Market Returns

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. My colleague, and BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA’s 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry’s only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers’ options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating “geopolitical alpha;” Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant “war games,” which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist The London Metal Exchange Index (LMEX) will remain under significant downward pressure, unless and until fears of escalating Sino - U.S. trade disputes are allayed. Should this dispute devolve into full-blown trade war - something our geopolitical strategists expect - EM economies deeply embedded in global supply chains could be especially hard hit.1 This would have ramifications for commodity prices in general, base metals in particular. Alternatively, if this trade dispute evolves into a more open and free global trading system, EM income growth will drive commodity demand - particularly for metals - significantly higher. Highlights Energy: Overweight. China's $5 billion loan and $250mm direct investment in Venezuela's oil industry will alleviate the country's oil-production and -export collapse for a brief interval. However, unless China brings its own industry experts in to run Venezuela's state-owned oil company, which has suffered a near-total loss of highly trained personnel, and manages to reverse government mismanagement and corruption, it is difficult to see the collapse in that country's oil industry being reversed. Separately, China's investment in and commitment to Venezuela could be a harbinger of future deals between it and Iran, if China decides to flex its economic muscle and widen the playing field in its trade dispute with the U.S. beyond ags. Base Metals: Neutral. Fears of a global trade war overly punishing EM economies, many of which are deeply entwined in global supply chains, are weighing on base metals prices (see below). Right-tail - i.e., upside risks - are, for the most part, being ignored. Our assessment of balances and upside risk, particularly in copper, makes getting long attractive. We are, therefore, going long the Dec/18 $3.00 COMEX calls vs. short $3.20/lb calls at tonight's close. This is a tactical position. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold recovered somewhat - trading above $1,260/oz earlier in the week - as global trade tensions increased. It since settled to the $1,250/oz level as trade anxieties re-emerged. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Prompt soybeans futures are probing five-year lows, after the U.S. announced an additional $34 billion in tariffs against China, which were immediately followed by Chinese reprisals, highlighted by 25% tariffs against soybeans. Feature Prices of the six base metals futures comprising the LMEX are highly sensitive to EM growth, which has benefited from the expansion of global supply chains. As a result, metals' prices are highly sensitive to EM incomes, EM trade volumes, and FX levels. Our modeling indicates these global macro variables will continue to play an outsized role in determining the trajectory of the metals' prices, particularly as relates to EM - China trade (Chart of the Week).2 Chart Of The WeekEM Macro Variables Drive LMEX EM Macro Variables Drive LMEX EM Macro Variables Drive LMEX EM incomes and trade volumes have, for the most part, held up well this year. Our base case outlook is for the resilience underpinning the global economy to continue for the remainder of the year, in line with the IMF and World Bank expectations.3 However, escalating trade disputes are threatening to weigh on the global flow of goods, which, if they persist and deepen, will dampen demand for raw materials in general, and metals in particular. An acceleration in trade restrictions would dent not only trade flows, but also would harm EM incomes in the process. Our base case longer term gets cloudier. In the left tail of returns distributions, rising interest rates on the back of the Fed's interest-rate normalization process will remain on track, particularly as inflation and inflation expectations pick up. This will support a stronger dollar, which, all else equal, will increase EM debt servicing costs. Our colleagues in BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy note, "Emerging markets are particularly sensitive to changes in U.S. financial conditions. About 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. A stronger dollar and higher U.S. interest rates make it more difficult for EM borrowers to service their debts. While EM foreign-currency debt has declined as a share of total debt outstanding, this is only because the past decade has seen a boom in local debt issuance. As a share of GDP, exports, and international reserves, U.S. dollar debt is at levels not seen in over 15 years."4 We expect the Sino - U.S. trade dispute will get nastier, but we are mindful of the right tail risks in this process, as well. If leaders in the U.S., China, and EU can agree to revamp and modernize the rules of the road for global trade - i.e., protect intellectual property, remove forced technology transfers, and make markets more open and transparent - the upside risks to base metals returns, and commodities in general, would be significant. In such an evolution, EM income growth would accelerate, super-charging global trade volumes, and commodity demand. Trade Volumes Resilient For Now, But Protectionism Looms Overhead At present, global trade in goods amounts to more than $17 trillion of merchandise exports, while commercial services exports are more than $5 trillion.5 Accounting for tariffs imposed by the U.S. under Sections 232, and 301, as well as retaliatory action by China, Mexico, the EU, and Canada, barriers have so far been implemented on ~$150 billion worth of traded goods. This represents less than 1% of merchandise trade. Thus, current restrictions -- while intensifying -- will not significantly curb global flows (Chart 2). And, so far, EM trade volumes have held up well, with resilience in the flow of goods: Our forward-looking models are pointing toward continued trade-related support for base metals in coming months (Chart 3). Chart 2U.S.-China Trade Hit By Tariffs Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Chart 3EM Trade Will Hold Up, Absent A Trade War EM Trade Will Hold Up, Absent A Trade War EM Trade Will Hold Up, Absent A Trade War This should - ceteris paribus - translate into greater demand for metals, and a strong LMEX. Our modelling finds that the LMEX and EM trade volumes are cointegrated, and that a 1% increase in EM import volumes maps to a 1.3% increase in the LMEX, in line with the overall income elasticity of trade reported by the World Bank last month.6 However, risks surrounding the flow of goods globally - especially between the U.S. and China and the U.S. and EU - are mounting. This is jeopardizing our base case for resilient EM trade and income in the near term. Most notable is the recent U.S. trade restriction imposed on $34 billion worth of Chinese imports effective July 6, and China's subsequent retaliation in kind, which hit U.S. ag exports - particularly soybeans - hard. Additional barriers similar to the tit-for-tat of late between the U.S. and China, raise the odds of a global trade war and further depress metal prices.7 If this U.S.-Sino trade spat devolves into a full-blown trade war, in which the U.S., China and the EU erect trade barriers, or raise tariffs or restrictions on foreign investment, global trade momentum could slow significantly, which would be devastating for EM income growth. The World Bank finds that if tariffs were to reach legal maximum rates under WTO commitments, global trade flows would decline by 9% - in line with the decline experienced during the global financial crisis (GFC) (Chart 4).8 In addition to mounting trade restrictions, the sustainability of Chinese demand is also relevant to our metals demand-side outlook. China's imports account for the bulk of EM import volumes, and a significant domestic slowdown that dents import demand would weigh on the metals complex. To date, China's import volume growth appears to be holding up, reflecting a controlled domestic demand environment (Chart 5). Chart 4Trade War Would Hurt EM Trade Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Chart 5China Trade Indicates Slowdown Is Controlled China Trade Indicates Slowdown Is Controlled China Trade Indicates Slowdown Is Controlled Trade Barriers Would Hit EM Incomes Hard As noted above, in line with our base case outlook of supportive trade volumes so far this year, the IMF and World Bank expect the global economy to remain strong this year and next, highlighting trade as one of the two main growth catalysts (Table 1). DM growth, while showing signs of moderating, remains perched above potential. We expect this to persist, especially given fiscal stimulus measures in the U.S. announced earlier this year. According to our modelling, a 1% increase in EM GDP translates to a 1.1% rise in the LMEX. Global PMIs remain above the 50 mark, indicating global manufacturing continues to expand, which will remain supportive of commodity demand generally (Chart 6). Table 1Global Growth Expected To Remain Supportive Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Chart 6U.S. Will Outperform, Supporting DM Growth U.S. Will Outperform, Supporting DM Growth U.S. Will Outperform, Supporting DM Growth China's ~ $14 trillion GDP accounts for some ~ 16% of global GDP and is the highest among the EM economies.9 China accounts for ~ 50% of global demand for metals represented in the LMEX (Chart 7). China's base-metals demand has been resilient, despite tighter credit and monetary conditions and little in the way of fiscal stimulus in China. We continue to expect Chinese domestic demand will experience a managed slowdown as the government tackles its reform agenda in 2H18. Chart 7China's Outsized Role In Metal Markets China's Outsized Role In Metal Markets China's Outsized Role In Metal Markets Since 2000, the impact of income growth in China has only a slightly larger effect on the LME's price index versus that of DM regions such as the Euro Area.10 Our analysis indicates that, unlike the rest of the world, China's metal consumption is trend-stationary - i.e., mean reverting - and behaves almost as it if were a policy variable, which is to say a time series that is more a function of government policy than the laws of supply and demand. Bottom Line: EM income and trade volumes are expected to remain strong, which will be supportive of metals prices. Even so, markets are now dealing with a trade spat that could metastasize into a full-blown trade war. We are not there yet. However, the tail risks are increasing and markets now have to account for a higher likelihood of a slowdown in EM trade volumes, which could be followed by a redistribution of base-metals demand and re-ordering of trade flows. On the flip side, a resolution of the trade frictions would resolve many of these tail risks, and likely would lend support to metal prices via higher EM income growth. In any case, the FX outlook is not supportive for metal prices. A stronger dollar - our base case expectation - will weigh on metal demand and the LMEX. Fundamentals Will Play A Secondary Role Individual market fundamentals, such as aluminum supply cuts, copper mine strikes, and zinc's physical deficit contributed to the LMEX's outperformance last year (Chart 8). Metal-specific supply, demand and inventory conditions will continue influencing the individual metals in the index. Aluminum and copper constitute three-quarters of the LMEX, and fundamental developments in these two markets are especially relevant (Chart 9). Chart 8Individual Fundamentals Supported LMEX Last Year Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Chart 9Copper, Aluminum Markets Are Key Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals U.S. sanctions on leading Russian aluminum producer Rusal and its top shareholder, the oligarch Oleg Deripaska, led to a 9% surge in the LMEX in the first few weeks of April, followed by a 6% retracement by the end of the month (Chart 10). While risks from this politically motivated tailwind have mostly faded - the U.S. announced that a change in ownership will exempt Rusal from these sanctions - geopolitical tensions remain relevant. Chart 10Individual Markets Remain Relevant Individual Markets Remain Relevant Individual Markets Remain Relevant In the very near term, ongoing contract renegotiations at Chile's Escondida mine are an upside risk to the LMEX in the coming weeks. BHP's final offer to the labor union is due on July 24. Reuters reports that little progress has been made to settle the disputes between BHP and the union: agreement has been reached on only one-fifth of the points of contention.11 While June upside from these renegotiations have since faded and taken a back seat to downside pressures from the fear of a global trade war, a labor strike at the mine which dents supply, would support copper prices, and offset at least part of the index's downside macro risks. At 14.8% of the index, zinc accounts for a much smaller weight in the LMEX. After strong gains last year, the metal has been a headwind to the LMEX since March. Following two consecutive years of physical deficits, the market is moving toward a surplus, causing prices to slide. However, recent news of a possible production cut by Chinese smelters is preventing major declines. If this were to materialize - details remain vague at best - we would expect to see some support in the zinc market. Bottom Line: Demand-side macro variables - EM trade, incomes, and currencies - explain almost all of the movements in the LMEX. To date, these variables exhibit resilience pointing to support for metal prices. Left-side tail risks arising from possible trade wars have the market's attention and have been weighing on the complex of late. We expect these downside risks to be most relevant in the remainder of this year, and to take a front seat to individual market fundamentals. Nevertheless, individual metals' fundamentals will be important to follow. Right-side tail risks also bear watching, particularly if the current trade spats involving the U.S., China and the EU are resolved in favor of freer, more open global trade. This would super-charge EM growth, which would be bullish for commodities generally, base metals and oil in particular. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy titled "The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis," published July 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The adjusted R-squared for each of our two cointegrating regressions is greater than 0.95. These models cover the 2000 to present period. Our modelling also indicates that the LMEX is cointegrated with these three explanatory variables, i.e., they share a long-term trend, wherein the LMEX rises as these variables rise. 3 Please see the IMF's World Economic Outlook of April 2018 (https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2018/03/20/world-economic-outlook-april-2018), and the World Bank's June 2018 Global Economic Prospects (http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects). 4 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Who Suffers When The Fed Hikes Rates?" dated June 1, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see "Strong trade growth in 2018 rests on policy choices," published by the World Trade Organization April 12, 2018. 6 The period for our estimate is 2000 to now. We discuss the World Bank's trade elasticities in "Trade Wars, China Credit Policy Will Roil Global Copper Markets" published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy June 21, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 The U.S. is threatening to impose tariffs on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. 8 This is based on a simulation where WTO members increase tariffs to bound rates under WTO commitments as well as a 3% increase in the cost of traded services. This would mean average global tariff rates would legally more than triple from the current 2.7% to 10.2%. This exercise does not take into account the impact of other non-tariff restrictions, such as those on investments. Please see World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 8277 titled "The Global Costs of Protectionism," dated December 2017. 9 Please see "The world's biggest economies in 2018," published by The World Economic Forum at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/the-worlds-biggest-economies-in-2018/. 10 A 1 percentage-point (p.p.) increase in China's year-on-year (y/y) GDP rate translates to a 1.8% increase in the LMEX, while a 1 p.p. increase in y/y changes in the Euro Area's y/y GDP rate is associated with a 1.6% increase in the LMEX. These results are based on a dynamic OLS model which also includes the JPM EM currency index and EM export volumes as explanatory variables. The adjusted R2 for the model is 0.97. 11 "Conversations can continue until July 24, at which point BHP must present its final offer, according to a negotiation schedule provided by the company. Between July 27 and July 31, the union will vote to either accept the company's offer or go on strike. After the vote, either party has as many as four days to request a period of government mediation that can last 10 days." Please see "Labour talks at BHP's Escondida mine in Chile enter 'home stretch," dated July 6, 2018, available at reuters.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. My colleague, and BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA's 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry's only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers' options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA's Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating "geopolitical alpha;" Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant "war games," which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy Highlights Chart 1Inflations Expectations Hard To Shake Inflations Expectations Hard To Shake Inflations Expectations Hard To Shake Low inflation expectations are proving difficult to shake. Year-over-year core PCE inflation moved to within 5 bps of the Fed's 2% target in May, but long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates barely budged (Chart 1). Instead, breakevens are taking cues from commodity prices which are being held down by flagging global growth (bottom panel). The minutes from the June FOMC meeting revealed that "one participant" advocated postponing rate hikes in an attempt to re-anchor inflation expectations, but we do not expect the Fed to pursue this course. Instead, the Fed will continue to lift rates at a pace of 25 bps per quarter until a risk-off episode in financial markets prompts a delay, hoping that the incoming inflation data are strong enough to send TIPS breakevens higher in the meantime. Ultimately we think that strategy will be successful, but Fed hawkishness in the face of weakening global growth threatens the near-term performance of corporate credit. We recommend only a neutral allocation to spread product versus Treasuries, while maintaining a below-benchmark duration bias. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 60 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -181 bps. Value is no longer stretched in the investment grade corporate bond market, though it is not attractive enough to compensate for being in the late stages of the credit cycle or for the looming collision between a hawkish Fed and decelerating global growth. These factors led us to reduce exposure to corporate bonds two weeks ago.1 With inflation running close to the Fed's 2% target and the 2/10 Treasury slope between 0 bps and 50 bps, our research shows that small positive excess returns are the best case scenario for corporate bonds. The likelihood that leverage will rise in the second half of this year is also a concern (Chart 2). Profit growth is only just keeping pace with debt growth and will soon have to contend with rising wage costs and the drag from recent dollar strength. The Fed's staunch hawkishness in the face of decelerating global growth is reminiscent of 2015. Then, the end result was a period of spread widening that culminated in the Fed pausing its rate hike cycle. In recent weeks we also explored how to position within the investment grade corporate bond sector, considering both the maturity spectrum and the different credit tiers.2 We concluded that in the current environment investors should favor long maturities and maintain a balanced or slightly up-in-quality bias (Table 3). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* The Deflationary Mindset The Deflationary Mindset Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* The Deflationary Mindset The Deflationary Mindset High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 40 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +76 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 1 bp on the month, and currently sits at 365 bps. Our measure of the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for expected default losses has widened to 262 bps, just above its long-run mean (Chart 3). This tells us that if default losses during the next 12 months are in line with our expectations, we should expect excess high-yield returns of 262 bps over duration-matched Treasuries, assuming also that there are no capital gains/losses from spread tightening/widening. However, we showed in last week's report that the default loss expectations embedded in our calculation are extremely low relative to history (panel 4).3 Our assumption, derived from the Moody's baseline default rate forecast and our own forecast of the recovery rate, calls for default losses of 1.03% during the next 12 months. The only historical period to show significantly lower default losses was 2007, a time when corporate balance sheets were in much better shape than they are today. While most indicators suggest that default losses will in fact remain low for the next 12 months, historical context clearly demonstrates that the risks to that forecast are to the upside. It will be critically important to track real-time indicators of the default rate such as job cut announcements, which remain low relative to history but have perked up in recent months (bottom panel), for signals about whether current default forecasts are overly optimistic. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -24 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread widened 1 bp on the month, driven entirely by a 1 bp widening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS). The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) held flat. The MBS option-adjusted spread has widened since the beginning of the year (Chart 4), though by much less than the investment grade corporate bond spread (panel 3). The year-to-date OAS widening has been offset by a contraction in the option cost component of spreads, and this has kept the overall nominal MBS spread flat at very tight levels (bottom panel). Going forward, rising interest rates will limit mortgage refinancing activity and this will ensure that MBS spreads remain low. In other words, while MBS valuation is not attractive, the downside is limited. Our Bond Maps show an unfavorable risk/reward trade-off in the MBS sector. This analysis, based on volatility-adjusted breakeven spreads, shows that only 7 days of average spread widening are required for the MBS sector to lose 100 bps versus duration-matched Treasuries. While this speaks to the low spread buffer built into current MBS valuations, the message from the Bond Map must be weighed against the macro outlook which suggests that the odds of significant spread widening are quite low. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -35 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 33 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -210 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed by 10 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -46 bps. Local Authorities underperformed by 9 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +28 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 5 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +7 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 7 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to zero. The escalating tit-for-tat trade war and increasing divergence between U.S. and non-U.S. growth is a clear negative for USD-denominated Sovereign debt. Relative valuation also shows that U.S. corporate bonds are more attractive than similarly rated Sovereigns (Chart 5). Maintain an underweight allocation to Sovereign debt. Within the universe of Emerging Market Sovereign debt, we showed in a recent report that only Russian debt offers an attractive spread relative to the U.S. corporate sector.4 In contrast, the Foreign Agency and Local Authority sectors continue to offer a favorable risk/reward trade-off compared to other fixed income sectors (please see the Bond Maps). Maintain overweight allocations to these two sectors. The Bond Maps also show that the Supranational and Domestic Agency sectors are very low risk, but offer feeble return potential compared to other sectors. The Supranational and Domestic Agency sectors should be avoided. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +120 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal/Treasury yield ratio fell 1% in June to reach 85%, close to one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean. It is also only slightly higher than the average 81% level that was observed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. The technical picture remains favorable for Muni / Treasury yield ratios. Fund inflows increased in recent weeks, and visible supply has contracted substantially compared to this time last year (Chart 6). State & local government credit fundamentals are also fairly robust. Net borrowing is on the decline and this should ensure that municipal ratings upgrades continue to outpace downgrades (bottom panel). Despite relatively tight valuation compared to history, the Total Return Bond Map on page 16 shows that municipal bonds offer a fairly attractive risk/reward trade-off compared to other U.S. fixed income sectors, particularly for investors exposed to the top marginal tax rate. Given the favorable reading from our Bond Map and the steadily improving credit fundamentals, we recommend an overweight allocation to Municipal bonds. Treasury Curve: Favor 7-Year Bullet Over 1/20 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-flattened in June. The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 10 bps and the 5/30 slope flattened 7 bps. At present, the 2/10 slope sits at 29 bps, its flattest level of the cycle. The yield curve has flattened relentlessly in recent months as the impact of Fed rate hikes at the short-end of the curve have not been offset by higher inflation expectations at the long end. As explained in a recent report, we think it is unlikely that curve flattening can maintain this rapid pace.5 At 2.34%, the 1-year Treasury yield is already priced for 100 bps of Fed rate hikes during the next 12 months, assuming no term premium. Meanwhile, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below levels that are consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target. While curve flattening will proceed as the Fed lifts rates, higher breakeven inflation rates at the long-end of the curve will offset some flattening pressure during the next few months. With that in mind, we continue to recommend a position long the 7-year bullet and short the duration-matched 1/20 barbell. According to our models, this butterfly spread currently discounts 41 bps of 1/20 curve flattening during the next six months (Chart 7). This is considerably more than what is likely to occur. Table 4 of this report shows the output from our valuation models for each butterfly combination across the entire yield curve, as explained in a recent Special Report.6 Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation (As Of July 6, 2018) The Deflationary Mindset The Deflationary Mindset TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 35 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +129 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate increased 4 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.12%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate increased 5 bps and currently sits at 2.16% (Chart 8). Both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below the range of 2.3% to 2.5% that has historically been consistent with inflation expectations that are well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target. We expect breakevens will return to that target range as investors become increasingly convinced that the risk of deflation has faded. Consistent inflation prints at or above the Fed's 2% target will be the deciding factor that eventually leads to this upward re-rating of inflation expectations. In that regard, the current outlook is promising. Core PCE inflation has printed above the 0.17% month-over-month level that is consistent with 2% annual inflation in four of the past five months (panel 4). Year-over-year trimmed mean PCE inflation is at 1.84% and should continue to rise based on the 2.03% reading from the 6-month trimmed mean PCE (bottom panel). Finally, our Pipeline Inflation Indicator continues to point toward mounting inflationary pressures in the economy (panel 3). Maintain an overweight allocation to TIPS relative to nominal Treasury securities. We will reduce exposure to TIPS once long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to our 2.3% to 2.5% target range. ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 1 basis point in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -2 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 2 bps on the month and now stands at 43 bps, 16 bps above its pre-crisis low. The Bond Maps show that consumer ABS continue to offer relatively attractive return potential compared to other low-risk spread products. However, we maintain only a neutral allocation to this space because credit quality trends are moving against the sector. The household debt service ratio on consumer credit ticked down slightly in the first quarter, but its multi-year uptrend remains intact (Chart 9). Consumer credit delinquency rates follow the household debt service ratio with a lag. Meanwhile, banks are noticing the decline in credit quality and have begun tightening lending standards (bottom panel). Tighter lending standards tend to coincide with upward pressure on delinquencies and spreads. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +61 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 4 bps on the month and currently sits at 74 bps (Chart 10). The gap between decelerating commercial real estate prices and tight CMBS spreads continues to send a worrying signal for CMBS (panel 3). However, delinquencies continue to decline and banks recently started to ease lending standards on nonfarm nonresidential loans (bottom panel). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +6 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 2 bps on the month and currently sits at 51 bps. The Bond Maps show that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this defensive sector continues to make sense. The BCA Bond Maps The following page presents excess return and total return Bond Maps that we use to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Maps employ volatility-adjusted breakeven spread/yield analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Maps do not impose any macroeconomic view. The Excess Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the excess return Bond Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps in excess of Treasuries. The Total Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the total return Bond Map shows the number of days of average yield increase required for each sector to lose 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of yield increases and are therefore less likely to lose 5%. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average yield decline required for each sector to earn 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of yield decline and are therefore more likely to earn 5%. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of July 6, 2018) The Deflationary Mindset The Deflationary Mindset Chart 12Total Return Bond Map (As Of July 6, 2018) The Deflationary Mindset The Deflationary Mindset Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Go To Neutral On Spread Product", dated June 26, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty", dated June 19, 2018, for further details on positioning across different credit tiers. Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Out Of Sync", dated July 3, 2018, for further details on positioning across the maturity spectrum. Both reports available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Out Of Sync", dated July 3, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Threats & Opportunities In Emerging Markets", dated June 12, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty", dated June 19, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. My colleague, and BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA's 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry's only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers' options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA's Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating "geopolitical alpha;" Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant "war games," which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. Robert Robis, Chief Fixed Income Strategist Highlights Q2 Performance Breakdown: The return for the Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) recommended model bond portfolio was flat (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the second quarter of 2018, outperforming the custom benchmark index by +13bps. This pushed the 2018 year-to-date performance back into positive territory. Winners & Losers: Nearly the entire outperformance came from our overweight stance on U.S. high-yield corporates versus our underweight tilt on emerging market corporates. Successful government bond country allocation (overweight U.K. & Australia, underweight Italy) helped offset the drag on performance from our overweight stance on U.S. investment grade corporates. Scenario Analysis: Our recent decision to downgrade overall spread product exposure, even as we maintain a below-benchmark duration stance, should help boost the expected alpha of the model portfolio over the next year. Feature This week, we present the performance numbers for the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio in the second quarter of 2018. As a reminder to existing readers (and for new clients), the portfolio is a part of our service that is meant to complement the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The model portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors, by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. In this report, we update our estimates of future portfolio performance, using the scenario analysis framework that we introduced three months ago.1 After our recent decision to downgrade global spread product exposure, our model portfolio is now expected to outperform the custom benchmark index over the next year in both our base case and plausible stress test scenarios. Q2/2018 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Country & Credit Selection Pays Off The total return of the GFIS model bond portfolio was flat (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the second quarter of the year, which outperformed our custom benchmark index by +13bps.2 The first half of the quarter was driven by gains from our below-benchmark duration tilt, as the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield hit a peak of 3.13%. As yields drifted a bit lower in the latter half of Q2 in response to some cooling of global economic growth amid rising concerns on U.S. trade policy, the gains from duration reversed. At the same time, the outperformance from the spread product portion of our model portfolio started to kick in (Chart of the Week), even as credit spreads in all markets widened. Chart of the WeekSpecific Country & Credit Allocations##BR##Boosted Q2 Performance Specific Country & Credit Allocations Boosted Q2 Performance Specific Country & Credit Allocations Boosted Q2 Performance Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio##BR##Q2-2018 Overall Return Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +5bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +8bps (Table 1). The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio##BR##Q2/2018 Government Bond Performance Attribution By Country GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio##BR##Q2/2018 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound The main individual sectors of the portfolio that drove the excess returns were the following: Biggest outperformers Overweight U.S. high-yield B-rated corporates (+5bps) Overweight U.S. high-yield Caa-rated corporates (+2bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds (JGBs) with maturities up to ten years (+3bps) Underweight emerging market U.S. dollar-denominated corporate debt (+5bps) Underweight Italian government bonds (+4bps) Overweight U.K. Gilts (+1bp) Overweight Australian government bonds (+1bp) Biggest underperformers Overweight U.S. investment grade Financials (-2bps) Overweight U.S. investment grade Industrials (-2bps) Underweight JGBs with maturities beyond ten years (-5bps) Underweight French government bonds with maturities beyond ten years (-2bps) Two unusual trends stand out in the Q2 performance numbers: First, our overweight stance on U.S. high-yield debt was able to deliver positive alpha but a similar tilt on U.S. investment grade did not, even as U.S. corporate credit spreads widened during the quarter. It is odd for an asset class (high-yield) that is typically more volatile to outperform during a period of credit spread widening. Although that outcome did justify our view that U.S. investment grade corporates have been offering far less cushion to a period of spread volatility than U.S. junk bonds. Second, the flattening pressures on global government bond yield curves resulted in underperformance from the very long ends of curves in core Europe and Japan, even though the latter regions were the best performing bond markets in our model bond portfolio universe. This can be seen in Chart 4, which presents the benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and also adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during the second quarter.3 Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The Model Portfolio In Q2/2018 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound As can be seen in the chart, the best performers were government bonds in Germany, France and Japan. The fact that our excess return from those countries was only a combined +2bps, even with an aggregate overweight exposure to all three, suggests that our duration allocation within the maturity buckets of those countries was a meaningful drag on performance. Yet in terms of the overall success rate of our individual country and sector calls, the news was positive in Q2. We've been overweight U.K. Gilts and Australian government bonds, which were some of the top performers in Q2. On the other side, we have been underweight emerging market corporate debt and Italian sovereign debt, which were the worst performers in the quarter. Bottom Line: The GFIS model bond portfolio outperforming the custom benchmark index by +13bps. This pushed the 2018 year-to-date performance back into positive territory. Nearly the entire outperformance came from our overweight stance on U.S. high-yield corporates versus our underweight tilt on emerging market corporates. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns After Our Recent Changes Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will have different drivers in the third quarter and beyond after the recent changes to BCA's recommended strategic asset allocations.4 We downgraded global equity and spread product exposure to neutral, based on our concern that the backdrop for global growth, inflation and monetary policy was turning less supportive for risk assets, particularly given the potential new economic shock from the "U.S. versus the world" trade tensions. In terms of the specific weightings in the GFIS model bond portfolio, we still prefer owning U.S. corporate debt versus equivalents in Europe and emerging markets. Thus, while we downgraded our recommended allocation to U.S. and investment grade corporates to neutral from overweight, we also cut our weightings to euro area corporates, as well as to all emerging market hard currency debt (see the table on page 12, which shows the model bond portfolio changes that were made back on June 26th). The latter changes were necessary to maintain the relatively higher exposure to U.S. corporate debt versus non-U.S. corporates, although it does leave the model portfolio with a small overall underweight stance to global spread product (Chart 5). Importantly, we are maintaining a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration, even as we grow more cautious on credit exposure. This is because we still see potential medium-term upward pressure on bond yields coming from tightening monetary policies (Fed rate hikes, ECB tapering of bond purchases) and increasing inflation expectations. The majority of global central bankers are dealing with tight labor markets and slowly rising inflation rates. While global growth has cooled a bit from the rapid pace seen in 2017, it has not been by enough to have policymakers shift to a more dovish bias. Throughout the first half of 2018, we have been deliberately targeting a modest tracking error for our model portfolio, given the historical richness (low yields, tight spreads) of so many parts of the global bond universe. Our estimate of the tracking error is now below the 40-60bp range that we have been targeting (Chart 6), but we are willing to live with this given the higher degree of uncertainty at the moment.5 Chart 5New Spread Product Allocation:##BR##Neutral U.S., Underweight Non-U.S. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound Chart 6Staying Defensive With##BR##The Risk Budget Staying Defensive With The Risk Budget Staying Defensive With The Risk Budget Importantly, the changes to our asset allocation recommendations should help boost the expected return of the model portfolio over the next year. In our Q1/2018 portfolio review published in April, we introduced a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors. For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the U.S. dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-U.S. yield changes are estimated using recent historical yield betas to changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Table 2B). This framework allows us to conduct scenario analysis based on projected returns of each asset class in the model bond portfolio universe by making assumptions on those individual risk factors. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate##BR##Spread Product Yield Changes GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield##BR##Betas To U.S. Treasuries GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound With these tools, we can forecast returns for each bond sector under different scenarios. We can then use those forecasts to predict the expected return for our model bond portfolio under those same scenarios, but with our current relative allocations. In Tables 3A & 3B. we show three differing scenarios, with all the following changes occurring over a one-year horizon. Table 3AScenario Analysis For The GFIS Model Portfolio GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound Table 3BU.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound Our Base Case: the Fed delivers another 100bps of rate hikes, the U.S. dollar rises +5%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index increases by five points from current levels, and U.S. Treasury yields rise by 20-40bps across the curve. A Very Hawkish Fed: the Fed delivers 150bps of rate hikes, the U.S. dollar rises by +10%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index increases by ten points from current levels and there is a sharp bear flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve. A Very Dovish Fed: the Fed only hikes rates by 25bps, the U.S. dollar falls by -5%, oil prices fall by -20%, the VIX index increases by fifteen points from current levels and there is a modest bull steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve (in this scenario, the Fed puts the rate hiking cycle on hold because of a sharp selloff in U.S. financial markets). The top half of Table 3A shows the expected returns for all three scenarios under our more bullish asset allocation prior to the changes made on June 26th, while the bottom half shows the expected performance of the model portfolio after our downgrade to global spread product. Importantly, the model bond portfolio is now expected to outperform the custom benchmark index in not only the base case scenario (+25bps of outperformance) but also in the two alternative scenarios of a very hawkish Fed (+46bps) and a very dovish Fed (+6bps). Those positive outcomes are not surprising, given that all three scenarios have some degree of risk aversion (higher VIX) that would play into our now-reduced exposure to credit risk in the portfolio. Our negative view on duration risk (Chart 7) also helps boost excess returns versus the benchmark in two of the three scenarios. Interestingly, these outcomes all occur despite the fact that the portfolio is now running with a negative carry (i.e. a lower total yield versus the benchmark index) after the reduction in spread product exposure (Chart 8). Although given our views that market volatility, bond yields and credit spreads are more likely to move higher in the next 6-12 months, we think that carry considerations now play a secondary role in portfolio construction. The time to try and earn carry is during stable markets, not volatile markets. Chart 7The Model Portfolio Is Not Chasing Yield The Model Portfolio Is Not Chasing Yield The Model Portfolio Is Not Chasing Yield Chart 8Staying Below-Benchmark On Overall Duration Staying Below-Benchmark On Overall Duration Staying Below-Benchmark On Overall Duration Bottom Line: Our recent decision to downgrade overall spread product exposure, even as we maintain a below-benchmark duration stance, should help boost the expected alpha of the model portfolio over the next year. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2018 Performance Review: A Rough Start", dated April 10th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. 2 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 3 For Italy, Germany & France, the bars have two colors since the portfolio weights were changed in mid-May, when we cut the recommended stance on Italy to underweight and raised the allocations to Germany & France as an offset. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Time To Take Some Chips Off The Table: Downgrade Global Spread Product Exposure To Neutral", dated June 26th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 In general, we aim to target a tracking error no greater than 100bps. We think this is reasonable for a portfolio where currency exposure is fully hedged and less than 5% of the portfolio benchmark is in bonds with ratings below investment grade. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2018 Performance Review: A Solid Rebound Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. My colleague, and BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA's 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry's only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers' options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA's Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating "geopolitical alpha;" Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant "war games," which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. John Canally, Chief U.S. Investment Strategist Highlights Late in the business cycle, investors should remain overweight risk assets generally, as long as margins are still rising. A 2015-style deceleration in the Chinese economy cannot be ruled out if it suffers a serious shock to its external sector. The bar remains high for Q2 2018 EPS, but investors are already focused on 2019 and the impact of trade policy on corporate results. Economic surprise is rolling over as inflation surprise climbs. Feature U.S. equities prices rose last week as U.S.-China tariffs kicked in. The U.S. dollar and 10-year Treasury yields dipped, while oil and gold held steady to start the first quarter. Despite the relative calm, investors remain concerned about the impact of trade policy and rising labor and raw materials costs on corporate margins. BCA expects S&P 500 margins to peak later this year. In the next section of this report, we examine the performance of a broad range of asset classes after the economy reaches full employment. Higher labor and input costs, along with the impact of global trade disputes, will be key topics of discussion as the Q2 earnings seasons kicks off this week. We provide a preview later in this report. Market participants are also worried that the weakness in Chinese equities and the decline in the CNY are signaling a repeat of late 2015-early 2016. We explore those concerns in the second section below. Although the June jobs report (see below) was mixed relative to consensus expectations, the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index (CESI) is poised to turn negative. In the final section of this week's report, we discuss how investors should positions as CESI troughs and how to prepare for the inevitable bounce higher. The rise in the U.S. unemployment rate to 4% in June is not the start of a new trend. The labor market continues to tighten and the FOMC is noticing (Chart 1, panels 1 and 2). Chart 1Don't Be Fooled By The Uptick##BR##In The U.S. Unemployment Rate Don't Be Fooled By The Uptick In The U.S. Unemployment Rate Don't Be Fooled By The Uptick In The U.S. Unemployment Rate The June Establishment Survey revealed a 213k rise in payrolls, along with upward revisions to the previous two months. The three-month average, at 211k, remains well above the underlying trend in labor force growth. In contrast, the Household Survey showed a more modest 102k increase in jobs in the month. Moreover, the number of people entering the workforce surged by 601k, which caused the unemployment rate to rise from 3.8% to 4%. We doubt this signals a trend change in the unemployment rate. The Household Survey is quite volatile relative to the Establishment Survey, suggesting that employment gains in the former are likely to catch up next month. The surge in the labor force in June could reflect the possibility that the tight labor market is finally drawing people into the workforce who were not previously looking for work. The participation rate rose by 0.2 percentage points to 62.9% (panel 4). However, this rate bounces around from month-to-month and is still in its post-2015 range. Moreover, the typical wave of college and high school students entering the workforce at this time of the year may have distorted the labor force figures due to seasonal adjustment problems. The real story is that the underlying labor market continues to tighten. The number of people outside the labor force who want a job, as a percentage of the total working-age population, is back to pre-recession lows. Average hourly earnings edged up by 0.2% m/m in June. The y/y rate held at 2.7% in the month, but the trend in wage growth remains up (panel 3). Moreover, the June non-manufacturing ISM report highlighted that economic momentum remains very strong, and the respondents' comments noted widespread building cost pressures related to labor shortages, rising commodity prices and a shortage of transportation capacity. China: It's Not 2015...Yet Investor concerns escalated last week over emerging markets and specifically China. Market participants are worried that the weakness in Chinese equities and the decline in the CNY are signaling a repeat of late 2015-early 2016. BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy's view1 is that Beijing is letting the CNY depreciate at a faster pace against the U.S. dollar for two reasons. First, it is a means to reflate the economy because the proposed U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods would inflict a non-negligible blow to China that would need to be softened if it materializes. Secondly, letting the yuan depreciate sends a message to the U.S.: China can weaponize its currency if necessary. Meanwhile, our China Investment Strategy service remains cautious on Chinese equities, but notes that the recent selloff in domestic stocks may be overdone (we remain neutral on the investable market).2 Chart 2China's Borrowing Costs Have Climbed... China's Borrowing Costs Have Climbed... China's Borrowing Costs Have Climbed... A 2015-style deceleration in the Chinese economy cannot be ruled out if it suffers a serious shock to its external sector, which would be very problematic for financial markets given our view that China has a higher pain threshold for stimulus than in the past. But tight monetary policy was a key driver of China's 2015 slowdown, and while monetary conditions have tightened since late-2016, they remain easier than what prevailed four years ago (Chart 2). There are key differences between 2015 and today from a U.S./global perspective as well. In late 2015, the dollar had moved up by 27% from its mid-2014 low, business capital spending was in freefall, credit spreads widened and oil dropped by over 50% year-over year. None of those conditions are currently in place. The key difference between 2015 and today is that three years ago there was no threat of a trade war with China, or the widespread imposition of protectionist measures more generally. Late Cycle Asset Return Performance Some of our economic and policy analysis over the past year has focused on previous late-cycle periods, especially those that occurred at the end of long expansions such as the 1980s, 1990s and the 2000s.3 Specifically, we analyzed the growth, inflation and policy dynamics after the point when the economy reached full employment (i.e. when the unemployment rate fell below the CBO estimate of full employment - NAIRU). This week we look at asset class returns during late-cycle periods. We wanted to use as broad a range of asset classes as possible, although data limitations mean that we can only analyze the late-cycle periods at the end of the 1990s and the mid-2000s (Chart 3). To refine the analysis, we split the late-cycle periods into two parts: before and after S&P 500 profit margins peak. One could use other signposts to split the period, such as a peak in the ISM or a peak in the S&P 500 index itself. However, using the S&P operating profit margin proved to be a more useful break point across the cycles in terms of timing trend changes in risk assets. Table 1 (and Appendix) presents total returns for the following periods: (1) the full late-cycle period - i.e. from the point at which full employment is reached until the next recession; (2) from the point of full employment to the peak in the S&P margin; (3) from the peak in margins to the recession; and (4) during the subsequent recession. All returns are annualized for comparison purposes, and the data shown are the average of the late 1990s and mid-2000 late-cycle periods. Chart 3Profit Margins Peak Late##BR##In The Late Cycle Period Profit Margins Peak Late In The Late Cycle Period Profit Margins Peak Late In The Late Cycle Period Table 1Historical Returns; Average Of##BR##Late 1990s And Mid-2000s Revisiting The Late Cycle View Revisiting The Late Cycle View We must be careful in interpreting the results because no two cycles are exactly the same, and we only have two cycles in our sample of data. Nonetheless, we make the following observations: Treasury bond returns are positive across the board, which seems odd at first glance. However, in both cycles the selloff occurred before the late-cycle period began. Yields then fluctuated in a range, and then began to fall after margins peaked. Global factors also contributed to Greenspan's "conundrum" of stable bond yields in the years before the Great Recession. We do not expect a replay this time around given the low starting point for real yields and the fact that the Fed is encouraging an overshoot of the inflation target. Bonds are unlikely to provide positive returns on a 6-12 month horizon. Similar to Treasuries, investment-grade (IG) corporate bond returns were positive across the board for the same reason. However, IG underperformed Treasuries after margins peaked and into the recession. High-yield (HY) bonds followed a similar pattern, but suffered negative returns in absolute terms after margins peaked. U.S. stocks began to sniff out the next recession after margins peaked. Small caps outperformed large caps in the recessions, but after margins peaked relative performance was mixed. We are avoiding small caps at the moment based on poor fundamentals and valuations. Growth stocks had a mixed performance versus value before and after margins peaked, but tended to outperform in the recessions. Dividend aristocrat returns performed well relative to the overall equity market after margins peaked and into the recession on average, but the performance is not consistent across the two late cycles. EM stocks performed well before margins peak, and poorly during the recessions. However, the performance is mixed in the period between the margin peak and the recession. We recommend an underweight allocation because of poor macro fundamentals and tightening financial conditions. In theory, Hedge funds are supposed to be able to perform well in any environment, but returns have been a mixed bag after margins peaked. The return performance of Private Equity, Venture Capital and Distressed Debt were similar to the S&P 500, albeit with more volatility. Avoid them after margins peak. Structured product is one of the few categories that performed well across all periods and cycles. The index we used includes MBS, CMBS and ABS. Farmland and Timberland returns are attractive across all periods and cycles, except for Timberland during recessions where the return performance was mixed. Oil and non-oil commodities tended to perform poorly during recession, but returns were inconsistent in the other phases shown in the table. Gold was also a mixed bag. The return analysis underscores that investing late in an economic cycle is risky because risk assets can begin to underperform well before evidence accumulates that the economy has fallen into recession. Using the peak in the S&P 500 operating profit margin as a signal to lighten up appears promising. Based on this approach, investors should remain overweight risk assets generally, including stocks, corporate bonds, hedge funds, private equity and real estate, as long as margins are still rising. Investor should scale back in most of these areas as soon as margins peak, although they can hold onto Farmland, Timberland, structured products, real estate (including REITs) for a while after margins peak because it may not be as important to exit these areas before the next recession begins. For fixed income, investor should be looking to raise exposure but move up in quality after margins peak. Oil and related plays are not a reliable late-cycle play, but we are bullish because of the favorable supply-demand outlook. However, this does not carry over to base metals, where we are more cautious. S&P 500 margins are still rising at the moment which, on its own, suggests that investors should be fully-exposed to all risk assets. Nonetheless, timing is always difficult and we have decided to focus on capital preservation given extended valuations and a raft of risks that could cause a premature end to the bull market (e.g. trade war, economic China slowdown, and EM economic and financial vulnerabilities). We are not yet ready to go underweight on risk assets, but the risk/reward balance at the moment suggests that risk tolerance should be no more than benchmark. Still Going Strong The consensus predicts a 21% year-over-year increase in the S&P 500's EPS in Q2 2018 versus Q2 2017, and 22% in calendar year 2018. Expectations are high; at the start of 2018, analysts projected 11% growth in Q2 and 12% in 2018. Energy, materials, technology and financials will lead the way in Q2 earnings growth, while real estate and utilities will struggle. Excluding the energy sector, the consensus expects a robust 18% increase in profits. The stout profit environment for Q2 2018 and the year ahead reflects sharply higher oil prices compared with Q2 2017, and the impact of last year's Tax Cut and Jobs Act on share buybacks and management confidence. However, global growth, which was a tailwind for S&P 500 results in 2017 and early 2018, has stalled. Moreover, rising costs for raw materials and labor will erode margins, but not until later this year. S&P 500 revenues are forecast to rise by 8% in Q2 2018 versus Q2 2017, matching the Q1 2018 year-over-year increase. The consensus expects a year-over-year gain in Q2 sales in all 11 sectors. Trade policy will continue to be at the forefront as managements discuss Q2 outcomes and provide guidance for 2H 2018 and beyond. In addition, capacity constraints, labor shortages and rising input costs will be key topics. Elevated corporate debt levels4 and climbing interest rates also will be debated as CEOs and CFOs provide guidance to Wall Street for Q3 2018 and beyond. Their counsel is more vital than the actual Q2 results. The markets probably have already priced in a robust 2018 earnings profile linked to the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, and are looking ahead to 2019 and 2020 (Chart 4). Investors typically stay focused on the current calendar year's EPS through to at least Q3 before turning their attention to the next year. However, this year may be different. The consensus is looking for 10% EPS growth in 2019, a sharp deceleration from the 22% increase expected this year. Chart 4High Bar For 2018... But Focus Will Quickly Turn To 2019 High Bar For 2018... But Focus Will Quickly Turn To 2019 High Bar For 2018... But Focus Will Quickly Turn To 2019 At 9%, the consensus estimate for S&P 500 EPS growth in 2020 is too high (Chart 4). BCA's view5 is that the next recession in the U.S. will commence in 2020. Since 1980, S&P 500 profits have dwindled by 28%, on average, in the first year of a recession. Chart 5 (panel 1) shows that elevated readings on the ISM manufacturing index still provide a very favorable backdrop for S&P 500 profit growth in 2018. However, the top panel also illustrates that the index rarely stays above 60 (it was 60.2 in June), especially late in the business cycle. The ISM is a good proxy for S&P 500 forward earnings (panel 2) and sales (panel 3). The implication is that while the near-term environment for S&P 500 earnings and sales is solid, there is not much more upside. Chart 5Domestic Backdrop For S&P Profits In ''18 Still Looks Solid... Domestic Backdrop For S&P Profits In ''18 Still Looks Solid… Domestic Backdrop For S&P Profits In ''18 Still Looks Solid… Global growth is peaking despite the rosy domestic economic environment. At close to 3%, the consensus view of U.S. GDP growth in 2018 is still accelerating thanks to pro-cyclical fiscal, monetary and legislative policies in the U.S.6 However, in early April, analysts estimates for 2019 GDP growth in the U.S. reached a zenith at 2.5% and have since rolled over (Chart 6). The FOMC projects real GDP growth at 2.8% in 2018 and 2.4% in 2019.7 Meanwhile, global GDP growth estimates for 2018 began flattening near 3.5% in early April 2018, about a month after President Trump announced the first round of tariffs. Estimates for 2019 economic growth peaked in mid-May, near 3.25% (Chart 6). Chart 6Consensus GDP Estimates For U.S., World Are Rolling Over Consensus GDP Estimates For U.S., World Are Rolling Over Consensus GDP Estimates For U.S., World Are Rolling Over BCA's stance is that the dollar will move modestly higher in 2018. The appreciation would trim EPS growth by roughly 1 to 2 percentage points, although most of this would occur next year due to lagged effects. The trade-weighted dollar is up by 2.5% year-to-date, and by 7% from its recent (February 2018) trough. Nonetheless, the dollar is down by 2% year-over-year and should not have a major impact on Q2 results. Furthermore, based on the minimal references to a robust dollar (only eight in the past eight Beige Books), the dollar probably will not be an issue for corporate profits in Q2 2018 (Chart 7). The handful of recent references is in sharp contrast with a surge in comments during 2015 and early 2016. The last time that eight consecutive Beige Books had so few remarks about a strong dollar was in late 2014. The implication is that a robust dollar may get a few mentions during the earnings season, but those mentions will be drowned out by concerns over global trade. Movements in the U.S. dollar also explain the divergent paths of profits, sales and margins of domestically-focused corporations versus globally-oriented ones. Economic growth trends, discussed above, also play a role. Chart 8 shows that sales of domestically-oriented firms in the U.S. are still in a clear uptrend (panel 2). However, revenues of U.S. companies with a global focus stalled in recent quarters, even before the first round of tariffs were announced (panel 4). Margins at domestically-focused firms are still accelerating (panel 1), while margins at global businesses are topping out, albeit at a higher level than domestic ones. Moreover, since the start of 2017, the weaker dollar has allowed profit and sales gains of global corporations to rebound and outpace those companies with only domestic concerns. BCA expects that margins for S&P 500 companies will peak later this year. Investors are skeptical that S&P 500 margins can advance in Q2 2018 for the eighth consecutive quarter. BCA's view is that we are in a temporary sweet spot for margins, which should continue for the next couple of quarters. However, the secular mean reversion of margins will resume beyond that time as wage pressures begin to percolate and raw materials costs escalate. Bottom Line: BCA expects that the earnings backdrop will support equity prices in 2018 (Chart 9). However, investors may have already priced in the benefits of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act on corporate results and are focused on the upcoming 2019 and 2020 figures. EPS growth will be more of a headwind for stock prices as we enter 2019 (Chart 9). In late June,8 we downgraded our 12-month recommendation on global equities and credit from overweight to neutral. Chart 7The Dollar Should Not Be##BR##A Big Concern In Q2 Earnings Season The Dollar Should Not Be A Big Concern In Q2 Earnings Season The Dollar Should Not Be A Big Concern In Q2 Earnings Season Chart 8Global Sales,##BR##Margins Stalled... Global Sales, Margins Stalled... Global Sales, Margins Stalled... Chart 9Strong S&P 500 EPS Growth Ahead,##BR##Will Start To Slow Soon Strong S&P 500 EPS Growth Ahead, Will Start To Slow Soon Strong S&P 500 EPS Growth Ahead, Will Start To Slow Soon Look Out Below Citi's Economic Surprise Index (CESI) is poised to turn negative (Chart 10) after hitting a four-year high in late 2017. Since then, a harsh winter and early spring in the U.S., coupled with elevated expectations following the introduction of the tax bill, saw most economic data fall short of expectations. Moreover, a slowdown in global growth and uncertainty around U.S. and global trade policy negatively affected U.S. economic data in the spring and early summer months. Chart 10Citi Economic Surprise Poised To Turn Negative Citi Economic Surprise Poised To Turn Negative Citi Economic Surprise Poised To Turn Negative In our late March 2018 report,9 we noted that there have been six other episodes since 2011 when the CESI behaved similarly. These phases lasted an average of 96 days; the median number of days from peak to trough was 66 days. Moreover, in our March 2018 report we stated that a trough in CESI may be a month or two away, but there are no signs that has occurred. Table 2 illustrates the performance of key U.S. dollar-based investments, commodities and the dollar itself as the CESI moves from zero to its ultimate trough. We identified eight periods since 2010 when the CESI moved lower from zero. Table 2U.S. Stocks, Credit And Commodities As Economic Surprise Turns Negative Revisiting The Late Cycle View Revisiting The Late Cycle View On average, these episodes lasted 43 days, with the longest (81 days) in early 2015 and the shortest (13 days) in January-February 2013. During these phases, U.S. equities posted minimal gains and underperformed Treasuries (Chart 11). Moreover, investment-grade and high-yield credit tracked Treasuries, and there was little difference between the performance of small cap and large cap equities. Gold and oil struggled, while the dollar barely budged. Chart 11U.S. Financial Assets, Commodities And The Dollar As Economic Surprise Troughs U.S. Financial Assets, Commodities And The Dollar As Economic Surprise Troughs U.S. Financial Assets, Commodities And The Dollar As Economic Surprise Troughs While the CESI is rolling over, the Citigroup Inflation Surprise index is on the upswing (Chart 12). We identified seven stages when the CESI rolled over while the Citi Inflation Surprise Index: 2003-2004, 2007-2008, 2009, 2011, 2012-13, 2014 and this year. The late 2007 period is most similar to today; the other five episodes occurred either during early cycle (2003-2004, 2009 and 2011) or mid-cycle (2012-13 and 2014). In late 2007, the U.S. economy was in the late stages of an expansion, the unemployment rate was below full employment and the Fed was raising rates. The stock-to-bond ratio fell, credit underperformed Treasuries and gold and oil rose. Furthermore, small caps outperformed large caps, and the dollar fell (Chart 13). Chart 12Episodes Of Rising Inflation Surprise##BR##When Economic Surprise Is Falling Episodes Of Rising Inflation Surprise When Economic Surprise Is Falling Episodes Of Rising Inflation Surprise When Economic Surprise Is Falling Chart 13U.S. Financial Assets,##BR##Commodities And The Dollar As... U.S. Financial Assets, Commodities And The Dollar As... U.S. Financial Assets, Commodities And The Dollar As... Our work10 shows that these periods were associated with higher wage and compensation metrics, and higher realized core inflation. Moreover, these phases tended to occur when the economy was at full employment and the Fed funds rate was above neutral. The implication is that inflation indices are poised to move higher in the coming year, and prompt the Fed to continue to boost rates gradually at first, but then more aggressively starting in mid-2019. Bottom Line: The disappointing run of economic data is not over. Treasury bond yields will likely dip as the CESI troughs. However, the weakness in the economic data does not signal recession. We expect that the Inflation Surprise Index will continue to grind higher, while unemployment dips further into excess demand territory and oil prices rise. After the CESI forms a bottom and starts to rise, history suggests that stocks will beat bonds, investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds will outpace Treasuries, and gold and oil will climb.11 Fed policymakers have signaled that they will not mind an overshoot of their 2% inflation target. However, because core PCE inflation is already at the Fed's target, the central bank will be slower to defend the stock market in the event of a swoon. 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 Appendix Revisiting The Late Cycle View Revisiting The Late Cycle View 1 Please see BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report "What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World", published June 29, 2018. Available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Standing On One Leg", published July 5, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Late Cycle View," October 16, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Till Debt Do Us Part", published May 8, 2018. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Third Quarter 2018: The Beginning Of The End", published June 29, 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy Line Up," published March 12, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20180613.pdf 8 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Sideways," published June 25, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Waiting", published March 26, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Wait A Minute", published May 28, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Solid Start," published January 8, 2018 and "The Revenge Of Animal Spirits," published October 30, 2017. Both available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Domino dynamics continue escalating within the EM universe confirming that a major bear market is underway. Several global cyclical market segments have recently experienced technical breakdowns. This confirms that global growth is slowing. It is not too late to short/sell EM risk assets. We reiterate the long Indian / short Chinese banks equity trade. Feature The selloff in global risk assets continues to exhibit a pattern of falling dominos. It began with the breakdown in the weakest spots of the EM world, Turkey and Argentina, and then spread to Brazil and Indonesia. Only weeks later it hit other vulnerable EM markets such as South Africa. During this period, north Asian stocks and currencies - Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese - displayed resilience. It was tempting to argue that the EM selloff was being driven by idiosyncratic risks and was limited to current account deficit countries vulnerable to U.S. Federal Reserve tightening. However, in recent weeks these north Asian markets have plunged - making the EM selloff largely broad-based and pervasive. In our June 14 report,1 we argued that major and drawn-out financial market downturns usually occur in phases and often resemble a domino effect. Since then, the domino effect has escalated confirming our bias that EMs are in a major bear market. Several important markets and cyclical market segments have recently broken down, and investors should heed messages from them: Copper prices fell below their 200-day moving average; they have also broken down the trading range that had persisted since last September (Chart I-1, top panel). The precious metals price index seems to be sliding through the floor of its trading range of the past 18 months (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Global cyclical equity sectors and sub-sectors such as mining, steel, chemicals and industrials have also broken their 200-day moving averages in absolute term (Chart I-2). They have also been underperforming the global equity index, which is consistent with the global trade slowdown that is beginning to escalate. Chart I-1Breakdown in Metals Prices Breakdown in Metals Prices Breakdown in Metals Prices Chart I-2Global Equities: Cyclicals Have Broken Down Global Equities: Cyclicals Have Broken Down Global Equities: Cyclicals Have Broken Down Although Chinese PMI data have not been particularly weak, anecdotal evidence from the ground suggests that the credit tightening of the past 18 months is taking its toll on China's financial system and economy. There are numerous reports about bankruptcies of Peer-to-peer lending platforms and struggles in other parts of the shadow banking system. The selloff in Chinese onshore A shares confirms this. Presently, this market has become less driven by retail investors as it was back in 2015. Hence, one can argue that portfolio managers on the mainland are selling their stocks because they believe economic conditions are worsening. Meanwhile, international investors have so far been more sanguine. Importantly, EM corporate and sovereign U.S. dollar bond yields are rising, heralding lower share prices (Chart I-3). Bond yields are shown inverted on this chart. The top panel is for EM overall and the bottom panel is for Asia only. Chart I-3EM Credit Markets Entail More Downside In EM Share Prices EM Credit Markets Entail More Downside In EM Share Prices EM Credit Markets Entail More Downside In EM Share Prices Chart I-4EM Versus U.S.: New Lows Lie Ahead EM Versus U.S.: New Lows Lie Ahead EM Versus U.S.: New Lows Lie Ahead Finally, the resilience of the U.S. equity index and corporate spreads has been due to robust domestic demand - the slowdown in global trade has not affected the U.S. However, odds are that the current global selloff continues to develop in a typical domino fashion. If so, the U.S. markets - equities and credit - will be the last dominos to fall but they will outperform their global peers. It is very unlikely that American stocks and credit markets will be able to sail through this EM storm unscathed. Notably, the resilience of the S&P 500 can be attributed to 10 large-cap stocks that are extremely overbought and likely expensive. This gives us more confidence to argue that this EM riot will meaningfully affect U.S. equity and credit markets. The link will be the U.S. dollar. The greenback will continue its unrelenting rally, which will trim U.S. multinationals' profits and weigh on the S&P 500. Bottom Line: EM risk assets are in a major bear market, and there is still a lot of downside. It is not too late to sell or underweight EM. This is despite EM's relative performance versus the S&P 500 is back to its early 2016 lows, as is the JP Morgan EM currency index (Chart I-4). News lows lie ahead. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM: Sustained Decoupling, Or Domino Effect?" dated June 14, 2018 available on page 17. Chart II-1More Upside In Long Indian/Short ##br##Chinese Bank Stocks More Upside In Long Indian/Short Chinese Bank Stocks More Upside In Long Indian/Short Chinese Bank Stocks Reiterating Long Indian / Short Chinese Banks Trade This week we revisit our long Indian / short Chinese banks trade that we initiated on January 17.1 The trade is up only 5.7% since inception (Chart II-1), and with more monetary policy easing occurring in China and the recent sharp rise in non-performing loans (NPL) in India, it is appropriate to reassess this recommendation. Having updated the stress tests on the largest public banks in both countries and performed a new stress test on five Indian private banks, we are reiterating our strategy of being long Indian / short Chinese banks. A Perspective On Credit Cycles In India And China Both India and China have gone through major credit binges over the past 10-15 years, albeit over different time periods (Chart II-2A and Chart II-2B). Chart II-2ACredit Boom Was Smaller In India...Than In China Credit Boom Was Smaller In India...Than In China Credit Boom Was Smaller In India...Than In China Chart II-2BCredit Boom Was Smaller In India...Than In China Credit Boom Was Smaller In India...Than In China Credit Boom Was Smaller In India...Than In China India's public banks have, in recent years, recognized bad loans and provisioned meaningfully for them. Non-performing loans (NPLs) for Indian public banks now stand at a whopping 15% of total outstanding loans, while provisioning levels have spiked to 7% of total loans (Chart II-3). Chart II-3NPLs And Their Provisions: India And China NPLs And Their Provisions: India And China NPLs And Their Provisions: India And China By comparison, Chinese public banks - the largest five banks, excluding policy banks, where the central government owns 70-80% of equity - are at the early stages of dealing with their troubled assets. Their NPLs and provisions stand at mere 1.8% and 3.3% of total outstanding loans, respectively (Chart II-3). Does such a wide disparity in NPL ratios between Chinese and Indian banks make sense? We do not think so. It is unlikely that Indian public banks are more poorly managed vis-a-vis Chinese public banks. All are run by government-appointed officials and are equally prone to politically driven and inefficient lending. Further, the magnitude of the Chinese credit boom since 2009 was considerably greater than India's during the 2003-2012 period. It is therefore highly unlikely that the resulting NPLs are substantially smaller in China than in India. In fact, several cases of Chinese banks hiding bad assets have recently been publicized.2 We strongly believe this phenomenon is widespread on the mainland, and that NPLs among Chinese public banks are being grossly underreported. It's All About Regulation The true vindication for this disparity lies in the drastically different stances that financial regulators in both countries have adopted to deal with the non-performing and stressed assets that their banks sit on. The Chinese authorities have been exhibiting greater forbearance with their commercial banks. For instance, in March, they lowered the provision coverage ratio for commercial banks. This is ameliorating Chinese commercial banks' short-term profitability and capitalization ratios. In brief, Chinese regulators have been very accommodative by allowing commercial banks to pursue "window dressing" of their financial statements and ratios. Indian regulators, by contrast, have been exerting relentless pressure on their banks to swiftly deal with their stressed assets at the cost of short-term profitability. For instance, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) recently introduced an extremely stringent framework for the recognition and resolution of NPLs. Indian commercial banks now have to immediately recognize stressed assets and find a resolution within 180 days. Failure to resolve a stressed account forces banks to take the defaulter to court in order to initiate bankruptcy procedures. Bottom Line: India has taken painful measures to push its banks to clean up their balance sheets. By comparison, China has so far been kicking the can down the road with respect to its banking system. As a result, the banks' balance sheet cleansing cycle is much more advanced in India than in China. Public Banks Stress Tests Below we present our updated stress tests which we performed on India's top seven public banks and China's top five public commercial banks (excluding policy banks). We used the following assumptions in our analysis (Tables II-1 and II-2): Table II-1Stress Test Of Top 7 Indian Public Banks Mind The Breakdowns Mind The Breakdowns Table II-2Stress Test Of Top 5 Chinese Public Banks Mind The Breakdowns Mind The Breakdowns Indian non-performing risk-weighted assets (NPA) to rise to 16% (optimistic), 18% (baseline), and 19% (pessimistic), up from 15% currently. For China, we assume NPAs to rise to 10% (optimistic), 12% (baseline), and 13% (pessimistic), up from 1.6% currently. Provided the magnitude and duration of China's credit boom has considerably surpassed that of India, the assumption of this stress test that NPAs will rise to 12% in China but 18% in India implies that Chinese public banks allocated credit much better than their Indian peers. Hence, this exercise in no way favored Indian banks over Chinese ones. We used risk-weighted assets to calculate losses. Risk-weighting adjusts bank assets for their riskiness which in turn makes comparisons between the two banking systems more sensible. Finally, we assumed a 30% recovery ratio (RR) for both countries. The RR on Chinese banks' NPLs from 2001 to 2005 was 20%. This occurred amid much stronger nominal and real growth. Thus, a 30% RR rate today is not low. The outcome of the tests are as follows: Under the baseline scenario of 18% NPA in India and 12% NPA in China, losses post recovery and provisions amount to 1.8 trillion rupees in the former (1.3% of GDP) and RMB 3.3 trillion in the latter (3.9% of GDP) (Tables II-1 and II-2, column 6). These losses would impair 41% of equity capital in India and 44% in China (Tables II-1 and II-2, column 7). Adjusting the current price-to-book value (PBV) ratios for public banks in both countries to the equity impairment under the baseline scenario lifts their PBV ratios to 1.5 in India and 1.7 in China (Tables II-1 and II-2, column 8). Assuming a 1.3 fair PBV ratio3 for banks in both countries, Indian banks appear overvalued by 15% and Chinese banks by 29% (Tables II-1 and II-2, last column). In other words, after the recognition and provisioning of reasonable levels of NPA, Indian public banks appear less overvalued than their Chinese counterparts. These results make sense to us; Indian public banks have been provisioning aggressively for their troubled assets, and bad news is somewhat discounted in their share prices. Chart II-4Loan Write-Offs Have Been Much ##br##Greater In India Than In China Mind The Breakdowns Mind The Breakdowns Remarkably, Indian public banks have also been writing off more bad loans than their Chinese counterparts. Chart II-4 shows cumulated write-offs of these public banks in India and China since 2010. Bad asset write-offs have so far amounted to RMB 1.2 trillion in China and 3 trillion rupees in India. This is equivalent to 2% and 8% as a share of current risk-weighted assets, respectively. Another way to compare and analyze NPA cycles between two countries is to assess the progress that each country has made toward resolving the full amount of outstanding bad assets - i.e. a full NPA cycle. We define a full NPA cycle in the following way: Total NPA losses under our baseline scenario, plus cumulated past write-offs. In order to measure progress toward resolving the full NPA cycle, we take the ratio of the stock of provisions plus cumulated write-offs and divide that by the full NPA cycle losses (i.e. [provisions + write-offs] / full NPA cycle losses). In India, assuming that NPAs on its largest public banks reach 18% of risk weighted assets - then the full NPA cycle for India would amount to 9.4 trillion rupees, or 26% of current risk-weighted assets (i.e. 6.4 trillion rupees in NPA remaining plus 3 trillion in write-offs made). Meanwhile, India's public banks' progress amounts to 5.6 trillion rupees. This is equal to 60% of India's full NPA cycle. By contrast, Chinese public banks' full NPA cycle would amount to RMB 8 trillion (or 14% of risk-weighted assets) under our baseline scenario. Further, China's banks progress amounts to RMB 2.6 trillion. This is equivalent to only 33% of the full NPA cycle in China. Hence, Indian public banks are closer to their peak NPA cycle versus their Chinese counterparts. Note that this particular analysis assumes no recovery in bad loans in either country. Further, the above analysis does not attune for the fact that Chinese banks have more risky off-balance sheet assets than their Indian peers. Incorporating off-balance sheet assets and liabilities would make the stress tests much more favorable for Indian public banks relative to China. Stress Test For India's Private Banks Private banks are a part of our long Indian / short Chinese banks trade. Indian private banks are also not insulated from regulatory clean-up efforts. In recent years, these lenders significantly boosted their credit to the consumer and service sectors. Higher than normal defaults have not yet transpired but this is a scenario that cannot be ruled out given the frantic pace of lending (Chart II-5). We performed a stress test on five4 large Indian private banks as well (Table II-3): Chart II-5India: Consumer And Service ##br##Credit Is Booming India: Consumer And Service Credit Is Booming India: Consumer And Service Credit Is Booming Table II-3Stress Test Of 5 Large Indian Private Banks Mind The Breakdowns Mind The Breakdowns We assumed the following NPA scenarios: 6% (optimistic), 8% (baseline), and 9% (pessimistic), up from 5% currently. Similar to the above analysis, we used risk-weighted assets to calculate asset losses, though we used a recovery ratio of 50% for private banks instead of 30% for public banks. The basis is that private banks' lending has been concentrated on consumer loans and mortgages and the recovery ratio on these loans will likely be higher - especially taking into consideration the quality of collateral. Our results are as follows: Under the baseline scenario of an 8% NPA ratio, 7% of these private banks' equity would be impaired (Table II-3, column 7). The adjusted PBV would move to 3.9. This compares to a fair value of 3.3 for Indian private banks (Table II-3, column 8), which is the historical PBV mean of private banks in India. In other words, Indian private banks are overvalued by 18% - slightly more than their public peers (Table II-3, column 9). Bottom Line: Indian private banks are overvalued too but less so than Chinese public banks. Investment Conclusions We reiterate our long Indian / short Chinese banks equity trade, initiated on January 17. We track the performance of this recommendation using the BSE's Bankex index for India and the MSCI Investable bank index for China in common currency terms - currency unhedged. In addition, among Chinese-listed banks, we maintain our short small / long large banks (Chart II-6). Smaller banks are more leveraged as well as exposed to non-standard assets and regulatory tightening than large public banks. Finally, the Indian bourse's relative performance against the EM equity benchmark negatively correlates with oil prices - the oil price is shown inverted on this chart (Chart II-7). Chart II-6Stay Short Chinese Small / Long Large Banks Stay Short Chinese Small/Long Large Banks Stay Short Chinese Small/Long Large Banks Chart II-7India's Relative Equity Performance To EM And Oil Prices India's Relative Equity Performance To EM And Oil Prices India's Relative Equity Performance To EM And Oil Prices Given BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service expects oil prices to drop meaningfully in the second half of this year,5 this should help Indian equities outperform their EM peers. Besides, Indian banks are more advanced than many of their EM peers in terms of bad assets recognition and provisioning and that should also help the Indian bourse outperform the EM overall equity index in common currency terms. We reiterate our overweight stance on Indian equities within a fully invested EM equity portfolio. In contrast, we are neutral on China's investable stock index's relative performance versus the EM stock index. The main reason why we have not underweighted the Chinese bourse - despite our negative view on China - is the exchange rate; the potential downside in the value of the RMB versus the U.S. dollar in the next six months is less than potential downside in many other EM exchange rates. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Long Indian / Short Chinese Banks" dated January 17, 2018 available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the following article: http://www.scmp.com/business/banking-finance/article/2139904/pressure-chinas-banks-report-bad-debt-good-news-foreign 3 It is the average PBV ratio for EM banks since 2011. 4 HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Axis Bank, Yes Bank, and IDFC Bank. 5 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "China's Crude Oil Inventories: A Slippery Slope" dated June 21, 2018 available on page 17. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of June 29, 2018. The model has reduced weights in Italy, the U.S., the Netherlands and France to beef up weights in Spain, Australia, Canada, Switzerland and Germany. After these adjustments, Australia is now upgraded to overweight from neutral and Italy is downgraded to neutral from overweight, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates As shown in Table 2 and Chart 1, Chart 2 and Chart 3, the overall model outperformed its benchmark by 34 bps in June, largely driven by the Level 2 model which outperformed its benchmark by 87 bps. The Level 1 model performed in line with its benchmark in June. Since going live, Level 2 and Level 1 have outperformed their respective benchmarks by 171 bps and 5bps, resulting in overall model outperformance of 47 bps. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model," dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Mode (Chart 4) is updated as of June 30, 2018. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Table 4Performance Since Going Live GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Following our Quarterly Update that was released yesterday, the model corroborates the defensive stance with an aggregate underweight of 5.8% in cyclical sectors. The switch to a defensive mode was driven by a weaker growth outlook. The upgraded sectors were consumer staples and health care. Additionally, the model has turned more negative on the two largest sectors - financials and technology. Resources-based sectors remain unattractive on the back of weaker growth outlook. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," dated July 27, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Five key drivers - late cycle dynamics, likelihood of pricing power regulatory relief, the rising U.S. dollar, firming operating metrics and investor and analyst capitulation- all suggest that it no longer pays to be bearish the S&P pharma and S&P biotech indexes. Lift to neutral. This also raises the S&P health care sector exposure to neutral, as these two heavyweight health care sub-indexes command a 49% weighting in the sector. Recent Changes Act on the upgrade alert and lift the S&P pharma and S&P biotech indexes to neutral today for a profit of 14.5% and 13.9%, respectively since inception (we are also removing the S&P pharma index from our high-conviction underweight list). Lock in gains in the S&P health care sector of 5.3% since inception and upgrade exposure to a benchmark allocation today. Table 1 Recalibrating Recalibrating Feature Stocks continued to wrestle with escalating geopolitical threats last week, but remained resilient. While the global trade soft patch could morph into a steep contraction if protectionism proliferates, our working assumption is that the executive branch's bark will be worse than its bite. The SPX is in the midst of a recalibration to a cooling in EPS momentum in calendar 2019 as we have been highlighting in recent research, and were the U.S. dollar to continue its ascent in the back half of the year, the sell-side's calendar 2019 almost 10% growth estimate will sink like a stone. This remains our number one downside risk that we are closely monitoring, though it should be reasonably contained by mounting signs of a healthier corporate sector and an easing in financial stress (Chart 1). This week we are updating our corporate pricing power proxy that has reaccelerated. Importantly, the breadth of the surge has gone parabolic, which bodes well for its staying power (second panel, Chart 2). This firming corporate inflation backdrop suggests that businesses have been successful in passing on skyrocketing input costs down the supply chain, and thus implies that final demand remains robust. Chart 1Reset Reset Reset Chart 2Pricing Power Flexing Its Muscles Pricing Power Flexing Its Muscles Pricing Power Flexing Its Muscles On the flip side, rising labor costs have stabilized. Compensation growth remains contained, and according to our diffusion index, just over half of the 44 industries we track have to contend with rising wages. In addition, the Atlanta Fed Wage Growth Tracker switcher/stayer index provides a reliable leading indication for the trend in overall labor expenses and it recently ticked down. In other words, pricing power is rising on a broad basis while wage inflation is moving laterally. Consequently, there are decent odds that upbeat forward operating margin expectations are attainable, further prolonging the near two year margin expansion phase (bottom panel, Chart 2). Delving deeper into our corporate pricing power update is revealing. Table 2 summarizes the results. As a reminder, we calculate industry group pricing power from the relevant CPI, PPI, PCE and commodity growth rates for each of the 60 industry groups we track. Table 2 also highlights shorter term pricing power trends and each industry's spread to overall inflation. Table 2Industry Group Pricing Power Recalibrating Recalibrating 80% of the industries we cover are lifting selling prices, and 45% are doing so at a faster clip than overall inflation. This is on a par with our late-April report. Chart 3Cyclicals Come Out On Top Cyclicals Come Out On Top Cyclicals Come Out On Top Outright deflating sectors increased by two to 12 since our last update. Encouragingly, only 7 industries are still experiencing a downtrend in selling price inflation, in line with our most recent report. Impressively, deep cyclicals/commodity-related industries continue to dominate the top ranks, occupying the top 7 slots (top panel, Chart 3). Despite the ongoing global export jitters, escalating trade war fears and year-to-date gains in the greenback, the commodity complex's ability to increase prices is extraordinary. In contrast, airlines, soft drinks, telecom, autos and tech populate the bottom ranks of Table 2. In sum, accelerating business sector selling prices will continue to underpin top line growth in the back half of the year. Recent evidence of a slight letdown in wage inflation is welcome news for corporate sector profit margins and earnings. In fact, it will be critical for labor costs to remain tame or at least continue to trail pricing power gains, otherwise profit margins will be at risk of a squeeze. This week we are locking in gains and lifting a defensive sector to a benchmark allocation by acting on our recent upgrade alert on two of its key subcomponents. Upgrade Pharma & Biotech To Neutral... We are pulling the trigger on our recent upgrade alerts and are upgrading the S&P pharma and biotech groups to neutral from underweight, locking in relative gains of 14.5% and 13.9%, respectively since inception, and we are also removing the S&P pharma index from our high-conviction underweight list. As a reminder, we set the heavyweight S&P pharmaceuticals and S&P biotech indexes on upgrade alert, and thus the overall S&P health care sector, on May 22nd following the insight from our Special Report titled 'Portfolio Positioning For A Late Cycle Surge'. In more detail, health care stocks excel in both phases we examined - ISM peak-to-SPX peak and SPX peak-to-recession commencement (Tables 3, 4 & 5). This is largely due to the high-beta biotech sub-sector outperforming early with the more defensive pharma sub-group sustaining the outperformance following the SPX peak. Table 3Health Care Outperforms In The Late Cycle Recalibrating Recalibrating Table 4High Beta Stocks Outperform Early... Recalibrating Recalibrating Table 5...Defensive Stocks Beat Late Recalibrating Recalibrating Moreover, recent pricing power developments point to a softer than previously expected blow to drug pricing practices revealed in the President's recent speech. This is music to the ears of Big Pharma executives and can serve as a catalyst to unlock latent buying power in this traditionally considered defensive sector. While no bill has been drafted yet and we are awaiting more details, at the margin, this is a net positive for pharma and biotech top line growth at least from a cyclical perspective (Chart 4). The thesis we postulated last July was that the easy pricing power gains were behind the pharma and biotech industries and likely a secular decline in the ability of these groups to raise prices at a faster pace than overall inflation was in order (Chart 5). While this thesis remains intact from a structural perspective, in the next 9-12 months there is scope for some relief. Chart 4Overdone Cyclically... Overdone Cyclically... Overdone Cyclically... Chart 5...But Structural Issues Remain ...But Structural Issues Remain ...But Structural Issues Remain Beyond these two drivers, the trade-weighted U.S. dollar's year-to-date gains also signal that it no longer pays to be bearish this safe haven group. Chart 6 shows that relative pharma profits are positively correlated with the greenback as Big Pharma's domestically-derived earnings dwarf foreign sourced EPS. Keep in mind that the industry still dictates terms to the U.S. government, a key end-market. The opposite is true with regard to other governments around the world, especially in the key European markets, where the industry is a price taker. This partially explains the positive correlation with the currency. On the operating front, there are also signs of a bottom. Not only are pharmaceutical factories humming, but also our pharma productivity proxy (industrial production / employment) is gaining steam, underscoring that profits can surprise to the upside (second panel, Chart 7). Chart 6Appreciating Dollar Helps Appreciating Dollar Helps Appreciating Dollar Helps Chart 7Bullish Operating Metrics Bullish Operating Metrics Bullish Operating Metrics With regard to demand, pharma retail sales are expanding nicely and overall industry shipments are also rising at a healthy clip, at a time when inventories are whittled down (third and bottom panels, Chart 7). This represents a positive pharma pricing power backdrop in the coming quarters. In terms of investor and analyst sentiment, a near full capitulation has taken root. Relative share price momentum is steeply contracting close to 15%/annum, a rate that has previously coincided with cyclical troughs (second panel, Chart 4). Sell-side pessimism reigns supreme as pharma profits are slated to trail the broad market by a wide margin both for the next year and on a 3-5 year time frame. In fact, the latter just sunk to all-time lows (Chart 8). Analyst gloom is pervasive as relative top line growth expectations also call for a contraction in the coming twelve months. Valuations are as good as they get with the relative forward price-to-earnings ratio trading way below par and the historical mean (bottom panel, Chart 8). Finally, the S&P pharma and S&P biotech indexes are more alike than different, as biotech stocks have long had blockbuster billion dollar selling drugs and therefore have substantial earnings (unlike 78% of the NASDAQ biotech index that do not even have forward earnings) and are really disguised pharma outfits hiding under the biotech label. The biotech index also offers a near 2% dividend yield, on par with the SPX, but still trailing the S&P pharma index roughly by 70bps (Chart 9). As such, there is an inverse correlation of both indexes with interest rates. Not only are higher interest rates punitive to growth stocks, but also fierce competitors to fixed income proxies. The implication is that if the broad equity market reset continues for a while longer and the 10-year Treasury yield continues to fall, relative share prices will likely come out of their recent funk (Chart 10). Chart 8Full Capitulation Full Capitulation Full Capitulation Chart 9Close Siblings... Close Siblings... Close Siblings... Chart 10...That Despise Higher Rates ...That Despise Higher Rates ...That Despise Higher Rates Adding it up, five key drivers - late cycle dynamics, likelihood of pricing power regulatory relief, the rising U.S. dollar, firming operating metrics and investor and analyst capitulation- all suggest that it no longer pays to be bearish the S&P pharma and S&P biotech indexes. Bottom Line: Lock in profits of 14.5% and 13.9% in the S&P pharma and S&P biotech indexes respectively since inception and lift to a benchmark allocation. Also remove the S&P pharma group from the high-conviction underweight list. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P biotech and S&P pharma indexes are: BLBG: S5BIOTX - ABBV, AMGN, GILD, CELG, BIIB, VRTX, REGN, ALXN, INCY and BLBG: S5PHAR - JNJ, PFE, MRK, BMY, AGN, LLY, ZTS, MYL, PRGO, NKTR, respectively. ...Which Lifts Health Care To A Benchmark Allocation The S&P pharma and biotech indexes command roughly a 50% weighting in the S&P health care sector. As a result, their profit fortunes are closely tied and relative share prices tend to move in lockstep (Chart 11). Today's upgrade to a benchmark allocation in both of these sub-groups also lifts the health care sector to a neutral portfolio weighting. Relative share prices have been in correction mode for the better part of the past year and may now have found support near their upward sloping long-term trend line (top panel, Chart 12). Importantly, our S&P health care EPS growth model is making an effort to trough (bottom panel, Chart 12), and if the Trump Administration does not clamp down on pharma pricing power as initially feared and recently hinted at, then overall health care sector profits will likely overwhelm. Keep in mind that the bar for upward surprises is extremely low as analysts have thrown in the towel on the sector. Similar to the S&P pharma index, health care long-term EPS growth expectations have never been lower in the history of the I/B/E/S/ data. This is contrarily positive (third panel, Chart 13). Chart 11Joined At The Hip Joined At The Hip Joined At The Hip Chart 12EPS Model Says Trough Is Near EPS Model Says Trough Is Near EPS Model Says Trough Is Near Chart 13Underappreciated And Unloved Underappreciated And Unloved Underappreciated And Unloved We would not hesitate to lift exposure further to overweight were the Trump Administration to put forth a bill with minimal damage inflicted upon drug prices, were the green back to keep on appreciating and were a steep 'risk off' phase to grip the broad equity market. Bottom Line: We are acting on our May 22nd upgrade alert and lifting the S&P health care sector to neutral, crystalizing relative profits of 5.3% since the July 31st, 2017 inception. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights Global Growth: The divergence between strong U.S. and weak non-U.S. growth will increase in the coming months and culminate in wider credit spreads. The Fed's reaction to wider credit spreads will determine how Treasuries perform. High-Yield: High-Yield bonds will deliver excess returns in line with the historical average as long as default losses occur at close to historically low levels. This points to an unfavorable risk/reward balance in junk. Credit Curve: Investors should maintain a below-benchmark duration bias in their overall bond portfolios, but should lengthen maturities within their corporate bond allocations as much as possible while also maintaining a balanced or slightly up-in-quality allocation across credit tiers. Feature Chart 1Growth Divergence Redux Growth Divergence Redux Growth Divergence Redux Two factors influenced our recent decision to reduce the recommended exposure to credit risk in our U.S. bond portfolio.1 First, our indicators show that we are in the late stages of the credit cycle, meaning that small positive excess returns are the best case scenario for corporate bonds. Second, a large divergence in growth has emerged between the United States and the rest of the world, much like in 2014/15 (Chart 1). As was the case in 2014/15, such a divergence will put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar and eventually lead to a period of turmoil in U.S. risk assets - i.e. wider credit spreads and lower equity prices. Whether this turmoil translates into a playable rally in U.S. Treasuries will depend on how the Fed responds. First Spreads, Then (Maybe) Yields Chart 2The 2015 Template The 2015 Template The 2015 Template Using the 2015 episode as a template, we see that credit spreads widened sharply beginning in mid-2015. But despite the risk-off sentiment in credit markets, Treasury yields stayed roughly flat (Chart 2). This should not be too surprising. Since the weakness in global growth was concentrated outside the United States and a significant proportion of corporate profits are driven by foreign demand, a non-U.S. growth shock will have a more immediate impact on the U.S. corporate sector than it will on overall U.S. aggregate demand. Most of the latter is driven by the U.S. consumer who actually stands to benefit from a stronger dollar. Treasury yields and the Federal Reserve take their cues from overall GDP growth, not corporate profits. In fact, we contend that the 2015 widening in credit spreads was exacerbated by the fact that the Fed maintained its focus on overall U.S. growth and continued to signal a relatively steady pace of rate hikes. Spreads widened even further as the notion that the Fed would not bail out corporate bond investors took hold. Eventually, credit spreads widened enough by early 2016 that the Fed was forced to conclude that tighter financial conditions weighed significantly on the growth outlook. It then signaled a slower pace for rate hikes (Chart 2, panel 2), and only then did Treasury yields fall (Chart 2, bottom panel). The Fed's retreat also marked the peak in corporate bond spreads. We envision a similar pattern playing out this time around. Weaker foreign growth will first impact corporate credit, and eventually financial conditions may tighten so much that the Fed is forced to back away from its "gradual" 25 bps per quarter rate hike pace. However, with inflation much closer to target than in 2015, the Fed will be more reluctant to respond. A Less Responsive Fed Our Fed Monitor shows why this is the case (Chart 3). The Monitor is composed of indicators related to economic growth, inflation and financial conditions. It is designed so that a reading above zero signals that the Fed should be hiking rates and a reading below zero signals that it should be cutting. If we consider the three components of the Fed Monitor individually, it is clear that we have recently seen a fairly substantial tightening of financial conditions (Chart 3, bottom panel), but this has barely made a dent in the overall Monitor. The reason is that the components related to economic growth and inflation are on solid footing, and they are offsetting the message from the financial conditions component. In other words, with the output gap much narrower and inflation much closer to target than in 2015, the Fed will need to see more market pain before putting rate hikes on hold. Even if financial conditions tighten so much that a pause in rate hikes is justified, it is highly unlikely that such a delay will last for more than a quarter or two. The end result could be that Treasury yields see only limited downside, even as credit spreads widen. Chart 3Fed Can Tolerate More Market Pain Fed Can Tolerate More Market Pain Fed Can Tolerate More Market Pain China To The Rescue? Another possibility is that we never even reach the point of significant market turmoil and much tighter financial conditions. Non-U.S. growth might recover in the months ahead, ushering in a renewed synchronized global recovery that prevents corporate bond spreads from widening. The most likely driver of such a revival would be significant policy easing from China that puts a floor under global growth before U.S. financial markets feel much pain. Chart 4 shows that China did ease monetary conditions dramatically in 2015 as U.S. credit spreads widened. That easing was achieved through a combination of lower real interest rates, stronger credit growth and a weaker exchange rate. The evidence also suggests that Chinese authorities have started to devalue the renminbi in recent weeks, but so far the weakness is limited and overall monetary conditions have not eased at all. If China is attempting to spur a rebound in global growth, a lot more easing will be required in the coming months and it is not at all obvious that policymakers are willing to go down that path.2 If China does engage in a significant currency devaluation, it will obviously increase the foreign demand for U.S. Treasuries. However, in general, we think that foreign demand will exert less downward pressure on U.S. Treasury yields than it did during the 2014/15 period. This has less to do with Chinese official demand than with the simple fact that U.S. government bonds are now a much less attractive investment vehicle for conventional non-U.S. fixed income investors. After we account for the cost of currency hedging on a 3-month horizon, a typical European investor who wants to gain exposure to the U.S. bond market without taking currency risk is faced with a lower realized yield from a 10-year U.S. Treasury note than from a 10-year German bund (Chart 5). This was not the case at all in 2014/15 when hedged U.S. yields offered a huge advantage over bunds. Japanese investors are faced with a similar quandary. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield hedged into yen still looks attractive relative to a 10-year JGB, but the yield advantage is nowhere near the levels seen in 2014/15 (Chart 5, panel 3). Chart 4Policy Easing In China? Policy Easing In China? Policy Easing In China? Chart 5Less Foreign Demand For USTs Less Foreign Demand For USTs Less Foreign Demand For USTs U.S. bonds are much less enticing for foreign investors on a currency hedged basis because the Fed has raised rates seven times since 2015, while European and Japanese interest rates are still at the floor. This large rate divergence means that investors must pay a lot more to swap foreign currency for dollars. Essentially, foreign investors are faced with an unpalatable choice. They can gain access to elevated un-hedged U.S. Treasury yields only if they are willing to take on the substantial currency risk. If not, then they are better off keeping their money at home. The end result should be less foreign demand for U.S. bonds. Bottom Line: The divergence between strong U.S. and weak non-U.S. growth will increase in the coming months and culminate in wider credit spreads. The Fed's reaction to wider credit spreads will determine how Treasuries perform. High-Yield: The Good News Is Priced In Our measure of the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for default losses has recently widened to 260 bps, slightly above its long-run historical average (Chart 6). This tells us that if default losses during the next 12 months are in line with our expectations, we should expect excess high-yield returns of 260 bps over duration-matched Treasuries, assuming also that there are no capital gains/losses from spread tightening/widening. While the default-adjusted spread suggests that junk bonds are fairly valued relative to history, it's important to also consider the balance of risks surrounding our default loss assumptions. To calculate the default-adjusted spread we start with the Moody's baseline default rate projection for the next 12 months. It is currently 1.99% (Chart 6, panel 2). Then, we project the recovery rate based on its historical relationship with the default rate. This gives us a forecasted recovery rate of 48% (Chart 6, panel 3). Combined, the forecasted default rate and recovery rate give us expected high-yield default losses of 1.03% for the next 12 months (Chart 6, bottom panel). The only historical period to show significantly lower default losses was 2007, a time when non-financial corporate balance sheets were in much better shape than they are today. This is not to suggest that our default forecasts are unrealistically low. The economic and corporate landscape is consistent with a relatively low default rate. But that outlook can change quickly, and the historical record shows that the risk that we are underestimating future default losses is far greater than the risk that we are overestimating them. Gross non-financial corporate leverage is highly correlated with the default rate over time (Chart 7, top panel). It has flattened off during the past few quarters, but is likely to rise modestly in the second half of the year. As we have discussed in prior reports, corporate revenue growth is elevated but close to peaking, and labor costs are just now starting to ramp up. Even a small moderation in profit growth will be enough for leverage to start moving higher.3 Chart 6High-Yield Expected Returns High-Yield Expected Returns High-Yield Expected Returns Chart 7Macro Drivers Of The Default Rate Macro Drivers Of The Default Rate Macro Drivers Of The Default Rate Interest coverage is also still consistent with a low default rate (Chart 7, panel 2). But the combination of peaking profit growth and rising interest rates clearly biases it lower going forward. Other indicators that correlate strongly with corporate defaults, such as layoff announcements and C&I lending standards, also remain supportive for the time being (Chart 7, bottom 2 panels). Bottom Line: High-Yield bonds will deliver excess returns in line with the historical average as long as default losses occur at close to historically low levels. This points to an unfavorable risk/reward balance in junk. Considering The Credit Curve Two weeks ago we examined the risk/reward proposition of moving down in quality within an allocation to investment grade corporate bonds.4 We concluded that a move down the rating scale has a greater positive impact on risk-adjusted portfolio performance when excess return volatility and index duration-times-spread (DTS) are low. With index DTS currently elevated, now is not the best time to move down-in-quality. This week we perform a similar analysis using the maturity buckets of the investment grade corporate bond index. Charts 8-11 show four excess return Bond Maps. The horizontal axes of these maps show the number of months of average spread widening required for each maturity bucket to underperform duration-matched Treasuries by the return threshold indicated in the chart's title. Buckets plotting further to the left require more months of spread widening, and are thus less risky. Chart 8Investment Grade Corporate Excess Return ##br##Bond Map: +/- 50 BPs Threshold Out Of Sync Out Of Sync Chart 9Investment Grade Corporate Excess Return ##br##Bond Map: +/- 100 BPs Threshold Out Of Sync Out Of Sync Chart 10Investment Grade Corporate Excess Return##br## Bond Map: +/- 200 BPs Threshold Out Of Sync Out Of Sync Chart 11Investment Grade Corporate Excess Return ##br##Bond Map: +/- 300 BPs Threshold Out Of Sync Out Of Sync The vertical axes of the maps show the number of months of average spread tightening required for each maturity bucket to outperform duration-matched Treasuries by the return threshold indicated in the chart's title. Buckets plotting closer to the top require fewer months of spread tightening, and thus provide greater potential reward. Much like what we found with the different credit tiers, the maturity buckets tend to cluster together when we set a low return threshold. The risk/reward trade-off becomes more linear as the return threshold increases. We can therefore conclude that shorter maturities offer similar return potential to longer maturities when return volatility is low, along with less risk. The risk-adjusted advantage in low maturity buckets disappears as we transition into higher volatility environments. At the moment, average index DTS is elevated compared to other non-recession periods. There is no obvious advantage to maintaining a bias toward the short maturity buckets. Fundamental Drivers In addition to the risk/reward trade-offs shown in our Bond Maps, we also identify two fundamental drivers of relative performance across the corporate maturity spectrum. First, we notice that while long maturities offer a substantial spread advantage over short maturities, the advantage is entirely driven by differences in duration (Chart 12). Logically, if the duration difference between the short and long ends of the curve were to decline, then the option-adjusted spread term structure would flatten. In fact, this is exactly what should transpire as Treasury yields rise (Chart 12, bottom panel). The second factor that can influence the credit spread curve is the outlook for default losses. Short-maturity spreads widen more than long-maturity spreads when default losses increase. This is because only the highest quality firms are able to issue long maturity debt. Chart 13 shows that, after controlling for differences in duration, the credit spread curve is inversely correlated with default losses. Higher default losses coincide with a flatter spread curve, and vice-versa. A model of the credit spread curve (duration-adjusted) versus expected default losses shows that the curve is currently fairly valued relative to our optimistic default loss assumptions (Chart 13, bottom panel). In other words, if default losses were to surprise to the upside, then the credit spread curve would appear too steep. Chart 12IG Term Structure Is Steep IG Term Structure Is Steep IG Term Structure Is Steep Chart 13Rising Defaults Flatten The Spread Curve Rising Defaults Flatten The Spread Curve Rising Defaults Flatten The Spread Curve All in all, our outlook for higher Treasury yields and the negative balance of risks surrounding our default loss forecast both suggest that investors should favor the long-end of the maturity spectrum within an allocation to investment grade corporate bonds. Bottom Line: Investors should maintain a below-benchmark duration bias in their overall bond portfolios, but should lengthen maturities within their corporate bond allocations as much as possible while also maintaining a balanced or slightly up-in-quality allocation across credit tiers. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Go To Neutral On Spread Product", dated June 26, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Now What?", dated June 27, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Go To Neutral On Spread Product", dated June 26, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty", dated June 19, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Please note that we are also publishing a Special Report on Mexico. Highlights The selloff in EM financial markets has been induced by slowing global trade amid lingering poor EM fundamentals. The Federal Reserve's resolve to tighten is aggravating the situation but is not the main cause of the EM turmoil. Consequently, the necessary conditions for a reversal in ongoing EM turbulence are not the Fed turning dovish but rather a bottom in the global trade cycle and China's growth. The latter two are not on the horizon, and we therefore believe there is much more downside in EM risk assets and currencies. Feature In our trip to Asia last week, the majority of investors we met attributed the current emerging market (EM) selloff to Federal Reserve tightening and trade wars. While we are not suggesting that the Fed tightening or trade war rhetoric have not impacted EM risk assets, we do contend that these reasons are inadequate to explain the selloff. In our opinion, the EM selloff has as much been driven by a slowdown in global trade as by expectations of higher U.S. interest rates and other factors. Diagnosing the underlying bases of a market move correctly is instrumental in gauging its sustainability and an eventual reversal. If one believes that the EM selloff has been due to the Fed, it would require the Fed turning dovish for the selloff to halt and reverse. If, however, the EM carnage has been driven by slowing global trade, the necessary condition for a reversal would be a bottom in the global trade cycle. In such a case, a dovish turn by the Fed or a drop in U.S. bond yields in and of themselves are unlikely to be sufficient. While EM risk assets could rebound for a couple of weeks on lower interest rate expectations in the U.S., any rebound will prove to be short-lived, and EM will resume their downtrend. Assessing the dynamics of both financial markets and the business cycle has led us to conclude that the EM selloff has been not only due to Fed tightening and the U.S.-China trade confrontation, but even more so due to a slowdown in global trade. The latter has transpired even though U.S. economic growth remains very robust. Chart I-1 illustrates that EM currencies and sovereign spreads correlate well with global trade growth. Since the beginning of this year, global trade and EM manufacturing have been decelerating, despite ongoing strength in U.S. demand. This, in our opinion, has been the main reason for the selloff in EM risk assets. In fact, EM manufacturing PMI and EM non-financials' corporate profit growth have rolled over since early this year, explaining widening in EM credit spreads (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM Cracks Have Opened As Global Trade##br## Has Begun Slowing Down EM Cracks Have Opened As Global Trade Has Begun Slowing Down EM Cracks Have Opened As Global Trade Has Begun Slowing Down Chart I-2Slowdown In EM Corporate Profits ##br##Explains Widening Of EM Credit Spreads Slowdown In EM Corporate Profits Explains Widening Of EM Credit Spreads Slowdown In EM Corporate Profits Explains Widening Of EM Credit Spreads In turn, Chart I-3 demonstrates that the correlation between EM corporate spreads and share prices on one hand and U.S. bond yields on the other is rather loose. Notably, U.S. bond yields are at the same level they were in early April when the EM-centred selloff began. Meanwhile, EM equity and credit markets have diverged from their U.S. peers since early April (Chart I-4). Chart I-3EM Risk Assets And U.S. Bond Yields: ##br##Loose Correlation EM Risk Assets And U.S. Bond Yields: Loose Correlation EM Risk Assets And U.S. Bond Yields: Loose Correlation Chart I-4The Recent Divergence##br## Between EM And U.S. The Recent Divergence Between EM And U.S. The Recent Divergence Between EM And U.S. In this context, an important question is as follows: Why are EM economies and financial markets more vulnerable to rising U.S. borrowing costs than the U.S. itself? In reality, the American economy, stock market and corporate credit should be more exposed to Fed tightening than EM economies and financial markets. Yet the U.S. economy, stocks and corporate credit market have so far weathered rising borrowing costs quite well. Most interest rate-sensitive segments such as mortgages for home purchases and the junk corporate credit market have remained resilient. Historically, the correlation between EM risk assets and the Fed funds rate has been mixed - albeit more positive than negative (Chart I-5). On this chart, we shaded the periods when EM stocks rallied despite rising Fed funds rate. Chart I-5EM Stocks And Fed Tightening Cycles EM Stocks And Fed Tightening Cycles EM Stocks And Fed Tightening Cycles The episodes when EMs crashed amid rising U.S. interest rates were the 1982 Latin America debt crisis and the 1994 Mexican Tequila crisis. Yet, it is vital to emphasize that these crises occurred because of poor EM fundamentals - elevated foreign currency debt levels, negative terms-of-trade shocks, large current account deficits and pegged exchange rates. Chart I-6The 1997/98 EM Crises Pushed U.S. Bond Yields Lower The 1997/98 EM Crises Pushed U.S. Bond Yields Lower The 1997/98 EM Crises Pushed U.S. Bond Yields Lower Dire EM fundamentals also prevailed before the Asian/EM crises of 1997-'98. These late 1990 EM crises occurred without much in the way of Fed tightening or rising U.S. bond yields (Chart I-6). In contrast, EM stocks, credit markets and currencies did well during a period of rising Fed funds rate in 1988-89, 1999-2000, and 2017 as illustrated in Chart I-5. Altogether, we conclude that rising U.S. interest rates in and of themselves are not a sufficient condition for EM to sell off. Only in combination with poor EM fundamentals and a weakening global business cycle are rising U.S. borrowing costs negative for EM financial markets. EM fundamentals have been and remain indigent since early this decade. The 2016-'17 rally in EM was due to improving global growth. Yet the global business cycle has rolled over since early this year. This, in combination with lingering weak fundamentals throughout EM and the Fed's tightening, has produced the current EM selloff. All in all, the ongoing selloff in EM risk assets has been mainly due to the slowdown in global trade/business cycle. When global trade expands, weak parts of the chain do well. Conversely, when global trade growth dwindles, these same weak links are the first to break. As we have argued repeatedly, EM fundamentals have remained destitute in spite of 2016-17 rally. Indeed as soon as global trade began decelerating, the weakest parts of the global chain cracked. Specifically, China's import volumes for many raw materials and commodities have decelerated significantly (Chart I-7A and Chart I-7B). Imports of consumer goods, machinery, and transport equipment remain strong (Chart 7A, bottom panel). We believe it is a matter of time before the ongoing slowdown in credit and capital spending brings about weaker imports of industrial goods and machinery. Chart I-7AChina: Imports Volumes Have Been Slowing Down China: Imports Volumes Have Been Slowing Down China: Imports Volumes Have Been Slowing Down Chart I-7BChina: Imports Volumes Have Been Slowing Down China: Imports Volumes Have Been Slowing Down China: Imports Volumes Have Been Slowing Down Even though consumer spending in China remains robust, it has had a limited impact on the global economy in general and the rest of EM in particular. Most consumer goods and services that Chinese households buy are produced and sold domestically by mainland companies. In short, China's impact on EM and the rest of the world are primarily via its imports of commodities/raw materials and industrial goods, which are very vulnerable. On-shore listed Chinese stocks are also signaling that a pronounced growth deceleration is underway. Even though the MSCI China investable equity indexes remain elevated, their onshore peers have plunged. Chart I-8A and 8B demonstrate that China's onshore listed stock prices - large cap, small cap and many sectors - have plunged to or below their early 2016 lows. Chart I-8AChinese Share Prices: Onshore And Offshore Markets Chinese Share Prices: Onshore And Offshore Markets Chinese Share Prices: Onshore And Offshore Markets Chart I-8BChinese Share Prices: Onshore And Offshore Markets What's Really Driving The EM Selloff? What's Really Driving The EM Selloff? Chart I-9New Cyclical Lows For EM Relative Performance New Cyclical Lows For EM Relative Performance New Cyclical Lows For EM Relative Performance This downbeat message from Chinese onshore equity prices along with the recent sharp depreciation of the RMB corroborate that the mainland growth slowdown is gaining speed, which in turn argues for a bearish outlook for EM financial markets. Bottom Line: Our diagnosis is that the selloff in EM financial markets has been induced by slowing global trade and China's growth deceleration amid lingering poor EM fundamentals. The Fed's resolve in tightening is aggravating the situation, but it is not the main cause behind the EM turmoil. Consequently, the necessary conditions for a reversal of the ongoing EM turbulence are not the Fed turning dovish but a bottom in the global trade cycle and Chinese growth. The latter two are not on the horizon, and we therefore posit there is much more downside in EM risk assets and currencies. EM relative equity performance versus DM has broken to new cycle lows for the small-cap and equal-weighted indexes (Chart I-9, top and middle panels). The market cap-weighted overall index will likely be heading to new lows for this cycle too (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Investors should stay short/underweight EM risk assets. Our recommended country allocation is presented below. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Oil markets are on tenterhooks, as unplanned outages; continued losses in Venezuela's output; pipeline bottlenecks in the U.S. shales; and a higher likelihood of sharper losses of Iranian exports are priced into global benchmarks. In our updated base-case balances model, we expect core OPEC 2.0 to front-load their just-agreed production increase, with ~ 800k b/d added to the market in 2H18, and just over 210k b/d in 1H19.1 This will lift the core's total output ~ 1.1mm b/d by the end of 1H19 vs. 1H18. This is offset by losses in the rest of OPEC 2.0 of ~ 530k b/d in 2H18, and just under 640k b/d in 1H19. This leaves OPEC 2.0's net output up ~ 275k b/d in 2H18, and down ~ 430k b/d in 1H19 vs. 1H18 levels (Chart of the Week). We keep demand growth at 1.7mm b/d in 2018 and 2019. Our base case is augmented with three scenarios: i) Venezuela production collapses; ii) a reduction in our forecasted U.S. shale production increase arising from pipeline bottlenecks; and iii) both of these occurring simultaneously in the Oct/18 - Sep/19 interval. Our revised Brent ensemble forecast for 2H18 now stands at $70/bbl, versus $76/bbl last month, reflecting the front-loaded OPEC 2.0 production increase. We expect the global benchmark to average $77/bbl next year, against our previous expectation of $73/bbl. We continue to expect WTI to trade $6/bbl under Brent during the next 18 months (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekOPEC 2.0's Core's Production Increase##BR##Offset By Non-Core Losses OPEC 2.0's Core's Production Increase Offset By Non-Core Losses OPEC 2.0's Core's Production Increase Offset By Non-Core Losses Chart 2Updated Ensemble Forecast Reflects Venezuela Deterioration, Shale Bottlenecks Updated Ensemble Forecast Reflects Venezuela Deterioration, Shale Bottlenecks Updated Ensemble Forecast Reflects Venezuela Deterioration, Shale Bottlenecks Highlights Energy: Overweight. We remain long call spreads along the Brent forward curve, given our belief upside risks will dominate oil markets. These positions are up 34.1% on average over the past four months they've been open. We expect backwardation to increase as OECD storage falls, supporting our long S&P GSCI trade, which is up 13.8%. Base Metals: Neutral. In a tit-for-tat response to U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum, the EU imposed import duties on U.S. products this past Friday. Canada plans to impose tariffs beginning July 1, while Mexico has already implemented duties on U.S. exports. Risks that ongoing trade disputes could escalate into a trade war are weighing on the metals complex. Copper retraced its early June jump, despite ongoing contract renegotiations at Chile's Escondida mine. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold traded down to the low $1,250/oz level as a stronger broad trade-weighted USD and rising real rates pressure the market. Ags/Softs: Underweight. In effort to diversify its source of imports amid the ongoing trade row with the U.S., China announced the removal of import tariffs on animal feed from five Asian countries earlier this week.2 Ag prices have fallen since the beginning of June amid fears escalating trade fights will bear down on U.S. farmers. Nevertheless, May trade data show China's ag imports have remained robust. Feature In recent weeks, markets have been buffeted by reports of a 350k b/d unplanned outage in Canada; 400k b/d of losses in Libya; continued force majeures in Nigeria's Bonny system; and indications Venezuela's production decline is accelerating: The country's U.S. refiner Citgo was left to fend for itself on the open market, in the wake of the failure of state-run supplier PDVSA to deliver crude. On top of that, markets appear to be pricing in as much as 1mm b/d of lost Iranian exports, on the back of increased pressure from the Trump Administration in the U.S., which is leaning on American allies to take Iranian imports to zero. In our modeling, we continue to expect 500k b/d will be lost to export markets, as a result of the re-imposition of sanctions by the U.S., but are watching the situation closely. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is attempting to get out ahead of an almost-certain tightening of the global market. In what appears to be hastily arranged leaks, the Kingdom signaled it already has undertaken a two-month production ramp - lifting its output to record levels this month and next: 10.8mm b/d in June, 11mm b/d in July. This is up from ~ 10mm b/d earlier this year, per over-compliance by KSA on its OPEC 2.0 quota of 10.54mm b/d. Russia, the other putative leader of OPEC 2.0, is signaling it will be able to contribute ~ 200k b/d over 2H18, vs production of ~ 11.2mm b/d at present.3 OPEC 2.0 Front-Loads Output Hike Lacking detail from OPEC 2.0, we are front-loading the coalition's just-agreed production increase in our updated base-case balances model, with ~ 800k b/d added to the market in 2H18, and just over 210k b/d in 1H19. This lifts core OPEC 2.0's output ~ 1.1mm b/d compared to 1H18 levels. Core OPEC 2.0's increased production will be offset by continued losses in the rest of the coalition amounting to ~ 530k b/d in 2H18, and ~ 640k b/d in 1H19. This leaves OPEC 2.0's net output up ~ 275k b/d in 2H18, and down ~ 430k b/d in 1H19 vs. 1H18 levels. Globally, we expect global supply to rise ~ 2mm b/d this year and next, averaging 99.9mm b/d and 101.7mm b/d, respectively. Our base case is augmented with three scenarios: i) Venezuela production collapses to 250k b/d from current levels of ~ 1.3mm b/d, which allows it to support domestic refined product demand and nothing more; ii) a reduction in our forecasted U.S. shale production increase arising from pipeline bottlenecks; and iii) both of these occurring simultaneously in the Oct/18 - Sep/19 interval. In our simulations, a Venezuela collapse would be met by OPEC 2.0's core producers lifting production another 200k b/d, which takes its total output hike to 1.2mm b/d in 2019. OPEC 2.0 does not respond to the temporary lower-than-expected U.S. shale growth contingency we're modeling, which is brought on by pipeline bottlenecks in the Permian Basin. On the demand side, we are keeping annual growth at ~ 1.7mm b/d in 2018 and 2019. For all the agita in the market at present - largely a function of increasingly acrimonious trade frictions between the U.S. and its allies and China - fundamentals remain well supported. Indeed, one of our key gauges, EM trade import volumes, remains well supported (Chart 3). EM import volumes are closely aligned with income levels - as income grows, import volumes grow. Likewise, as EM incomes grow, demand for commodities - particularly oil and copper - grows. Chart 3Growing EM Incomes Support Import Volumes,##BR##And Oil Demand Growing EM Incomes Support Import Volumes, And Oil Demand Growing EM Incomes Support Import Volumes, And Oil Demand Chart 4Balances Remain##BR##In Deficit Balances Remain In Deficit Balances Remain In Deficit As always, EM demand growth paces global growth, rising at a rate of ~ 1.3mm b/d over the 2018 - 19 interval. In 2018, we expect consumption to average just over 100mm b/d globally, while next year we're expecting demand to come in at 102mm b/d. Even with OPEC 2.0's production hike, the contingencies we're modeling - in Venezuela and the U.S. shales - along with weak net growth in overall production volumes for the better part of the next 18 months, leaves global balances in deficit (Chart 4 and Table 1). This continues to force OECD inventories lower over the next 18 months (Chart 5). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) OPEC 2.0 Scrambles To Reassure Markets OPEC 2.0 Scrambles To Reassure Markets Chart 5Physical Deficits Draw Inventories Lower Physical Deficits Draw Inventories Lower Physical Deficits Draw Inventories Lower Our revised Brent ensemble forecast for 2H18 now stands at $70/bbl, versus $76/bbl last month, reflecting the front-loaded OPEC 2.0 production increase. We expect the global benchmark to return to $77/bbl next year, against our previous expectation of $73/bbl. We continue to expect WTI to trade $6/bbl under Brent during the next 18 months (Chart 2). OPEC 2.0 Likely Taps Spare Capacity At this point it appears OPEC 2.0 could be forced to revisit its just-concluded deal to lift production, particularly if, as appears increasingly likely, Venezuela's production collapses, and the market loses its 1mm b/d or so of exports. The country reportedly is falling behind in meeting commitments to its customers, which deprives it of the cash to pay for additives needed to run its heavy oil as a charging stock in refineries. Venezuela's state-owned Citgo refinery operating in the U.S. reportedly is being forced to source crude away from Venezuela, as the barrels it relied on in the past no longer are shipping on schedule. Chart 6Unplanned Outages Are Back OPEC 2.0 Scrambles To Reassure Markets OPEC 2.0 Scrambles To Reassure Markets Unplanned outages are once again picking up, following a relatively tranquil period (Chart 6). We expect continued volatility in crude oil markets over the next 18 months, particularly if unplanned outages continue to rise, and OPEC 2.0 is forced to cover another event(s) similar to the most recent loss of production in Libya, where civil unrest took ~ 400k b/d off the market, and Canada (~ 350k b/d), where a power failure at Syncrude Canada's oil sands facility in Alberta shut down production. Chart 7Global Spare Capacity Stretched Thin Global Spare Capacity Stretched Thin Global Spare Capacity Stretched Thin On this score, the market is extremely vulnerable - the U.S. EIA estimates OPEC's spare capacity presently is ~ 1.8mm b/d, most of which is found in KSA. By next year, the EIA expects spare capacity to be slightly over 1mm b/d (Chart 7). Estimated 2018 spare capacity translates into 1.8% of global consumption this year, and a little over 1.0% next year, given our demand estimates of 100mm and 102mm b/d this year and next. By way of comparison, in 2007, spare capacity stood at 2.4% of global demand - 2.1mm b/d vs. 86.4mm b/d. This was the period when WTI prices were headed to $150/bbl, and OPEC was meeting demand out of spare capacity. EM Consumers Exposed China and India pressed OPEC 2.0 leadership to raise production, because, along with other large EM economies, they implemented fuel-subsidy reforms, which expose their consumers to higher fuels costs. This is a key difference in the current cycle vs history: Many more consumers are directly exposed to higher prices. Recent academic research suggests higher prices resulting from strong demand are not destabilizing to economic growth if they reflect rising consumer incomes. However, rising prices due to supply shocks are destabilizing to economic growth, and typically are followed by recession. Higher oil prices resulting from a supply shock - e.g., if Venezuela were to go off line for a long enough period of time - would force OPEC 2.0 and the U.S. shales to replace more than 3mm b/d of lost production. At this point, it is not clear they can do this in short order. Indeed, given the inelasticity of oil demand, it is likely demand destruction - via higher prices - would be required to balance supply and demand globally. Higher prices required to equilibrate markets almost surely would reduce EM oil demand - the dominant source of growth in our models - and derail the global economic recovery, if households' budgets are hit too hard by higher oil prices. Bottom Line: In our revised ensemble forecast for 2H18, we expect Brent crude prices to average $70/bbl, reflecting the front-loaded OPEC 2.0 production increase. We expect the global benchmark to average $77/bbl next year. We continue to expect WTI to trade $6/bbl under Brent during the next 18 months. Higher volatility is expected. We remain long call spreads along the forward curve, and expect backwardation to steepen, which will support our long S&P GSCI recommendation. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. This past week it agreed to raise production 1mm b/d beginning in July. The core consists of KSA, Russia, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar. 2 Please see "China drops tariffs on animal feed from Asian countries as U.S. dispute escalates," dated June 26, 2018, available at reuters.com. 3 Please see "Oil rises on supply losses, U.S. push to isolate Iran," published by reuters.com June 27, 2018, for reporting on KSA's intention to go to 11mm b/d. The number reported by Reuters for KSA's June production is slightly less than 800k b/d over the 10.03mm b/d production level for May KSA self-reported in this month's OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report. See also "OPEC, Russia Agree to Raise Production," published June 24, 2018, by egyptoil-gas.com. 11mm b/d would be record production for KSA. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table OPEC 2.0 Scrambles To Reassure Markets OPEC 2.0 Scrambles To Reassure Markets Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 OPEC 2.0 Scrambles To Reassure Markets OPEC 2.0 Scrambles To Reassure Markets