens to EUR/USD. Even if the ECB raises rates somewhat more rapidly than expected, this will be largely counterbalanced by hawkish actions by the Fed. Investors should stay cyclically overweight global equities, but be prepared to pare back exposure next summer. Feature Beware Of Full Employment Chart 1Recoveries Usually Lose Steam##br## WhenThe Unemployment Rate Falls Below NAIRU After eclipsing 10% in 2009, the U.S. unemployment rate fell to 4.4% in April, 0.1 points below the median end-2017 dot in the Fed's Summary of Economic Projections, and 0.4 points below the FOMC's estimate of NAIRU.1 The fact that most Americans who want to work are able to find jobs is obviously a good thing. However, today's increasingly tight labor market does have a dark side: As Chart 1 illustrates, recoveries have tended to run out of steam whenever the unemployment rate has fallen below its full employment level. Two points about the unemployment rate are worth keeping in mind: The unemployment rate has rarely been stable over time; usually, it is either rising or falling. The former tends to occur very quickly, while the latter is more drawn out. The unemployment rate displays momentum over short horizons, but is "mean-reverting" over the long haul (Chart 2).2 Since there is a limit to how low the unemployment rate can go, periods when it is below its full employment level typically do not last long. This is confirmed by Chart 3, which shows that there is a clear positive correlation between the degree of labor market slack and the onset of the next recession: High slack means that a recession is usually far away, whereas low slack means that a downturn is approaching. And it doesn't take much of an increase in the unemployment rate to sow the seeds for another recession - the U.S. has never escaped a recession in the postwar period whenever the three-month moving average of the unemployment rate has risen by a mere one-third of a percentage point (Chart 4). Chart 2The Unemployment Rate Is Mean-Reverting Over The Long Haul, But Displays Momentum In The Short Term Chart 3The Degree Of Labor Market Slack And The Onset Of The Next Recession: A Clear Positive Correlation Chart 4What Goes Down Must Come Up? Rising unemployment tends to generate all sorts of vicious cycles. When someone loses their job, they spend less. The resulting decline in aggregate demand forces firms to lay off workers, leading to even less spending throughout the economy. A weaker economy also makes it more difficult for borrowers to pay back loans, causing them to pare back spending. Falling asset prices only serve to exacerbate this problem. Threading The Needle Today's low unemployment rate puts the Federal Reserve in a bind. On the one hand, if the Fed raises rates too quickly, this could precipitate exactly the sort of downturn that it is trying to avoid. On the other hand, if the Fed fails to raise rates quickly enough, this could cause the economy to overheat. This, in turn, may force the Fed to raise rates aggressively - something that would destabilize both the economy and financial markets. The hope is that the Fed succeeds in threading the needle to ensure that the economy achieves a soft landing. There are some reasons to be optimistic about such an outcome, but also several reasons to be pessimistic. On the optimistic side, inflation expectations remain well anchored. This means that an overheated economy is unlikely to produce a powerful price-cost spiral such as the one that broke out in the 1970s. This limits the risk that the Fed will be forced to raise rates dramatically. The real economy is also not suffering from the sort of clear-cut imbalances that plagued the late innings of the last two business cycles - a massive capex overhang in the late 1990s, and an even larger housing overhang in the years leading up to the Global Financial Crisis. Private debt levels have also fallen as a share of GDP for most of the recovery, unlike in past cycles (Chart 5). On the pessimistic side, uncertainty about the level of the neutral rate - the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation - will make it difficult for the Fed to calibrate monetary policy in a way that ensures a soft landing. It typically takes 12-to-18 months for changes in monetary conditions to fully make their way through the economy. Thus, if the Fed does end up either too far behind or too far ahead of the curve in normalizing monetary policy, it may not realize this until it's too late. Structurally slower potential GDP growth could also complicate matters. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that real potential GDP growth will average only 1.8% over the next 10 years, compared to 3.1% between 1980 and 2007 (Chart 6). Today's equity valuations are arguably pricing in faster GDP growth. Should growth settle below 2% - a rate that has often been associated with stall speed - risk assets could suffer, complicating the Fed's efforts in achieving a soft landing. Chart 5The Economy Is Not Showing ##br##Clear-Cut Signs Of Imbalances Chart 6Potential GDP Growth Is Not ##br##What It Used To Be The Fed's Choice Given the choice between erring on the side of raising rates too slowly or too quickly, the Fed has opted for the former. This is a quantitative statement, not a qualitative one. Chart 7 shows that U.S. financial conditions have eased considerably since the Fed resumed raising rates last December, thanks to a weaker dollar, tighter credit spreads, and a soaring stock market. If the whole point of hiking rates is to tighten financial conditions, then the Fed has not done enough. Worries that the headline unemployment rate may understate the true amount of labor market slack partly explain the Fed's angst in raising rates as quickly as it has in past cycles. While the headline rate has fallen back to its 2007 low, the broader U-6 unemployment rate - which incorporates people who are out of the labor market but claim to want a job, as well as those who are working part-time for economic reasons - is still 0.7 points above it. Likewise, the employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers (ages 25-to-54) is 1.7 points below its pre-recession levels. The "quits rate" - a good measure of labor market confidence - also remains a notch below its pre-recession peak. Perhaps most glaringly, the median duration of unemployment has only fallen back to 10.2 weeks, which is still close to the high of the previous cycle (Chart 8). Chart 7Financial Conditions Have Been Easing Chart 8Headline Unemployment Rate ##br##Back To 2007 Levels, But Other ##br##Measures Still Point To Slack Each of these factoids has a counterargument: The elevated share of involuntary part-time workers may be partly due to the effects of Obamacare, which has made it burdensome for companies to add full-time workers to the payrolls;3 the low quits rate and the high median length of unemployment may reflect the aging of the population as well as lower gross job creation (Chart 9); and automation, globalization, and low-skilled immigration may have depressed real wages for less-educated workers, causing them to abandon the labor market (Chart 10). Nevertheless, with core inflation still below the Fed's 2% target, it is not hard to see why the Fed has elected to take a "go slow" approach so far. Chart 9The Labor Market Has Become Less Dynamic Chart 10Less-Educated Men Are Fleeing The Labor Market The Hawks Spread Their Wings That may be changing, however. The growth in nominal unit labor costs has already surpassed 2% and is close to the peaks reached in 2000 and 2007 (Chart 11). Most other measures of wage growth remain in a clear uptrend (Chart 12). If GDP growth accelerates over the remainder of the year, as we expect, the Fed will pursue a more aggressive tightening path than what the market is currently discounting. Chart 11Unit Labor Cost Inflation Close To Past Peaks Chart 12Most Measures Of Wage Growth Are In An Uptrend Recent communications from the Fed have revealed an increasingly hawkish bias. The latest Fed statement downplayed the slowdown in Q1 as "transitory." This follows Chair Yellen's comment that "waiting too long to remove accommodation would be unwise, potentially requiring the FOMC to eventually raise rates rapidly, which could risk disrupting financial markets and pushing the economy into recession."4 Investment Conclusions Higher U.S. rate expectations should give the dollar a boost (Chart 13). We do not agree with the often-heard argument that the actions of foreign central banks will materially weaken the dollar. Consider the case of the ECB. There has been much speculation that the ECB will phase out some of its emergency measures. That may well happen, but even if it does, a full-fledged hiking cycle is nowhere on the horizon. According to a recent ECB study, the rate of labor underutilization still stands at 18% in the euro area, 3.5 points higher than in 2008 (Chart 14).5 Stripping out Germany, the rate of underutilization would be seven points higher (Chart 15). It is still too early for Mario Draghi to begin removing monetary accommodation in a concerted manner. Chart 13Higher U.S. Rate Expectations ##br##Should Give The Dollar A Boost Chart 14Labor Market Slack In The Euro Area Remains High... Chart 15...Especially Outside Of Germany Moreover, anything the ECB does which inadvertently leads to a stronger euro will likely be matched by offsetting hawkish actions by the Fed. Remember that the Fed needs to tighten financial conditions in order to prevent the unemployment rate from falling so much that it has nowhere to go but back up. A weaker dollar runs contrary to that strategy. The argument above can be applied more broadly. The euro rallied in the lead-up to the French election on the now-realized hope that Emmanuel Macron would prevail. Put aside the fact that Macron's platform calls for cutting the budget deficit from 3.2% of GDP this year to 1% of GDP in 2022 - something which, all things equal, would lead to less monetary tightening and a correspondingly weaker euro. Even if Macron's victory somehow did manage to allow the ECB to raise rates earlier than it would have otherwise, it is hard to believe that this would not influence the pace of Fed rate hikes. U.S. financial conditions could tighten through some combination of higher rates and/or a stronger dollar. The only way the Fed could engineer a tightening in financial conditions while the trade-weighted dollar still weakened would be to jack up interest rates by an inordinate amount. However, this outcome would require that other central banks raise rates even more. That's not going to happen. Stay short EUR/USD. We think the euro will reach parity against the dollar later this year. Where does this leave equities? So long as global growth remains solid and corporate earnings are in an uptrend, the path of least resistance for stocks is up. However, the risk is that the Fed overplays its hand and ultimately tightens monetary policy too much. This could lead to a broad-based global slowdown towards the end of 2018. Investors should stay cyclically overweight global equities, but be prepared to pare back exposure next summer. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 The Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU) is the unemployment rate consistent with stable inflation. 2 An Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression using monthly data between 1960 and 2017 shows that the change in the unemployment rate over the coming three months is positively associated with a change in the unemployment rate over the prior three months, and negatively associated with the level of the unemployment gap. 3 See, for example: Marcus Dillender, Carolyn Heinrich, and Susan Houseman, "Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Part-Time Employment: Early Evidence," Upjohn Institute Working Paper, 2016. 4 Janet Yellen, "Semiannual Monetary Policy Report To The Congress," February 14, 2017. 5 Please see ECB, "Focus: Assessing Labour Market Slack," Economic Bulletin Issue 3, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights ECB policy is set to become less dovish relative to other central banks. Stay long the euro; stay underweight German bunds within a global bond portfolio; and overweight euro area Financials within a global Financials portfolio. Female labour participation is surging. The state of the euro area labour market is not nearly as bad as many pessimists would have you believe. Play the mega-trend of rising female labour participation with a structural overweight in the Personal Products sector. Allowing for euro break-up risk, European equities are fairly valued - rather than cheap - versus U.S. equities. Prefer to gain exposure via a 50:50 combination of Germany (DAX) and Sweden (OMX). Feature "Domestic sources of risk to euro area growth have diminished while global, geo-global sources of risk have increased." - Mario Draghi The Cleanest Dirty Shirt Since the end of 2014, an unspectacular 1.9% growth rate1 has been enough to make the euro area the world's top-performing major economy - bettering the U.S., U.K. and Japan (Chart I-2). Chart of the WeekThe Percentage Of The French Population In Employment Is At An All-Time High Chart I-2The Euro Area Is The Top-Performing Economy The euro area economy has achieved this outperformance with exceptionally low volatility. For eight consecutive quarters, growth2 has remained within a very tight 1.2-2.2% band, less than half of the equivalent volatility in the U.S., U.K. and Japan. And growth is now "solid and broad", meaning that it includes all countries. The ECB's dispersion index of value-added growth in different countries stands at a historical minimum. We expect the euro area to remain the cleanest dirty shirt. As Draghi points out, the ECB is less worried about domestic risks and more worried about global risks. Specifically: "Markets are in the course of reassessment of U.S. fiscal policy" - Trumponomics will not be nearly as stimulative as first thought. "How the U.K. economy does post-Brexit has a channel of economic consequences for the euro area." "Possible negative surprises in some emerging market economies" - notably China. If any of the global risks do flare up, the ECB will sit pat, but other central banks will have to become more dovish relative to current expectations. If the risks do not flare up, the ECB will start to reduce its own extreme dovishness - at least with words, if not actions. Either way, ECB policy is set to become less dovish relative to other central banks. And the investment implications are: stay long the euro; stay underweight German bunds within a global bond portfolio; and overweight euro area Financials within a global Financials portfolio. Female Labour Participation Is Surging Chart I-3Rising Participation Boosts Employment As Emanuel Macron prepares to become the twenty fifth President of the French Republic, he can take heart from a statistic which may surprise you: The percentage of the French population in employment has never been this high. (Chart of the Week). How can this be when the French unemployment rate is still hovering around 10%? The answer is: as millions of formerly inactive French citizens have entered the labour market, it has lifted the percentage of the population with jobs to an all-time high (Chart I-3). But the flip side of rising participation is that it has kept the unemployment rate elevated - because some citizens who were formerly 'uncounted inactive' are now 'counted unemployed'. Remember that to count as unemployed, a person has to be in the labour market available for work. Some argue that French citizens have simply flooded into the labour market to claim generous and long-lasting unemployment benefits. This argument might hold during downturns, but it cannot explain the 25-year uptrend which also includes economic booms. Unpalatable as it might be to the pessimists, we are left with a more optimistic explanation. France has raised activity levels in the working age population with policies that encourage much greater female participation in the labour market. The important lesson is that when labour participation is rising or falling, we must interpret the headline unemployment rate with extreme care.3 If a country's unemployment rate is high because labour participation has increased - as in France - the labour market is not quite as bad as the high unemployment rate might suggest.4 Conversely, if a country's unemployment rate is low because labour participation has decreased - as in the U.S. (Chart I-4) - the labour market is not quite as good as the low unemployment rate might suggest. Counted unemployment has just been replaced with uncounted inactivity. We propose that the percentage of the working age population in employment is the truer measure of labour utilisation. With surging female participation boosting employment in France and most other European countries (Chart I-5), the state of the euro area labour market is not nearly as bad as many pessimists would have you believe. Chart I-4Participation Down In The U.S.,##br## But Up In Europe... Chart I-5...Led By ##br##Women Play the mega-trend of rising female labour participation with a structural overweight in the Personal Products sector. Political Risk Is Correctly Priced Many people saw the Brexit and Trump victories as the leading edge of a wave of economic nationalism. However, subsequent election results in the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Bulgaria and now France have seen economic nationalists consistently underperforming their expectations. In hindsight, the Brexit and Trump victories were idiosyncratic. Both the Remain and Clinton campaigns were lacking in personality or a strong emotional message, and this proved to be their undoing. Nowadays, many voters care about personalities more than policies; emotional appeal matters more than rational appeal. Behavioural psychologist and Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman calls the emotional way of thinking "System 1", and the colder rational way of thinking "System 2". Crucially, in a tight contest, both the Brexit and Trump campaigns resonated with the emotional System 1 with passionate pleas such as "Take Back Control" and "Make America Great Again". By contrast, the Remain and Clinton campaigns tried to appeal mainly to the rational System 2. But as Kahneman explains, when rational System 2 competes with emotional System 1, emotional System 1 almost always wins. Chart I-6Euro Break-Up Probability = 5% A Year In more recent elections, candidates and parties opposing the nationalists - including Emanuel Macron - have used a good balance of System 1 and System 2 arguments, thereby helping to prevent shock outcomes. This is also likely to be case in the two round French legislative elections on June 11 and 18 which we do not expect to impact financial markets significantly. Does this mean that political risk is over in Europe? No. Until the euro area turns into a permanent and irreversible political union, there has to be a probability of euro break-up. To value euro area assets, investors must ask: what is this break-up probability? The sovereign bond market says it is 5% a year (Chart I-6). This shows up in a discount on German bund yields, because after a euro break-up a new deutschmark would rise; and a symmetrical premium on Italian BTP yields, because a new lira would fall. For the aggregate euro area bond, the risk largely cancels out because intra-euro currency redenomination would be zero sum. But European equities must trade at a discount for this tail-event. At the peak of the euro debt crisis in 2011, the Eurostoxx600 underperformed the S&P500 by 25% in one year. In an outright break-up, the underperformance would almost certainly be worse, let's conservatively say 30-40%. So assuming the tail-event probability is 5% a year, European equities must compensate with a valuation discount which allows a 1.5-2.0%5 excess annual return over U.S. equities. Today, the valuation discount on European equities relative to U.S. equities implies an excess annual return of 1.8%.6 This makes European equities cheap versus U.S. equities only if the annual probability of euro break-up is less than 5%. Our assessment is that a 5% annual risk is about right. Therefore, European equities are fairly valued - rather than cheap - versus U.S. equities. But to avoid the undesirable sector skews in the Eurostoxx600, a much better way to gain long-term exposure to European equities is via a 50:50 combination of Germany (DAX) and Sweden (OMX) (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Prefer A DAX/OMX Combo To The Eurostoxx50 Or Eurstoxx600 Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 At an annualized rate. 2 At an annualized rate. 3 Geek's note: the unemployment rate can be expressed as: 100*(participation rate - employment to population rate) / (participation rate). Hence, all else being equal, a rising participation rate will raise the unemployment rate and a falling participation rate will depress the unemployment rate. 4 This lesson applies equally to any studies of labour market slack such as this one: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/ebbox201703_03.en.pdf that do not take into account the dynamics of participation rates. 5 5% multiplied by 30-40% equals 1.5-2.0% 6 Through the next ten years. Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Markets Suspended In Disbelief" dated April 13, 2017 available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model The rally in the CAC40 after the French election is technically extended. The recommended technical trade is to short the CAC40 versus the Eurostoxx600. 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-8 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights The Economic Surprise Index has declined and may continue to roll over until expectations wash out. But that shouldn't derail risk assets or the Fed. The GDP data is a mix of art and science. For investors focused on what the quarterly GDP release reveals about the state of the economy, it is important to remember that the advance release involves more of the former. The FOMC called the weakness in Q1 "transitory". The U.S. economy can grow fast enough over the final three quarters of the year to meet the Fed's 2.0% growth target. The recent readings on inflation and the labor market remain consistent with 2 more rate hikes this year, starting in June. We expect the stock-to-bond ratio to hit new highs by the end of the year even without a big move in equity prices. Feature U.S. equities have now returned to their early March highs despite the ongoing weakness in economic surprises. The latest high profile negative surprises were in the Q1 GDP report, and the March reading on core PCE inflation. Have equity prices disconnected from the underlying economic fundamentals or is something else at play? More importantly, how does the Fed view the recent weakness in economic data? The outlook for inflation, the Fed, and growth supports the relative performance of stocks vs bonds, even assuming modest returns to the former. What To Expect After A Weak Q1 The Q1 GDP report was weak. It was the latest in a string of U.S. economic reports stretching back to mid-March that have disappointed relative to (raised) expectations. In February,1 we highlighted the risk that the "current period of economic surprise could last for another month or two..." before inevitably giving way to elevated expectations and finally disappointment. On average since 2010, elevated levels of economic surprise have lasted roughly two months, with the latest period lasted about 11 weeks (Chart 1). So now what? Chart 1Economic Surprise Index Has Rolled Over Since Early to Mid March Each day that passes, economic expectations move lower, adjusting the bar down for the next batch of economic reports. The starting point was set relatively high just after last fall's election and early this year, as investors anticipated quick action from the Trump Administration and Congress on tax cuts, tax reform and infrastructure. More recently however, some of the key data have not only failed to match raised expectations, but have begun to roll over. Since 2010, periods of disappointing economic reports have persisted, on average, for 4 months (Chart 1). We are nearly 2 months in, implying that expectations will be washed out soon. With a solid backdrop for corporate earnings, and ebbing geopolitical risk, any equity pullback based on near-term weakness in the economic data should be short-lived. Q1 real GDP growth came in at just 0.7%, well below expectations of a 1.1% increase. At the start of 2017, consensus estimates were in the 2 to 2.5% range, but we were not surprised by the weak report and markets should not have been either. In our two most recent reports,2 we highlighted the well-known seasonality issues with Q1 GDP. Markets seemed to have - correctly in our view - taken the Q1 GDP report in stride and are looking ahead to Q2 and beyond. We expect a snapback in growth in Q2 and over the rest of 2017. The Atlanta Fed's Q2 estimate (+4.2%) supports our view but the NY Fed's latest nowcast for Q2 (+1.8) suggests a more modest rebound. In addition to the potential for higher growth later in the year, there is also the chance that Q1 growth was misstated. Investors can track revisions to Q1 GDP via the Atlanta and NY Fed's Nowcasts, and should bear in mind that the GDP data is a mix of art and science. For investors focused on what the quarterly GDP release reveals about the state of the economy, it is important to remember that the advance release involves more of the former. The Bureau of Economic Analysis' (BEA) GDP data are subject to near constant revision. For example, the Q1 2007 GDP data (released in April 2007) has already been revised 10 times (Table 1). Availability to the BEA of input data that is both timely and comprehensive is at the root of this constant revision. Investors need to take this into account as they try to assess the health of the U.S. economy in "real time". In the past 8 years, Q1 GDP has been revised lower half the time between the advance estimate (1/3 of the hard data) and the second estimate (50% of the data). But as currently reported, Q1 GDP in 5 of the last 8 years is now higher than it was when first reported and in some cases these revisions have been significant in magnitude (Table 1). Which reading should investors trust? A look at the composition of those estimates may help. Table 1GDP Is A Mix Of Art And Science When the BEA released Q1 GDP in late April it had collected just over a third of the "hard" data that feeds into GDP (Chart 2). The rest of the data used to calculate Q1 GDP was filled in by the BEA using assumptions, or "judgmental trend," or by using data from a similar data series. By the time the second estimate is released in late May, the BEA will have just 50% of the "hard" data. Thus, a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted when evaluating the U.S. economy on the initial reports of GDP. Chart 2Advance Estimate Of GDP##br## Is More Art Than Science For now, U.S. equities have not been affected by the weak Q1 GDP data or the recent collapse in positive economic surprises. Our work shows that the disappointing economic data may persist for another few months. Stocks are within a few points of their all-time high set in March; which suggests that markets are less focused on the noise in the economic data, but remain intently focused on the Trump Administration passing some profit friendly legislation at some point this year. If economic disappointments persist for longer than a few more months and Congress doesn't follow through, we can't rule out a meaningful correction in U.S. equities. Nonetheless, the lack of excesses in the economy, general agreement between the Fed and the market on the path of rates for this year and rising, but still modest, inflation are likely to make any pullback in U.S. stocks a buying opportunity for investors. Bottom Line: Investors should fade the recent disappearance in positive economic surprises by staying overweight stocks vs bonds over the coming 6-12 months. FOMC: Growth Weakness Is Transitory Chart 3GDP, Inflation And Labor Market All Tracking##br## To Fed's Forecast = Gradual Rate Hikes The pace of economic growth, and more importantly how that growth impacts the labor market and inflation, remain a crucial factor in how investors assess the number of additional Fed rate hikes that can be expected this year. We continue to expect two more 25 basis point hikes in 2017, whereas the market, as of May 4, was pricing in just 38 bps. At the start of the weakness in the economic data in early March, the market had penciled in 68 bps (almost 3 rate hikes). The soft performance of the economy in Q1 was certainly a focus at last week's FOMC meeting. The FOMC's assessment was that the slowdown in growth in the economy in Q1 was "transitory." The FOMC made no material changes to its assessment of inflation or the labor market in the statement. The minutes of last week's meeting due on May 24 will provide more color. While not officially part of the Fed's dual mandate (of inflation and unemployment), economic growth obviously matters to the Fed. Growth that runs above the Fed's view of potential GDP will push the unemployment rate lower and push inflation higher. Top panel of Chart 3 shows that real GDP growth rose 1.9% from a year ago in Q1, just a tenth of a percent below the Fed's central tendency range for 2017 of 2.0 to 2.2% (Chart 3, panel 2). Despite the poor start to 2017, real GDP growth would have to average only a modest 2.5% per quarter over the rest of the year to hit the Fed's 2.0% target. Is 2.5% growth over the final three quarters achievable absent positive revisions to Q1? We think it is. Since 2010, GDP growth in the final 3 quarters of the year has averaged 2.5%. The headwinds facing the economy today are weaker than they were in the early years of the recovery. The April readings on manufacturing (54.8) and non-manufacturing (57.5) ISM imply GDP growth in the 3 to 3.5% range in Q2. The FOMC is correct to look through the temporary weakness in Q1 and continue on its gradual path of rate hikes this year to match the "modest" pace of economic growth. Investors got a few other key inputs to the FOMC's decision making process last week: The March reading on PCE inflation and the April employment report. Both readings keep the Fed on track for gradual hikes in 2017. A soft reading on core PCE inflation - the Fed's preferred measure - was also a contributor to the weakness in the economic surprise index. For now, we see few signs that suggest core inflation is headed sustainably lower. Chart 4 shows that, since 2000, core PCE inflation has closely correlated with a one year lag of real consumer spending. Even with the recent deceleration in spending, the chart suggests that the recent decline in inflation is temporary. In addition, our sense is that the Fed is more likely to tolerate a rate of inflation that is modestly below its estimate as long as growth remains strong and there is evidence that the weakness in inflation is transitory. Chart 4Core PCE Inflation Likely To Move Higher To Meet Spending The April labor market data was released last week as well and confirmed the FOMC's assessment of a solid labor market, but it also had a one negative surprise for markets. The 211,000 increase in jobs in April exceeded expectations (+185,000) and accelerated from the 79,000 gain in March. Over the past three months, the average monthly gain in payrolls was 174,000,well above the 100,000 to 125,000 per month pace the Fed says is needed to tighten the labor market. The drop in the unemployment rate in April to 4.4% puts the unemployment rate at pre-recession lows and more importantly, below the lower end of the Fed's 4.5% to 4.6% central tendency for this year. (Chart 3, panel 3). The negative surprise in the April jobs report came from wages. Average hourly earnings decelerated to 2.5% year-over-year in April from +2.6% in March. The consensus was looking for a 2.7% increase. Despite the lack of traction on wages, the April jobs supports the view that the economy is growing fast enough to tighten the labor market, push up wages and ultimately inflation. June remains a close call for the next Fed rate hike, but an analysis of the economy and the Fed's reaction function suggests that two rate hikes remain the most likely event this year. Our view is that the market will adjust up expectations toward the Fed's view for 2018. Bottom Line: The recent disappointment in the data is not enough to knock the Fed off course. Investors should continue to expect two additional rate hikes in 2017, with the next move coming at the June meeting. A Pro-Cyclical Asset Stance: It's Not Just About Stocks Chart 5Investors' Preference For Bonds##br## Is Understandable... One of the most basic ways that BCA evaluates the trend in financial markets is to look at what we call the "stock-to-bond ratio". In this publication the ratio is shown as the S&P 500 total return index divided by that of U.S. 10-year government bond. Chart 5 shows the amazing evolution of the stock-to-bond ratio over the past decade, rebased to 100 at the end of 2007 (the official beginning of the 2008-2009 recession). Panel 2 of the chart shows the component total return indexes, also rebased to 100 at the end of 2007. The chart illustrates two incredible points. First, while it is true that stocks have massively outpaced bonds since the low in March 2009, it took equity investors who bought and held at the onset of recession until late-2013 to outpace bond investors who did the same. Second, until the U.S. election in November, the stock-to-bond ratio was only 10% higher than it was in December 2007, which is a powerful testament to the ability of bonds to preserve capital over the long haul. Given these observations and the still-fresh memory of the global financial crisis, it is easy to see how some investors continue to prefer the relative safety of bonds, especially since equity multiples have risen significantly over the past year. However, Chart 6 highlights how our long stock-to-bond call is motivated by an expectation of higher stock prices and negative returns from bonds. The chart shows the likely trajectory of the 10-year Treasury yield over the coming year, under the base case scenario envisioned by our U.S. Bond Strategy service: core PCE inflation rises to 2%, and the spread between the 10-year breakeven inflation rate and core rises to 50 bps. Chart 7 illustrates the implications of this forecast for bond total returns, alongside the resulting stock-to-bond ratio. For stocks, we assume a very conservative 3% annualized nominal total return, which is the sum of a 2% dividend yield and a 1% assumed nominal price return. Chart 6...But The Bond Bull Market Is Over Chart 7A New High By Year-End The key point from Chart 7 is that the stock-to-bond ratio is likely to rise to a new high by the end of the year, even without aggressive assumptions for equity returns. We agree that bond yields will fall in the event of another risk-off event, and that 10-year Treasurys remain an important component of a diversified portfolio. But it is also important for investors to recognize that, absent these types of events, the relative performance of stocks vs. bonds is set to move higher in part because 10-year Treasurys are likely to generate a negative absolute return over the coming 6-12 months. Bottom Line: Investors should retain a pro-cyclical asset allocation stance. The outlook for the inflation, the Fed, and growth supports the relative performance of stocks vs bonds, even assuming modest returns to the former. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "Goldilocks: For How Long?," dated February 20, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Reports "Spring Snapback" dated April 24, 2017 and "The Good And The Bad". May 1, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Dear Client, In addition to an abbreviated Weekly Report that you will receive later tonight, I am sending you this Special Report written by my colleague Mark McClellan of our monthly Bank Credit Analyst publication. Following up on many of the themes discussed in our latest Quarterly Strategy Outlook, Mark makes a convincing case that most of the factors that have suppressed global interest rates since the financial crisis could begin to unwind or even reverse over the coming years. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The fundamental drivers of the low rate world are considered by many to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields quite depressed by historical standards for years to come. However, some of the factors behind ultra-low interest rates have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. The age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. Global investment needs will wane along with population aging, but the majority of the effect on equilibrium interest rates is in the past. In contrast, the demographic effects that will depress desired savings are still to come. The net impact will be bond-bearish. Moreover, the massive positive labor supply shock, following the integration of China and Eastern Europe into the world's effective labor force, is over. Indeed, this shock is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power, sparking a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby placing upward pressure on global real bond yields. It is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. This could be inflationary if it disrupts global supply chains. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. As for China, the fundamental drivers of its savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Technological advance will remain a headwind for real wage gains, but at least the transition to a world that is less labor-abundant will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We are not making the case that real global bond yields are going to quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations for bond yields are too low. Investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. Feature In the September 2016 The Bank Credit Analyst, we summarized the key drivers behind the major global macroeconomic disequilibria that have resulted in deflationary pressure, policy extremism, dismal productivity, and the lowest bond yields in recorded history (Chart 1). The disequilibria include income inequality, the depressed wage share of GDP, lackluster capital spending, and excessive savings. Chart 1Global Disequilibria The fundamental drivers of the low bond yield world are now well documented and understood by investors. These drivers generally are considered to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields and interest rates at historically low levels for years to come according to the consensus. Based on discussions with BCA clients, it appears that many have either "bought into" the secular stagnation thesis or, at a minimum, have adopted the view that growth headwinds preclude any meaningful rise in bond yields. However, bond investors might have been lulled into a false sense of security. Yields will not return to pre-Lehman norms anytime soon, but some of the factors behind the low-yield world have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. Most importantly, the age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. We have reached the tipping point. Equilibrium real bond yields will gradually move higher as a result. But before we discuss what is changing, it is important to review the drivers of today's macro disequilibria. Several of them predate the Great Financial Crisis, including demographic trends, technological advances, and the integration of China's massive workforce and excess savings into the global economy. Ultra-Low Rates: How Did We Get Here? (A) Demographics And Global Savings Chart 2Global Shifts In The Saving And Investment Curves The so-called Global Savings Glut has been a bullish structural force for bonds for the past couple of decades. We won't go through all of the forces behind the glut, but a key factor is population aging in the advanced economies. Ex-ante desired savings rose as baby boomers entered their high-income years. The Great Financial Crisis only served to reinforce the desire to save, given the setback in the value of boomers' retirement nest eggs.1 The corporate sector also began to save more following the crisis. Even more importantly, the surge in China's trade surplus since the 1990s had to be recycled into the global pool of savings. While China's rate of investment was very high, its propensity to save increased even faster, resulting in a swollen external surplus and a massive net outflow of capital. Other emerging economies also made the adjustment from net importers of capital to net exporters following the Asian crisis in the late 1990s. By leaning into currency appreciation, these countries built up huge foreign exchange reserves that had to be recycled abroad. In theory, savings must equal investment at the global level and real interest rates shift to ensure this equilibrium (Chart 2). China's excess savings, together with a greater desire to save in the developed countries, represented a shift in the saving schedule to the right. The result was downward pressure on global interest rates. (B) Demographics And Global Capital Spending Demographics and China's integration also affected the investment side of the equation. A slower pace of labor force growth in the developed countries resulted in a permanently lower level of capital spending relative to GDP. Slower consumer spending growth, as a result of a more moderate expansion in the working-age population, meant a reduced appetite for new factories, malls, and apartment buildings. Chart 3 shows that the growth rate of global capital spending that is required to maintain a given capital-to-output ratio has dropped substantially, due to the dramatic slowdown in the growth of the world's working-age population.2 Keep in mind that this estimate refers only to the demographic component of investment spending. Actual capital expenditure growth will not be as weak as Chart 3 suggests because firms will want to adopt new technologies for competitive or environmental reasons. Nonetheless, the point is that the structural tailwind for global capex from the post-war baby boom has disappeared. Chart 3Demographics Are A Structural Headwind For Global Capex (C) Labor Supply Shock And Global Capital Spending While the working-age population ratio peaked in the developed countries years ago, it is a different story at the global level (Chart 4). The integration of the Chinese and Eastern European workforces into the global labor pool during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in an effective doubling of global labor supply in a short period of time. Relative prices must adjust in the face of such a large boost in the supply of labor relative to capital. The sudden abundance of cheap labor depressed real wages from what they otherwise would have been, thus incentivizing firms to use more labor and less capital at the margin. The combination of slower working-age population growth in the advanced economies and a surge in the global labor force resulted in a decline in desired global capital spending. In terms of Chart 2, the leftward shift of the investment schedule reinforced the impact of the savings impulse in placing downward pressure on global interest rates. (D) Labor Supply Shock And Income Inequality The wave of cheap labor also aggravated the trend toward greater inequality in the advanced economies and the downward trend in labor's share of the income pie (Chart 5). In theory, a surge in the supply of labor is a positive "supply shock" that benefits both developed and developing countries. However, a recent report by David Autor and Gordon Hanson3 highlighted that trade agreements in the past were incremental and largely involved countries with similar income levels. The sudden entry of China to the global trade arena, involving a massive addition to the effective global stock of labor, was altogether different. The report does not argue that trade has become a "bad" thing. Rather, it points out that the adjustment costs imposed on the advanced economies were huge and long-lasting, as Chinese firms destroyed entire industries in developed countries. The lingering adjustment phase contributed to greater inequality in the major countries. Management was able to use the threat of outsourcing to gain the upper hand in wage negotiations. The result has been a rise in the share of income going to high-income earners in the Advanced Economies, at the expense of low- and middle-income earners (Chart 6). The same is true, although to a lesser extent, in the emerging world. Chart 4Working-Age Population Ratios Have Peaked Chart 5Labor Share Of Income Has Dropped Chart 6Hollowing Out Greater inequality, in turn, has weighed on aggregate demand and equilibrium interest rates because a larger share of total income flowed to the "rich" who tend to save more than the low- and middle-income classes. (E) The Dark Side Of Technology Advances in technology also contributed to rising inequality. In theory, new technologies hurt some workers in the short term, but benefit most workers in the long run because they raise national income. However, there is evidence that past major technological shocks were associated with a "hollowing out" or U-shaped pattern of employment. Low- and high-skilled employment increased, but the proportion of mid-skilled workers tended to shrink. Wages for both low- and mid-skilled labor did not keep up with those that were highly-skilled, leading to wider income disparity. Today, technology appears to be resulting in faster, wider and deeper degrees of hollowing-out than in previous periods of massive technological change. This may be because machines are not just replacing manual human tasks, but cognitive ones too. A recent IMF report made the case that technology and global integration played a dominant role in labor's declining fortunes. Technology alone explains about half of the drop in the labor share of income in the developed countries since 1980.4 Falling prices for capital goods, information and communications technology in particular, have facilitated the expansion of global value chains as firms unbundled production into many tasks that were distributed around the world in a way that minimized production costs. Chart 7 highlights that the falling price of capital goods in the advanced economies went hand-in-hand with rising participation in global supply chains since 1990. Falling capital goods prices also accelerated the automation of routine tasks, contributing especially to job destruction in the developed (high-wage) economies. In other words, firms in the developed world either replaced workers with machinery in areas where technology permitted, or outsourced jobs to lower-wage countries in areas that remained labor-intensive. Both trends undermined labor's bargaining power, depressed labor's share of income, and contributed to inequality. The effects of technology, global integration, population aging and China's economic integration are demonstrated in Chart 8. The world working-age-to-total population ratio rose sharply beginning in the late 1990s. This resulted in an upward trend in China's investment/GDP ratio, and a downward trend in the G7. The upward trend in the G7 capital stock-per-capita ratio began to slow as a result, before experiencing an unprecedented contraction after the Great Recession and Financial Crisis. Chart 7Economic Integration And Falling Capital Goods Prices Chart 8Macro Impact Of Labor Supply Shock The result has been a deflationary global backdrop characterized by demand deficiency and poor potential real GDP growth, both of which have depressed equilibrium global interest rates over the past 20 to 25 years. Transition Phase Chart 9Working-Age Population To Shrink in G7 and China It would appear easy to conclude that these trends will be with us for another few decades because the demographic trends will not change anytime soon. Nonetheless, on closer inspection the global economy is transitioning from a period when cyclical economic pressures and all of the structural trends were pushing equilibrium interest rates in the same direction, to a period in which the economic cycle is becoming less bond-friendly and some of the secular drivers of low interest rates are gradually changing direction. First, the massive labor supply shock of the past few decades is over. The world working-age population ratio has peaked according to United Nations estimates. This ratio is already declining in the major advanced economies and is in the process of topping out in China. The absolute number of working-age people will shrink in China and the G7 countries over the next five years, although it will continue to grow at a low rate for the world as a whole (Chart 9). Unions are unlikely to make a major comeback, but a backdrop that is less labor-abundant should gradually restore some worker bargaining power, especially as economies regain full employment. The resulting upward pressure on real wages will support capital spending as firms substitute toward capital and away from (increasingly expensive) labor. Consumer demand will also receive a boost if inequality moderates and the labor share of income begins to rise. Globalization On The Back Foot Chart 10Globalization Peaking? Second, it is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. Global exports appear to have peaked relative to GDP and average tariffs have ticked higher (Chart 10). The World Trade Organization has announced that the number of new trade restrictions or impediments outweighed the number of trade liberalizing initiatives in 2016. The U.K. appears willing to sacrifice trade for limits to the free movement of people. The new U.S. Administration has ditched the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and is threatening to impose punitive tariffs on some trading partners. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. If the U.S. were to impose high tariffs on China, for example, it would make a part of the Chinese capital stock redundant overnight. In order for the global economy to produce the same amount of goods and services as before, the U.S. and other countries would need to invest more. Any unwinding of globalization would also be inflationary as it would disrupt international supply chains. Demographics And Saving: From Tailwind To Headwind... Third, the impact of savings in the major advanced economies and China on global interest rates will change direction as well. In the developed world, aggregate household savings will come under downward pressure as boomers increasingly shift into retirement. Economists are fond of employing the so-called life-cycle theory of consumer spending. According to this theory, consumers tend to smooth out lifetime spending by accumulating assets during the working years in order to maintain a certain living standard after retirement. The U.N. National Transfer Accounts Project has gathered data on spending and labor income by age cohort at a point in time. Chart 11 presents the data for China and three of the major advanced economies. The data for the advanced economies suggest that spending tends to rise sharply from a low level between birth and about 15 years of age. It continues to rise, albeit at a more modest pace, through the working years. Other studies have found that consumer spending falls during retirement. Nonetheless, these studies generally include only private spending and therefore do not include health care that is provided by the government. The data presented in Chart 11 show that, if government-provided health care is included, personal spending rises sharply toward the end of life. The profile is somewhat different in China. Spending rises quickly from birth to about 20 years of age, and is roughly flat thereafter. Indeed, consumption edges lower after 75-80 years of age. These data allow us to project the impact of changing demographics on the average household saving rate in the coming years, assuming that the income and spending profiles shown in Chart 11 are unchanged. We start by calculating the average saving rate across age cohorts given today's age structure. We then recalculate the average saving rate each year moving forward in time. The resulting saving rate changes along with the age structure of the population. Chart 11Income And Consumption By Age Cohort The results are shown in Chart 12. The saving rates for all four economies have been indexed at zero in 2016 for comparison purposes. The aggregate saving rate declines in all cases, falling between 4 and 8 percentage points between 2016 and 2030. Germany sees the largest drop of the four countries. Chart 12Aging Will Undermine Aggregate Saving The simulations are meant to be suggestive, rather than a precise forecast, because the savings profile across age cohorts will adjust over time. Moreover, governments will no doubt raise taxes to cover the rising cost of health care, providing a partial offset in terms of the national saving rate.5 Nonetheless, the simulations highlight that the major economies are past the point where the baby boom generation is adding to the global savings pool at a faster pace than retirees are drawing from it. The age structure in the major advanced economies is far enough advanced that the rapid increase in the retirement rate will place substantial downward pressure on aggregate household savings in the coming years. It is well known that population aging will also undermine government budgets. Rising health care costs are already captured in our household saving rate projection because the data for household spending includes health care even if it is provided by the public sector. However, public pension schemes will also be a problem. To the extent that politicians are slow to trim pension benefits and/or raise taxes, public pension plans will be a growing drain on national savings. Could younger, less developed economies offset some of the demographic trends in China and the Advanced Economies? Numerically speaking, a more effective use of underutilized populations in Africa and India could go a long way. Nevertheless, deep-seated structural problems would have to be addressed and, even then, it is difficult to see either of these regions turning into the next "China story" given the current backlash against globalization and immigration. ...And The Capex Story Is Largely Behind Us Demographic trends also imply less capital spending relative to GDP, as discussed above. In terms of the impact on global equilibrium interest rates, it then becomes a race between falling saving and investment rates. Some analysts point to the Japanese experience because it is the leading edge in terms of global aging. Bond yields have been extremely low for many years even as the household saving rate collapsed, suggesting that ex-ante investment spending shifted by more than ex-ante savings. Nonetheless, Japan may not be a good example because the deterioration in the country's demographics coincided with burst bubbles in both real estate and stocks that hamstrung Japanese banks for decades. A series of policy mistakes made things worse. Economic theory is not clear on the net effect of demographics on savings and investment. The academic empirical evidence is inconclusive as well. However, a detailed IMF study of 30 OECD countries analyzed the demographic impact on a number of macroeconomic variables, including savings and investment.6 They estimated separate demographic effects for the old-age dependency ratio and the working-age population ratio. Applying the IMF's estimated model coefficients to projected changes in both of these ratios over the next decade suggests that the decline in ex-ante savings will exceed the ex-ante drop in capex requirements by about 1 percentage point of GDP. This is a non-trivial shift. Chart 13Demographics And Capex Requirements Moreover, our simulations highlight that timing is important. The outlook for the household saving rate depends on the changing age structure of the population and the distribution of saving rates across age cohorts. Thus, the average saving rate will trend down as populations continue to age over the coming decades. In contrast, the impact of demographics on capital spending requirements is related to the change in the growth rate of the working-age population. Chart 13 once again presents our estimates for the demographic component of capital spending. The top panel presents the world capex/GDP ratio that is necessary to maintain a constant capital/output ratio, and the bottom panel shows the change in that ratio. The important point is that the downward adjustment in world capex/GDP related to aging is now largely behind us because most of the deceleration in the growth rate of the working-age population is done. This is in contrast to the household saving rate adjustment where all of the adjustment is still to come. China Is Transitioning Too China must be treated separately from the developed countries because of its unique structural issues. As discussed above, household savings increased dramatically beginning in the mid-1990s (Chart 14). This trend reflected a number of factors, including: the rising share of the working-age population; a drop in the fertility rate, following the introduction of the one-child policy in the late 1970s that allowed households to spend less on raising children and save more for retirement; health care reform in the early 1990s required households to bear a larger share of health care spending; and job security was also undermined by reform of the state-owned enterprises (SOE) in the late 1990s, leading to increased precautionary savings to cover possible bouts of unemployment. These savings tailwinds have turned around in recent years and the household saving rate appears to have peaked. China's contribution to the global pool of savings has already moderated significantly, as measured by the current account surplus. The surplus has withered from about 9% in 2008 to 2½% in 2016. A recent IMF study makes the case that China's national saving rate will continue to decline. The IMF estimates that for every one percentage-point rise in the old-age dependency ratio, the aggregate household saving rate will fall by 0.4-1 percentage points. In addition, the need for precautionary savings is expected to ease along with improvements in the social safety net, achieved through higher government spending on health care. The household saving rate will fall by three percentage points by 2021 according to the IMF (Chart 15). Competitive pressure and an aging population will also reduce the saving rates of the corporate and government sectors. Chart 14China's Savings Rates Have Peaked... Chart 15...Suggesting That External Surplus Will Shrink Of course, investment as a share of GDP is projected to moderate too, reflecting a rebalancing of the economy away from exports and capital spending toward household consumption. The IMF expects that savings will moderate slightly faster than investment, leading to a narrowing in the current account surplus to almost zero by 2021. A lot of assumptions go into this type of forecast such that we must take it with a large grain of salt. Nonetheless, the fundamental drivers of China's savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Moreover, a return to large current account surpluses would likely require significant currency depreciation, which is a political non-starter given U.S. angst over trade. The risk is that China's excess savings will be less, not more, in five year's time. Tech Is A Wildcard It is extremely difficult to forecast the impact of technological advancement on the global economy. We cannot say with any conviction that the tech-related effects of "hollowing out", "winner-take-all" and the "skills premium" will moderate in the coming years. Nonetheless, these effects have occurred alongside a surge in the world's labor force and rapid globalization of supply chains, both of which reinforced the erosion of employee bargaining power. Looking ahead, technology will still be a headwind for some employees, but at least the transition from a world of excess labor to one that is more labor-scarce will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We will explore the impact of technology on productivity, inflation, growth, and bond yields in a companion report to be published in the next issue. Conclusion: Table 1Key Secular Drivers The main points we made in this report are summarized in Table 1. All of the structural factors driving real bond yields were working in the same (bullish) direction over the past 30-40 years. Looking ahead, it is uncertain how technological improvement will affect bond prices, but we expect that the others will shift (or have already shifted) to either neutral or outright bond-bearish. No doubt, our views that globalization and inequality have peaked, and that the labor share of income has bottomed, are speculative. These factors may not place much upward pressure on equilibrium yields. Nonetheless, it seems likely that the demographic effect that has depressed capital spending demand is well advanced. We see it shifting from a positive factor for bond prices to a neutral factor in the coming years. It is also clear that the massive positive labor supply shock is over, and is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power and the resulting boost consumer spending will be negative for bonds. This may also spark a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby place additional upward pressure on global real bond yields. Admittedly, however, this last point requires more research because theory and empirical evidence on it are not clear. Perhaps most importantly, the aging of the population in the advanced economies has reached a tipping point; retirees will drain more from the pool of savings than the working-age population will add to it in the coming years. We have concentrated on real equilibrium bond yields in this report because it is the part of nominal yields that is the most depressed relative to historical norms. The inflation component is only a little below a level that is consistent with central banks meeting their 2% inflation targets in the medium term. There is a risk that inflation will overshoot these targets, leading to a possible surge in long-term inflation expectations that turbocharges the bond bear market. This is certainly possible, as highlighted by a recent Global Investment Strategy Quarterly Strategy Outlook. Pain in bond markets would be magnified in this case, especially if central banks are forced to aggressively defend their targets. Please note that we are not making the case that real global bond yields will quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. It will take time for the bond-bullish structural factors to unwind. It will also take time for inflation to gain any momentum, even in the United States. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations suggest that investors have adopted an overly benign view on the outlook for yields. For example, implied real short-term rates remain negative until 2021 in the U.S. and 2026 in the Eurozone, while they stay negative out to 2030 in the U.K. (Chart 16). We doubt that short-term rates will be negative for that long, given the structural factors discussed above. Another way of looking at this is presented in Chart 17. The market expects the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years to be only slightly above today's spot yield, which itself is not far above the lowest levels ever recorded. Market expectations are equally depressed for the 5-year forward rate for the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart 16Market Expects Negative Short-Term Rates For A Long Time Chart 17Forward Rates Very Low Vs. History The implication is that investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 It is true that observed household saving rates fell in some of the advanced economies, such as the United States, at a time when aging should have boosted savings from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. This argues against a strong demographic effect on savings. However, keep in mind that we are discussing desired (or ex-ante) savings. Ex-post, savings can go in the opposite direction because of other influencing factors. As discussed below, global savings must equal investment, which means that shifts in desired capital spending demand matter for the ex-post level of savings. 2 Arithmetically, if world trend GDP growth slows by one percentage point, then investment spending would need to drop by about 3½ percentage points of GDP to keep the capital/output ratio stable. 3 David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Review of Economics, Vol 8, pp. 205-240 (October 2016). 4 Please see "Understanding The Downward Trend In Labor Income Shares," Chapter 3, IMF World Economic Outlook (April 2017). 5 In other words, while the household saving rate, as defined here to include health care spending by governments on behalf of households, will decline, any associated tax increases will blunt the impact on national savings (i.e., savings across the household, government, and business sectors). 6 Jong-Won Yoon, Jinill Kim, and Jungjin Lee, "Impact Of Demographic Changes On Inflation And The Macroeconomy," IMF Working Paper no. 14/210 (November 2014).

Special Report

The fundamental drivers of the low rate world are considered by many to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields quite depressed by historical standards for years to come. However, some of the factors behind ultra-low interest rates have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. The age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. Global investment needs will wane along with population aging, but the majority of the effect on equilibrium interest rates is in the past. In contrast, the demographic effects that will depress desired savings are still to come. The net impact will be bond-bearish. Moreover, the massive positive labor supply shock, following the integration of China and Eastern Europe into the world's effective labor force, is over. Indeed, this shock is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power, sparking a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby placing upward pressure on global real bond yields. It is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. This could be inflationary if it disrupts global supply chains. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. As for China, the fundamental drivers of its savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Technological advance will remain a headwind for real wage gains, but at least the transition to a world that is less labor-abundant will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We are not making the case that real global bond yields are going to quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations for bond yields are too low. Investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. In the September 2016 The Bank Credit Analyst, we summarized the key drivers behind the major global macroeconomic disequilibria that have resulted in deflationary pressure, policy extremism, dismal productivity, and the lowest bond yields in recorded history (Chart II-1). The disequilibria include income inequality, the depressed wage share of GDP, lackluster capital spending, and excessive savings. Chart II-1Global Disequilibria The fundamental drivers of the low bond yield world are now well documented and understood by investors. These drivers generally are considered to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields and interest rates at historically low levels for years to come according to the consensus. Based on discussions with BCA clients, it appears that many have either "bought into" the secular stagnation thesis or, at a minimum, have adopted the view that growth headwinds preclude any meaningful rise in bond yields. However, bond investors might have been lulled into a false sense of security. Yields will not return to pre-Lehman norms anytime soon, but some of the factors behind the low-yield world have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. Most importantly, the age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. We have reached the tipping point. Equilibrium real bond yields will gradually move higher as a result. But before we discuss what is changing, it is important to review the drivers of today's macro disequilibria. Several of them predate the Great Financial Crisis, including demographic trends, technological advances, and the integration of China's massive workforce and excess savings into the global economy. Ultra-Low Rates: How Did We Get Here? (A) Demographics And Global Savings Chart II-2Global Shifts In The ##br##Saving And Investment Curves The so-called Global Savings Glut has been a bullish structural force for bonds for the past couple of decades. We won't go through all of the forces behind the glut, but a key factor is population aging in the advanced economies. Ex-ante desired savings rose as baby boomers entered their high-income years. The Great Financial Crisis only served to reinforce the desire to save, given the setback in the value of boomers' retirement nest eggs.1 The corporate sector also began to save more following the crisis. Even more importantly, the surge in China's trade surplus since the 1990s had to be recycled into the global pool of savings. While China's rate of investment was very high, its propensity to save increased even faster, resulting in a swollen external surplus and a massive net outflow of capital. Other emerging economies also made the adjustment from net importers of capital to net exporters following the Asian crisis in the late 1990s. By leaning into currency appreciation, these countries built up huge foreign exchange reserves that had to be recycled abroad. In theory, savings must equal investment at the global level and real interest rates shift to ensure this equilibrium (Chart II-2). China's excess savings, together with a greater desire to save in the developed countries, represented a shift in the saving schedule to the right. The result was downward pressure on global interest rates. (B) Demographics And Global Capital Spending Demographics and China's integration also affected the investment side of the equation. A slower pace of labor force growth in the developed countries resulted in a permanently lower level of capital spending relative to GDP. Slower consumer spending growth, as a result of a more moderate expansion in the working-age population, meant a reduced appetite for new factories, malls, and apartment buildings. Chart II-3 shows that the growth rate of global capital spending that is required to maintain a given capital-to-output ratio has dropped substantially, due to the dramatic slowdown in the growth of the world's working-age population.2 Keep in mind that this estimate refers only to the demographic component of investment spending. Actual capital expenditure growth will not be as weak as Chart II-3 suggests because firms will want to adopt new technologies for competitive or environmental reasons. Nonetheless, the point is that the structural tailwind for global capex from the post-war baby boom has disappeared. Chart II-3Demographics Are A Structural Headwind For Global Capex (C) Labor Supply Shock And Global Capital Spending While the working-age population ratio peaked in the developed countries years ago, it is a different story at the global level (Chart II-4). The integration of the Chinese and Eastern European workforces into the global labor pool during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in an effective doubling of global labor supply in a short period of time. Relative prices must adjust in the face of such a large boost in the supply of labor relative to capital. The sudden abundance of cheap labor depressed real wages from what they otherwise would have been, thus incentivizing firms to use more labor and less capital at the margin. The combination of slower working-age population growth in the advanced economies and a surge in the global labor force resulted in a decline in desired global capital spending. In terms of Chart II-2, the leftward shift of the investment schedule reinforced the impact of the savings impulse in placing downward pressure on global interest rates. (D) Labor Supply Shock And Income Inequality The wave of cheap labor also aggravated the trend toward greater inequality in the advanced economies and the downward trend in labor's share of the income pie (Chart II-5). In theory, a surge in the supply of labor is a positive "supply shock" that benefits both developed and developing countries. However, a recent report by David Autor and Gordon Hanson3 highlighted that trade agreements in the past were incremental and largely involved countries with similar income levels. The sudden entry of China to the global trade arena, involving a massive addition to the effective global stock of labor, was altogether different. The report does not argue that trade has become a "bad" thing. Rather, it points out that the adjustment costs imposed on the advanced economies were huge and long-lasting, as Chinese firms destroyed entire industries in developed countries. The lingering adjustment phase contributed to greater inequality in the major countries. Management was able to use the threat of outsourcing to gain the upper hand in wage negotiations. The result has been a rise in the share of income going to high-income earners in the Advanced Economies, at the expense of low- and middle-income earners (Chart II-6). The same is true, although to a lesser extent, in the emerging world. Chart II-4Working-Age Population Ratios Have Peaked Chart II-5Labor Share Of Income Has Dropped Chart II-6Hollowing Out Greater inequality, in turn, has weighed on aggregate demand and equilibrium interest rates because a larger share of total income flowed to the "rich" who tend to save more than the low- and middle-income classes. (E) The Dark Side Of Technology Advances in technology also contributed to rising inequality. In theory, new technologies hurt some workers in the short term, but benefit most workers in the long run because they raise national income. However, there is evidence that past major technological shocks were associated with a "hollowing out" or U-shaped pattern of employment. Low- and high-skilled employment increased, but the proportion of mid-skilled workers tended to shrink. Wages for both low- and mid-skilled labor did not keep up with those that were highly-skilled, leading to wider income disparity. Today, technology appears to be resulting in faster, wider and deeper degrees of hollowing-out than in previous periods of massive technological change. This may be because machines are not just replacing manual human tasks, but cognitive ones too. A recent IMF report made the case that technology and global integration played a dominant role in labor's declining fortunes. Technology alone explains about half of the drop in the labor share of income in the developed countries since 1980.4 Falling prices for capital goods, information and communications technology in particular, have facilitated the expansion of global value chains as firms unbundled production into many tasks that were distributed around the world in a way that minimized production costs. Chart II-7 highlights that the falling price of capital goods in the advanced economies went hand-in-hand with rising participation in global supply chains since 1990. Falling capital goods prices also accelerated the automation of routine tasks, contributing especially to job destruction in the developed (high-wage) economies. In other words, firms in the developed world either replaced workers with machinery in areas where technology permitted, or outsourced jobs to lower-wage countries in areas that remained labor-intensive. Both trends undermined labor's bargaining power, depressed labor's share of income, and contributed to inequality. The effects of technology, global integration, population aging and China's economic integration are demonstrated in Chart II-8. The world working-age-to-total population ratio rose sharply beginning in the late 1990s. This resulted in an upward trend in China's investment/GDP ratio, and a downward trend in the G7. The upward trend in the G7 capital stock-per-capita ratio began to slow as a result, before experiencing an unprecedented contraction after the Great Recession and Financial Crisis. Chart II-7Economic Integration And ##br##Falling Capital Goods Prices Chart II-8Macro Impact Of ##br##Labor Supply Shock The result has been a deflationary global backdrop characterized by demand deficiency and poor potential real GDP growth, both of which have depressed equilibrium global interest rates over the past 20 to 25 years. Transition Phase Chart II-9Working-Age Population ##br##To Shrink In G7 And China It would appear easy to conclude that these trends will be with us for another few decades because the demographic trends will not change anytime soon. Nonetheless, on closer inspection the global economy is transitioning from a period when cyclical economic pressures and all of the structural trends were pushing equilibrium interest rates in the same direction, to a period in which the economic cycle is becoming less bond-friendly and some of the secular drivers of low interest rates are gradually changing direction. First, the massive labor supply shock of the past few decades is over. The world working-age population ratio has peaked according to United Nations estimates. This ratio is already declining in the major advanced economies and is in the process of topping out in China. The absolute number of working-age people will shrink in China and the G7 countries over the next five years, although it will continue to grow at a low rate for the world as a whole (Chart II-9). Unions are unlikely to make a major comeback, but a backdrop that is less labor-abundant should gradually restore some worker bargaining power, especially as economies regain full employment. The resulting upward pressure on real wages will support capital spending as firms substitute toward capital and away from (increasingly expensive) labor. Consumer demand will also receive a boost if inequality moderates and the labor share of income begins to rise. Globalization On The Back Foot Chart II-10Globalization Peaking? Second, it is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. Global exports appear to have peaked relative to GDP and average tariffs have ticked higher (Chart II-10). The World Trade Organization has announced that the number of new trade restrictions or impediments outweighed the number of trade liberalizing initiatives in 2016. The U.K. appears willing to sacrifice trade for limits to the free movement of people. The new U.S. Administration has ditched the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and is threatening to impose punitive tariffs on some trading partners. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. If the U.S. were to impose high tariffs on China, for example, it would make a part of the Chinese capital stock redundant overnight. In order for the global economy to produce the same amount of goods and services as before, the U.S. and other countries would need to invest more. Any unwinding of globalization would also be inflationary as it would disrupt international supply chains. Demographics And Saving: From Tailwind To Headwind... Third, the impact of savings in the major advanced economies and China on global interest rates will change direction as well. In the developed world, aggregate household savings will come under downward pressure as boomers increasingly shift into retirement. Economists are fond of employing the so-called life-cycle theory of consumer spending. According to this theory, consumers tend to smooth out lifetime spending by accumulating assets during the working years in order to maintain a certain living standard after retirement. The U.N. National Transfer Accounts Project has gathered data on spending and labor income by age cohort at a point in time. Chart II-11 presents the data for China and three of the major advanced economies. Chart II-11Income And Consumption By Age Cohort The data for the advanced economies suggest that spending tends to rise sharply from a low level between birth and about 15 years of age. It continues to rise, albeit at a more modest pace, through the working years. Other studies have found that consumer spending falls during retirement. Nonetheless, these studies generally include only private spending and therefore do not include health care that is provided by the government. The data presented in Chart II-11 show that, if government-provided health care is included, personal spending rises sharply toward the end of life. The profile is somewhat different in China. Spending rises quickly from birth to about 20 years of age, and is roughly flat thereafter. Indeed, consumption edges lower after 75-80 years of age. These data allow us to project the impact of changing demographics on the average household saving rate in the coming years, assuming that the income and spending profiles shown in Chart II-11 are unchanged. We start by calculating the average saving rate across age cohorts given today's age structure. We then recalculate the average saving rate each year moving forward in time. The resulting saving rate changes along with the age structure of the population. The results are shown in Chart II-12. The saving rates for all four economies have been indexed at zero in 2016 for comparison purposes. The aggregate saving rate declines in all cases, falling between 4 and 8 percentage points between 2016 and 2030. Germany sees the largest drop of the four countries. Chart II-12Aging Will Undermine Aggregate Saving The simulations are meant to be suggestive, rather than a precise forecast, because the savings profile across age cohorts will adjust over time. Moreover, governments will no doubt raise taxes to cover the rising cost of health care, providing a partial offset in terms of the national saving rate.5 Nonetheless, the simulations highlight that the major economies are past the point where the baby boom generation is adding to the global savings pool at a faster pace than retirees are drawing from it. The age structure in the major advanced economies is far enough advanced that the rapid increase in the retirement rate will place substantial downward pressure on aggregate household savings in the coming years. It is well known that population aging will also undermine government budgets. Rising health care costs are already captured in our household saving rate projection because the data for household spending includes health care even if it is provided by the public sector. However, public pension schemes will also be a problem. To the extent that politicians are slow to trim pension benefits and/or raise taxes, public pension plans will be a growing drain on national savings. Could younger, less developed economies offset some of the demographic trends in China and the Advanced Economies? Numerically speaking, a more effective use of underutilized populations in Africa and India could go a long way. Nevertheless, deep-seated structural problems would have to be addressed and, even then, it is difficult to see either of these regions turning into the next "China story" given the current backlash against globalization and immigration. ...And The Capex Story Is Largely Behind Us Demographic trends also imply less capital spending relative to GDP, as discussed above. In terms of the impact on global equilibrium interest rates, it then becomes a race between falling saving and investment rates. Chart II-13Demographics And Capex Requirements Some analysts point to the Japanese experience because it is the leading edge in terms of global aging. Bond yields have been extremely low for many years even as the household saving rate collapsed, suggesting that ex-ante investment spending shifted by more than ex-ante savings. Nonetheless, Japan may not be a good example because the deterioration in the country's demographics coincided with burst bubbles in both real estate and stocks that hamstrung Japanese banks for decades. A series of policy mistakes made things worse. Economic theory is not clear on the net effect of demographics on savings and investment. The academic empirical evidence is inconclusive as well. However, a detailed IMF study of 30 OECD countries analyzed the demographic impact on a number of macroeconomic variables, including savings and investment.6 They estimated separate demographic effects for the old-age dependency ratio and the working-age population ratio. Applying the IMF's estimated model coefficients to projected changes in both of these ratios over the next decade suggests that the decline in ex-ante savings will exceed the ex-ante drop in capex requirements by about 1 percentage point of GDP. This is a non-trivial shift. Moreover, our simulations highlight that timing is important. The outlook for the household saving rate depends on the changing age structure of the population and the distribution of saving rates across age cohorts. Thus, the average saving rate will trend down as populations continue to age over the coming decades. In contrast, the impact of demographics on capital spending requirements is related to the change in the growth rate of the working-age population. Chart II-13 once again presents our estimates for the demographic component of capital spending. The top panel presents the world capex/GDP ratio that is necessary to maintain a constant capital/output ratio, and the bottom panel shows the change in that ratio. The important point is that the downward adjustment in world capex/GDP related to aging is now largely behind us because most of the deceleration in the growth rate of the working-age population is done. This is in contrast to the household saving rate adjustment where all of the adjustment is still to come. China Is Transitioning Too Chart II-14China's Savings Rates Have Peaked... China must be treated separately from the developed countries because of its unique structural issues. As discussed above, household savings increased dramatically beginning in the mid-1990s (Chart II-14). This trend reflected a number of factors, including: the rising share of the working-age population; a drop in the fertility rate, following the introduction of the one-child policy in the late 1970s that allowed households to spend less on raising children and save more for retirement; health care reform in the early 1990s required households to bear a larger share of health care spending; and job security was also undermined by reform of the state-owned enterprises (SOE) in the late 1990s, leading to increased precautionary savings to cover possible bouts of unemployment. These savings tailwinds have turned around in recent years and the household saving rate appears to have peaked. China's contribution to the global pool of savings has already moderated significantly, as measured by the current account surplus. The surplus has withered from about 9% in 2008 to 2½% in 2016. A recent IMF study makes the case that China's national saving rate will continue to decline. The IMF estimates that for every one percentage-point rise in the old-age dependency ratio, the aggregate household saving rate will fall by 0.4-1 percentage points. In addition, the need for precautionary savings is expected to ease along with improvements in the social safety net, achieved through higher government spending on health care. The household saving rate will fall by three percentage points by 2021 according to the IMF (Chart II-15). Competitive pressure and an aging population will also reduce the saving rates of the corporate and government sectors. Chart II-15...Suggesting That External Surplus Will Shrink Of course, investment as a share of GDP is projected to moderate too, reflecting a rebalancing of the economy away from exports and capital spending toward household consumption. The IMF expects that savings will moderate slightly faster than investment, leading to a narrowing in the current account surplus to almost zero by 2021. A lot of assumptions go into this type of forecast such that we must take it with a large grain of salt. Nonetheless, the fundamental drivers of China's savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Moreover, a return to large current account surpluses would likely require significant currency depreciation, which is a political non-starter given U.S. angst over trade. The risk is that China's excess savings will be less, not more, in five year's time. Tech Is A Wildcard It is extremely difficult to forecast the impact of technological advancement on the global economy. We cannot say with any conviction that the tech-related effects of "hollowing out", "winner-take-all" and the "skills premium" will moderate in the coming years. Nonetheless, these effects have occurred alongside a surge in the world's labor force and rapid globalization of supply chains, both of which reinforced the erosion of employee bargaining power. Looking ahead, technology will still be a headwind for some employees, but at least the transition from a world of excess labor to one that is more labor-scarce will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We will explore the impact of technology on productivity, inflation, growth, and bond yields in a companion report to be published in the next issue. Conclusion: The main points we made in this report are summarized in Table II-1. All of the structural factors driving real bond yields were working in the same (bullish) direction over the past 30-40 years. Looking ahead, it is uncertain how technological improvement will affect bond prices, but we expect that the others will shift (or have already shifted) to either neutral or outright bond-bearish. Table II-1Key Secular Drivers No doubt, our views that globalization and inequality have peaked, and that the labor share of income has bottomed, are speculative. These factors may not place much upward pressure on equilibrium yields. Nonetheless, it seems likely that the demographic effect that has depressed capital spending demand is well advanced. We see it shifting from a positive factor for bond prices to a neutral factor in the coming years. It is also clear that the massive positive labor supply shock is over, and is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power and the resulting boost consumer spending will be negative for bonds. This may also spark a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby place additional upward pressure on global real bond yields. Admittedly, however, this last point requires more research because theory and empirical evidence on it are not clear. Perhaps most importantly, the aging of the population in the advanced economies has reached a tipping point; retirees will drain more from the pool of savings than the working-age population will add to it in the coming years. We have concentrated on real equilibrium bond yields in this report because it is the part of nominal yields that is the most depressed relative to historical norms. The inflation component is only a little below a level that is consistent with central banks meeting their 2% inflation targets in the medium term. There is a risk that inflation will overshoot these targets, leading to a possible surge in long-term inflation expectations that turbocharges the bond bear market. This is certainly possible, as highlighted by a recent Global Investment Strategy Quarterly Strategy Outlook.7 Pain in bond markets would be magnified in this case, especially if central banks are forced to aggressively defend their targets. Please note that we are not making the case that real global bond yields will quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. It will take time for the bond-bullish structural factors to unwind. It will also take time for inflation to gain any momentum, even in the United States. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations suggest that investors have adopted an overly benign view on the outlook for yields. For example, implied real short-term rates remain negative until 2021 in the U.S. and 2026 in the Eurozone, while they stay negative out to 2030 in the U.K. (Chart II-16). We doubt that short-term rates will be negative for that long, given the structural factors discussed above. Chart II-16Market Expects Negative Short-Term Rates For A Long Time Another way of looking at this is presented in Chart II-17. The market expects the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years to be only slightly above today's spot yield, which itself is not far above the lowest levels ever recorded. Market expectations are equally depressed for the 5-year forward rate for the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart II-17Forward Rates Very Low Vs. History The implication is that investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 It is true that observed household savings rates fell in some of the advanced economies, such as the United States, at a time when aging should have boosted savings from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. This argues against a strong demographic effect on savings. However, keep in mind that we are discussing desired (or ex-ante) savings. Ex-post, savings can go in the opposite direction because of other influencing factors. As discussed below, global savings must equal investment, which means that shifts in desired capital spending demand matter for the ex-post level of savings. 2 Arithmetically, if world trend GDP growth slows by one percentage point, then investment spending would need to drop by about 3½ percentage points of GDP to keep the capital/output ratio stable. 3 David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Review of Economics, Vol. 8, pp. 205-240 (October 2016). 4 Please see "Understanding The Downward Trend In Labor Income Shares," Chapter 3 in the IMF World Economic Outlook (April 2017). 5 In other words, while the household savings rate, as defined here to include health care spending by governments on behalf of households, will decline, any associated tax increases will blunt the impact on national savings (i.e. savings across the household, government and business sectors). 6 Jong-Won Yoon, Jinill Kim, and Jungjin Lee, "Impact Of Demographic Changes On Inflation And The Macroeconomy," IMF Working Paper no. 14/210 (November 2014). 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook: Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The earnings rebound underway in Corporate America is being driven by more than just higher oil prices. S&P 500 profit margins have stabilized recently, but remain in secular decline. We remain bullish on the dollar and the other "Trump Trades" have legs as well. Uncertainty around tax policy may be restraining business capital spending and C&I loan growth. Feature Chart 1Excluding Energy Earnings Rebounding The so-called "Trump trades" have either stalled or partially reversed. The failure to reform Obamacare has dented hopes that the Administration and GOP will get a tax reform package done this year. The S&P 500 is not far off its all time high, but Treasury yields have returned to the bottom of the trading range and the dollar has weakened (although it has risen over the past 3 weeks). We still believe that the Republicans will at least push through tax cuts and some infrastructure spending this year, which will be stimulative for the economy. However, the 12-month outlook for the stock-to-bond ratio does not hinge solely on U.S. fiscal policy. As we have highlighted in the past, the underlying fundamentals for equities are positive, despite the fact that we see more dollar upside (see below). First quarter earnings season is about to kick off, and it should be another good one. Before we discuss the outlook for profits, let's review the fourth quarter of 2016. S&P 500 firms posted profit growth of 6% on a 4-quarter moving total year-over-year basis. The Q4 reading beat consensus bottom-up expectations at the start of earning season but were roughly in line with expectations at the start of Q4 2016 itself. The fourth quarter increase was the best year-over-year EPS gain since Q3 2014 - just after the oil price peak- and the first year-over-year increase in the 4-quarter sum since Q3 2015. Energy sector earnings posted a 6% advance in Q4, as oil prices averaged close to $49 per barrel in Q4 2016, up 17% from Q4 2015. It was the first time that oil prices posted a year-over-year increase in a quarter since Q2 2014. Part of the acceleration in earnings reflects the rise in oil prices from the Q1 2016 bottom, but higher energy prices are not the only factor driving the turnaround (Chart 1). Overall, 9 of the 11 S&P 500 sectors saw positive year-over-year profit gains in Q4 2016, led by technology (13%), financials (12%) and utilities (10%). In addition, Consumer Discretionary, Financials and Health Care all posted solid earnings figures in the last year. Earnings momentum has also picked up in Materials, Real Estate and Utilities, although profit growth in these sectors is also benefiting from favorable comparisons. Eighty-eight percent of technology firms posted Q4 results that beat expectations, as did 80% of health care companies and 75% of financials, so the market was caught somewhat off guard by the pace of the upturn in earnings outside of energy. While earnings grew at 6% year-over-year in Q4 2016, revenues grew just 4% due to low nominal GDP growth last year (although the latter rebounded late in the year). Ten of 11 sectors posted year-over-year revenue increases in Q4, but the revenue gain just matched consensus estimates with only half of firms posting revenues that exceeded already low expectations. In short, the market didn't expect much and didn't get much from revenues in Q4. The Marginal Way: A Top Down View Looking ahead, a secular downtrend in margins will be a headwind for earnings growth in the coming years, as we highlighted in the February 27, 2017 Weekly Report. A "mean reversion" process for margins is underway, as a tight labor market pushes up wages but firms have difficulty passing along the cost pressure in a poor environment for pricing power. For large cap U.S. companies, global GDP is a better proxy for revenue than U.S. GDP. Nominal global GDP growth fell 6% year-over-year in 2015, but rebounded to a 2%+ increase in 2016 and the World Bank expects global GDP to accelerate rapidly to a 6% increase here in 2017. Thus, there is scope for U.S. corporate revenue growth to pick up after a long period of deceleration. Indeed, the risks for global growth are to the upside of consensus estimates in our view (Chart 2). For those industries and sectors with mainly domestic sales (utilities, telecom), U.S. GDP is a better proxy for top line sales. At just 3.0%, U.S. nominal GDP growth was disappointing in 2016, running 340 basis points below its long-term average (6.4%) and nearly a full percentage point shy of the 2010-2014 (post Great Recession but pre-oil price decline) average of 3.8%. We expect nominal GDP growth to accelerate this year, even absent potentially growth-enhancing legislation from Congress on tax cuts, tax reform and infrastructure. Compensation costs represent two thirds of business costs, and various measures of wage gains are slowly climbing as the U.S. economy approaches full employment. Average hourly earnings rose 2.7% in March 2017 versus a year ago, up from a low of 1.5% hit in 2012. The Employment Cost Index is accelerating as well. The Atlanta Fed's Wage tracker has been trending higher for 7 years, not coincidentally, along with service sector inflation. The Atlanta Fed wage tracker shows the same pattern for both job stayers and job seekers (Chart 3). Chart 2Global Growth Accelerating Chart 3Wage Pressures Building The quit rate from the BLS's JOLTs data has hit a new cycle high and is within striking distance of an all-time high. This is significant because a high quit rate means that job prospects are favorable and that employees are jumping to new jobs in search of higher wages. In addition, mentions of wages, skilled labor, and shortages in the Fed's Beige Book have been on the upswing for four years (Chart 4). Labor costs are rising faster than selling prices in the non-financial corporate sector, as highlighted by the downtrend in BCA's Profit Margin Proxy (Chart 5, Panel 1). The mean reversion process will continue, but that does not preclude periods of margin expansion. Indeed, margins rose in the third and fourth quarters on a four quarter moving total basis according to S&P data and we would not be surprised to see this continue early in 2017 as nominal GDP growth recovers from last year's depressed pace (Chart 5, Panel 2). Chart 4"Inflation Words" On The Rise Chart 5Bullish Profit Model What about the dollar? As we discuss below, BCA believes that the dollar bull market still has legs. A stronger dollar is both a blessing and a curse for margins. All else equal, a stronger dollar lowers the cost of imported goods and thereby boosts margins for import-intensive firms. On the other hand, a strong dollar undermines profits earned overseas. The net impact of dollar strength is negative for overall corporate profits. However, our quantitative work highlights that it does not take much in the way of stronger growth to offset the negative impact on profits from a rise in the dollar. Investors are also concerned about the impact of higher interest rates on corporate income statements, especially given all the corporate debt that has been accumulated. While we agree with the conventional wisdom that interest costs as a percent of sales have likely bottomed for the cycle, and will undermine margins if yields rise, research by the monthly Bank Credit Analyst revealed that it will require a large increase in interest rates to 'move the dial' on interest payments.1 This is because of a long maturity distribution and the fact that the average yield-to-maturity is still so far below the average coupon in the corporate debt indices that average coupons will continue to erode as debt rolls over in the coming years. Chart 6 shows that interest payments as a fraction of GDP will be roughly flat even if the yield curve shifts up by another 100 basis points in the near term. It would require a 200-300 basis point rise in yields to see a meaningful impact on interest payments over the next 1-2 years. The implication is that rising interest costs won't be a key driver of profit margins in our investment horizon. Chart 6U.S. Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection Despite our secular view on profit margins, we remain upbeat for EPS growth this year. Our profit model remains constructive. Indeed, EPS growth for the year may not trail (perennially overly optimistic) bottom-up estimates for the year, currently at 10%. In short, we see a potential for upside surprise on earnings this year, although growth will not be as high as our short-term profit model suggests (Chart 5, Panel 3). Bottom Line: We certainly would not rule out a pullback in the S&P 500 on disappointment surrounding a lack of follow-through by Congress and the Trump Administration on a tax cut, tax reform and an infrastructure package. However, fears around margin contraction, the sustainability of the earnings rebound and valuations are overdone. Earnings estimates almost always come down over the course of the year. Moreover, while above-average valuations suggest below average-returns over the next decade, valuation tells us little about returns over the next 12 months. We continue to favor stocks over bonds in 2017. Is The Dollar Bull Over? The dollar has firmed over the past couple of weeks but it remains below the December high in trade-weighted terms. Is this just a consolidation phase? Or has the dollar peaked for this cycle because the maximum policy divergence between the Fed and the other major central banks is now in the price? Indeed, the global growth outlook outside of the U.S. has brightened at a time when some of the so-called "hard" U.S. economic data have disappointed and the promised Trump fiscal stimulus appears to be on the ropes. The European Central Bank (ECB) has already tapered its asset purchase program once and is expected to do so again early in 2018. Some are even speculating that the ECB will lift rates in the not-to-distant future. This raises the possibility that the bund yield curve begins to converge with the Treasury curve, placing upward pressure on the euro versus the dollar. The Eurozone economic data have certainly been stellar so far this year. The PMIs for manufacturing and services both pulled back a bit in March, but remain at levels consistent with continued above-trend growth. The uptrend in capital goods orders bodes well for investment spending over the coming months (Chart 7). In addition, private-sector credit growth has accelerated to the fastest pace since the 2008-09 financial crisis. Our real GDP model for the Eurozone, based on our consumer and business spending indicators, remains quite upbeat for the first half of the year. The Eurozone unemployment rate is falling fast and there is less spare capacity in European labor markets today than was the case in the U.S. when the Fed first hinted at tapering its asset purchases in 2013 (Chart 8). Chart 7Solid Eurozone##br## Economic Data Chart 8Less Spare Capacity In Europe Now ##br##Vs. Pre-Taper Tantrum U.S. Nonetheless, the calm readings on Euro Area core inflation suggest that the ECB does not have to rush to judgment on asset purchases, especially given upcoming elections. Our diffusion index for the components of the CPI points to some upside for core inflation in the coming months, but it fell back to 0.7% in March according to the flash estimate. The ECB will probably not feel comfortable announcing the next tapering until September of this year. But even then, policymakers will apply a heavy dose of "forward guidance" on the outlook for short-term rates in order to avoid an outsized impact on Eurozone bond yields. Some tapering is presumably already discounted in rates and the euro. Chart 9Market Is Reassessing The FOMC It will be much longer before the Bank of Japan is in any position to begin removing monetary accommodation. We expect that the 0% yield cap on the 10-year JGB to remain in place at least for the remainder of this year, and probably much longer. True, deflationary forces appear to have eased somewhat. Japan is also benefiting from the faster global growth on the industrial side. Nonetheless, the domestic demand story is less positive, with consumer confidence and real retail sales growth languishing. Wages continue to struggle as well. This year's round of Japanese wage negotiations was particularly disappointing, with many manufacturing companies offering pay raises only half as large as those of last year. We continue to see this as the only way out of the low-inflation trap for Japan - keeping Japanese nominal interest rates depressed versus the rest of the world, thus making the yen weaken alongside increasingly unattractive interest rate differentials. On the U.S. side, we believe that the market has over-reacted when the FOMC signaled last month that it was not yet prepared to adjust the 'dot plot.' The market is discounting only two rate hikes over the next 12 months, down by about 10 basis points since the FOMC meeting (Chart 9). The market view is too complacent for three reasons. First, we expect the U.S. "hard" to catch up with the more robust "soft" data readings in the coming months. Second, the FOMC did not signal a more dovish mindset last month. The key message from the March meeting was that the Fed now sees inflation as having finally reached its 2% target, as highlighted by the decision to strip the reference to the "current shortfall of inflation" from the statement. If the U.S. economy performs as we expect, the Fed will have to take a more hawkish tone later this year. The poor (weather-related) March payroll report does not change the Fed outlook. The important point is that the market appears to be at full employment based on FOMC committee projections. In fact at 4.5% in March (the lowest since May 2007) the rate is below the median and midpoint of the FOMC's long-run forecast, of respectively 4.7% and 4.85%. Finally, the market is underestimating the prospects for stimulative tax cuts and infrastructure spending. The Republican's desire to cut taxes will dominate fears of blowing out the budget deficit. The resulting stimulus will add pressure on the FOMC to tighten monetary conditions. Bottom Line: Our views on U.S. fiscal policy and the outlook for the major central banks paint a bullish picture for the dollar and suggest that the other 'Trump trades' still have legs. The dollar has another 10% upside in trade-weighted terms as yield spreads move further in favor of the greenback, but a move of that magnitude wouldn't be a major headwind for U.S. corporate earnings growth and would pale in comparison to the hit earnings took from the 20-25% gain in the dollar in late 2014 through early 2016. Our view remains that the U.S. bond bear phase is not yet over. Revisiting "Weak" U.S. CAPEX The BCA Model for business investment tracks broad capex swings and has been trending down for several months now. Our past research shows that sustainable capital spending cycles only get underway once businesses see clear evidence that consumer final demand is on the upswing. Comments from management during the recent Q4 2016 earnings reporting season were upbeat, but cautious, and there is some evidence (the recent rollover in C&I) loans that businesses may be delaying some portion of capital spending until after tax cuts and or tax reform is enacted by Congress. Part of the macroeconomic narrative for many investors over the past several years is that U.S. growth has been slow this cycle because private investment has been weak. The prolonged nature of "weak" U.S. investment during this economic recovery has been offered as evidence of deep-seated structural problems by many market participants, and arguably remains a factor driving the continued prevalence of the secular stagnation narrative. Two elements of the "weak investment" narrative are undeniably true. First, overall investment has indeed grown at a sluggish pace over the past eight years relative to previous economic expansions. Second, residential investment has certainly been weak by any measure, which is to be expected given that housing was at the epicenter of the subprime financial crisis. However, Chart 10 presents a different perspective about the "weakness" of investment by examining the trend in non-residential fixed asset investment (i.e., capex). The chart shows that, relative to GDP, capex has not been weak at all this cycle: it experienced a V-shaped recovery over the past several years, and has risen either back to its post-1980 average (in nominal terms) or to a new high (in real terms). This highlights that growth in investment, abstracting from the housing effect, has been weak in absolute terms because consumption has been weak, rather than because of some other unexplained structural force. Chart 10Investment Has Not Been Weak Relative To GDP More recently, Chart 10 shows that there has been a decline in the capex-to-GDP ratio, which has been a concerning sign for some investors that U.S. growth may be faltering. Until the beginning of last year, this deceleration could have been simply blamed on a collapse in resource investment following the sharp decline in the price of oil that began in mid-2014. But Chart 11 shows that this ceased to be the case through to the fourth quarter, as real capex excluding mining structures has also decelerated sharply. The slowdown in capex last year is echoed by a sharp recent slowdown in U.S. bank lending, and a detailed analysis suggests they may both be (at least somewhat) related to the same cause. Chart 12 presents the 3-month annualized rate of change in commercial & industrial (C&I) loans, along with the U.S. Economic Policy Uncertainty Index. The recent spikes in the latter correspond with the U.K.'s vote to leave the European Union as well as the U.S. election in November, and the chart clearly shows a close correlation between these spikes and the deceleration in C&I loan growth. Indeed, C&I lending had begun to pick up again following the Brexit vote, only to decelerate again after November. Chart 11Oil Accounts For Some, But Not All, ##br##Of Recently Weak CAPEX Chart 12Tax Rule Certainty May Spur Bank##br## Lending And Investment Uncertainty over Brexit represented legitimate CEO concern about a potential global macro shock, but our view is that the recent uncertainty following the U.S. election has not been driven by fear. This is a crucial distinction with implications for the economic outlook: if the recent uptick has been driven by a dearth of information about how business-friendly fiscal policy will become as a result of the election, then investors are more likely observing uncertainty over how much and when to invest rather than whether to invest. If true, this suggests that weak bank lending and growth in non-resource capex in Q4 has merely been deferred until rule clarity emerges and firms are confident that they will benefit from any investment-related changes to the tax code. In short, far from being a bearish signal about economic activity, recent trends in C&I lending and non-resource capex may actually indicate that firms plan on responding positively to corporate tax relief, suggesting that overall economic growth may improve once the details of the plan are known. Bottom Line: A detailed analysis of recent weakness in C&I lending and non-resource capex points to policy-related uncertainty as the culprit, rather than impending economic weakness or a broad-based contraction in activity. This argues that some capex spending is pent up, and that economic growth will improve following the establishment of tax rule certainty by the Trump administration and/or congressional leadership. 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 Jonathan LaBerge Vice President, Special Reports Jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "Global Debt Titanic Collides With Fed Iceberg?", dated February, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Feature The on-going Second Machine Age - the ushering in of Artificial Intelligence (AI) - is obsoleting human jobs at an alarming pace. But an analysis of the data reveals an interesting pattern. Jobs typically done by men have suffered disproportionately, and continue to be in grave danger. On the other hand, jobs that are typically performed by women are thriving. Chart I-1AFemale Labour Participation ##br##Can Rise A Lot Further Chart I-1BFemale Labour Participation ##br##Can Rise A Lot Further AI Is A Greater Threat To Men Despite decades of progress in workplace equality, most jobs and professions still have a very strong gender bias. The big problem for men is that automation is ideally suited to replace jobs in male-dominated middle-income jobs in manufacturing, construction and transport (Table I-1). For example, the advent of autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles will destroy livelihoods that involve driving. And 95% of truck drivers are men. Table I-1AI Is A Greater Threat To Men Even among more-skilled jobs, male-dominated professions - such as finance - are under threat. As we explained in The Superstar Economy: Part 2,1 seemingly difficult human tasks that AI finds very easy are those that require the application of complex algorithms and pattern recognition to large quantities of data. This includes tasks such as calculating a credit score or insurance premium, or managing a stock portfolio. Conversely, seemingly easy human tasks that AI finds very difficult are those that require everyday human sensorimotor skills. Tasks such as walking up a flight of stairs or picking up random objects from random places. AI is also incapable (thus far) of reading and responding to peoples' emotions and intentions. A job that requires a range of these human skills is especially secure. This is because AI excels at replicating a narrowly defined task rather than a job which needs a breadth of talents. If your job involves controlling and teaching a disruptive class of seven year olds, or calming a nervous patient before giving an injection, AI will not threaten your livelihood for the foreseeable future. Hence, Education, Human Health and Social Work - the employment sectors that most require a combination of sensorimotor, emotional and communication skills - have seen the strongest job gains over the past two decades. And almost 80% of workers in Education, Human Health and Social Work are women. With AI still in its infancy, the established pattern of job destruction and creation will continue to favour women over men. Improved Parental Leave Helps Women Chart I-2Japan: Labour Force Participation Rate A second structural driver that is boosting female employment is improved parental leave policies. Japan provides an excellent example of what is possible. Starting in 1995, the Japanese government introduced a raft of policies to encourage women to join the labour force: paid maternity leave, subsidised childcare, and paid parental leave for both parents. Today in Japan, both mothers and fathers can take more than a year of paid parental leave at an average rate of 60% of earnings. The policies have had their desired effect. The proportion of Japanese women in the labour force has surged from 57% to 67%, while the male labour participation rate has stayed unchanged at 85%. Therefore, all of the growth in the Japanese labour force through the past 20 years has come from women (Chart I-2). Europe tells a similar tale. Through the past couple of decades, parental leave policies have become steadily more generous. Today, new mothers are guaranteed 58 weeks of paid leave in Germany, 48 in Italy, and 42 in France (Table I-2). New fathers are guaranteed 28 weeks in France and 9 weeks in Germany (Table I-3). Moreover, even after the paid parental leave ends, heavily subsidised childcare costs in the major euro area countries are affordable, averaging around a tenth of the average wage (Table I-4). Table I-2Generous Maternity Pay ##br##In Europe And Japan Table I-3Improving Paternity Pay##br## In Europe And Japan Table I-4Affordable Childcare##br## In Europe And Japan Unsurprisingly, the proportion of European women in the labour force has also surged from 57% to 67%, while the male labour participation rate has stayed flat at 78%. As in Japan, all of the growth in European labour force participation through the past 20 years has come from women (Chart I-3). The surge in female participation also explains why the percentage of the euro area working-age population in employment now stands close to at an all-time high (Chart I-4) - a fact which stuns many people. Chart I-3EU28: Labour Force##br## Participation Rate Chart I-4Increased Female Participation Lifts Euro Area ##br##Employment To Population Near An All Time High The trend is for further improvements in parental leave, with the focus now on improving paternity leave. The important point is that the sharing of parental responsibilities between mothers and fathers allows more women to enter and stay in the labour force. Therefore, we expect the structural rise in European female labour force participation to continue. France at 67% and especially Italy at 55% are still some way behind Germany at 73% and Spain at 70% (Chart I-5, Chart I-6, Chart I-7, Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). For the ultimate end-point in the trend, look to the Scandinavian countries which have had generous parental leave policies for decades. In Sweden, labour force participation for women is almost identical to that for men: 80% versus 83%. If the EU eventually reaches the Scandinavian end-point, it would mean another 20 million women in the EU labour force (Feature Chart). The one major world economy that goes against the trend is the United States. Over the past 20 years, the proportion of American women who are in the labour force has actually declined from 70% to 67%. Why? Possibly because in the U.S. new parents have no guarantee of paid leave. And the cost of childcare has been increasing much faster than overall inflation. Childcare now costs close to half the average wage, making it unaffordable for many low-income workers. Nevertheless, even in the U.S., labour force participation for women is outperforming that for men. Because the decline in participation for women is mild, whereas the decline for men is more severe (Chart I-10). Chart I-5Germany:##br## Labour Force Participation Rate Chart I-6France: ##br##Labour Force Participation Rate Chart I-7Italy:##br## Labour Force Participation Rate Chart I-8Spain:##br## Labour Force Participation Rate Chart I-9U.K.:##br## Labour Force Participation Rate Chart I-10U.S.: ##br##Labour Force Participation Rate The Structural Investment Theme: Personal Products The two factors driving increased female participation in the total labour force have much further to run. First, AI is a much greater threat to jobs and professions that are male-dominated than to those that are female-dominated. Second, further improvements in parental leave policies will allow labour force participation for women to gradually converge with that for men. All mega-trends have an associated structural investment theme. And in this case the theme is the Personal Products sector. According to Euromonitor, 90% of personal product sales are to women. For cosmetics, the proportion is close to 100%. Therefore, as the percentage of women in the labour force continues to rise, the sales and profits of Personal Products will continue to outperform those from other sectors. The highly defensive nature of personal product demand is also a big advantage in a lower-growth world. Once again, Japan provides an excellent example of what is possible. Since its crisis in 1990, overall equity market profits and prices have gone nowhere, but the profits of the Personal Products sector - led by Shiseido and Kao - have increased fivefold. The European Personal Products sector is now following the Japanese template with a reassuring similarity (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Japan Is The Template Buy and hold L'Oréal, Beiersdorf and Unilever as long-term investments. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Published on January 19, 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com