Policy

Highlights Many investors remain overweight equities; BCA recommends a neutral stance. Investors should position portfolios for rising rates. Fed Chair Powell weighed in last week on yield curve, the impact of the Trump administration's trade policies, financial stability and the level of the neutral Fed funds rate. More evidence of trade policy-related uncertainty, rising labor costs and deteriorating margins in the latest Beige Book. Feature The S&P 500 finished the week little changed, as investors braced for a wave of Q2 earnings reports this week and next. The S&P financials sector, which tends to lead the overall market, rose more than 1% last week, as the banks reported healthy Q2 results. The dollar sold off late last week after President Trump grumbled about the Fed's rate policy. BCA's view is that Fed Chair Powell will ignore Trump's comments on monetary policy and adhere to the central bank's mandate of low and stable inflation and full employment. Gold fell 1% on the week. BCA recommends monitoring the price of gold for clues about the neutral rate of interest. Fed Chair Powell's semiannual policy testimony to Congress dominated the headlines last week. Powell discussed trade policy, the yield curve, the neutral rate and financial stability. The week's economic data was robust, suggesting that Q2 GDP will be well above the Fed's view of potential GDP. Housing starts were soft in June, but the weakness was due to supply issues, not tepid demand. Widespread supply constraints were prevalent in the Fed's latest Beige Book. The strong economic data, along with a 23-year high in the number of inflation words in the Beige Book pushed the 10-year Treasury yield up 6 bps to 2.88%. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy team notes that the Fed's gradual pace of rate hikes toward a 3% equilibrium fed funds rate would be consistent with a cyclical peak in the 10-year Treasury yield between 3.30% and 3.80%. In late June, BCA downgraded its 12-month recommendation on global equities and credit from overweight to neutral. We still expect that the U.S. stock-to-bond ratio will grind higher in the next year, as U.S. stocks move sideways and Treasury yields climb. We recommend that investors put proceeds from the sale of equity positions into cash. Not all investors are being risk averse. The National Association of Active Investment Managers (NAAIM) says that active managers have increased their equity risk tolerance since the start of the year (Chart 1). At 89%, the average exposure of institutional investors is close to the cycle high reached in March 2017, which was the greatest since the S&P 500 zenith in October 2007. Furthermore, BCA's Equity Speculation Index remains elevated (Chart 2). Moreover, the asset allocation survey from AAII shows that investors' allocation to equites (at 69% in June) are in line with the 2007 market top (Chart 3). However, equity holdings based on this survey were higher before the peak in equity prices in 2000. Moreover, consumers' expectations for stock price returns in the next 12 months remain close to cycle highs (U of Michigan) and near 24-year extremes based on the Conference Board surveys (Chart 4). Despite the optimism, individual sentiment toward equities remains muted in some surveys (Chart 4, panel 3). Chart 1Active Managers Have Increased Equity Exposure This Year Chart 2Equity Speculation##BR##Is Elevated Chart 3Equity Allocations##BR##On The Rise... Chart 4Households Expect Higher Stock##BR##Prices In The Next 12 Months Individuals, banks and other financial institutions hold more equities today than at the height in 2007. However, insurance companies and pension funds' holdings of equites are not as elevated as they were in 2007 (Table 1). Somewhat surprisingly, households' cash positions are below the 2007 level and at a cycle low. However, the cash positions of financial institutions are four times as large as in 2007, partly due to the Fed's vigilance on financial stability. Pension funds and insurance companies have roughly the same allocation to cash today as earlier in the cycle (2012) and in 2007, just before the financial crisis. Table 1Asset Allocation: Comparison With Early 1990s Bottom Line: BCA's view is that the risk/reward balance for holding equities is much less attractive than it was at the start of the bull market in 2009. The economy is in the late stages of an expansion and is running beyond full employment. The Fed is raising rates. Moreover, equity valuations are elevated and forward earnings estimates are at their most optimistic in 20 years (not shown). The good news is already priced into the equity market. If macro developments evolve as expected, then we will shift to an outright bearish stance on risk assets later this year or early in 2019 in anticipation of a global recession in 2020. Absent a recession, we would move to underweight stocks if a wider trade war develops. We would consider temporarily moving our 12-month recommendation back to overweight if global equities sell off by more than 15% in the next few months. This shift would also be favored if our economic indicators remain constructive and the Fed either cuts rates or signals that it is on hold. 10-Year Treasuries: An Update BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service recommends that investors remain below benchmark in duration. However, at 2.84%, the 10-year Treasury yield is 27 bps below its 2018 zenith of 3.11%, which was reached in mid-May. Chart 5 shows that the drop in yields since that time reflects both slower economic growth prospects and weaker inflation. Investors are concerned about the impact of Trump's trade policies on global growth and those fears have been stoked by the recent run of poor economic data in the U.S. Oil prices and inflation breakevens moved up in tandem earlier this year, and both are currently rolling over (not shown). U.S. inflation is back to the Fed's 2% target and the central bank remains on course to raise rates two more times in 2018 and another four times next year. The market is pricing in only three more hikes in the next 18 months. The economy is at full employment. Moreover, at 3.6%, the average of the New York Fed and Atlanta Fed's Nowcasts for Q2 GDP growth implies that the GDP expanded well above the Fed's projection of potential GDP (1.8%) in the first half of the year (Chart 6). Moreover, the lagged effect of easier financial conditions suggests that GDP growth in the second half of the year will also be far above potential (Chart 7). Chart 5Inflation Breakevens##BR##Rolling Over Again Chart 6U.S. Economy Poised For Above##BR##Potential Growth in 2018 Inflation breakevens (Chart 5) are falling again despite mounting inflation pressures. The New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge (Chart 8, panel 4) climbed to 3.33% in June, its highest point since 2005. Moreover, wage inflation is trending up and the economy is beset with shortages and constraints.1 Chart 7Lagged Effect Of Easier Financial##BR##Conditions Will Boost Growth Chart 8Inflation Is##BR##Accelerating Bottom Line: Investors should position their portfolios for escalating rates. Global growth should bottom in the second half of the year and the U.S. economic activity reports will begin to outpace lower expectations. Moreover, with inflation at the Fed's target and mounting, inflation breakevens will adjust upward. BCA's position is that the Fed's gradual pace of rate hikes toward a 3% equilibrium fed funds rate would be consistent with a cyclical peak in the 10-year Treasury yield between 3.30% and 3.80%, well above current forward rates.2 Leading The Way S&P Financials provide a long lead time for market peaks. Table 2 shows that since the mid-1970s, a peak in the Financials sector relative to the S&P 500 occurs an average of 16 months before a peak in the overall index. The Bank (Industry Group) sector provides a similar warning (18 months), while the Investment Banking index's relative performance peaks 20 months before the S&P 500 tops out (Chart 9). Note that the leads times are slightly shorter in the last 15 years than in the 1976-2000 period (Table 2). Table 2Financial Stocks' Relative Performance Provides Early Warning Of Market Tops Chart 9Financials Lead The Broad Market In a recent report,3 BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy service noted that cyclicals and interest rate-sensitive sectors, including financials, perform well when U.S. fiscal policy is loose and monetary policy is tight. Furthermore, our equity strategists found that rising rates boost top-line growth for banks, while the impact of fiscal stimulus via lower taxes should support business and consumer demand for capital. Moreover, our U.S. Equity Strategy team examined sector performance in late cycles, defined as the period between the peak in the ISM Manufacturing Index and the next recession.4 Financials outperform the S&P 500 in late-cycle environments; in the early stages (peak in the ISM's index to peak in the S&P 500) financials underperform the broad market, but they outperform after the peak in the S&P 500 and the next recession. Bottom Line: Our equity strategists recommend that investors remain overweight financials relative to the S&P 500. The late-cycle environment, along with the favorable regulatory climate, suggest that financials still have some room to run. The implication is that the peak in the overall U.S. equity market is still over a year away. Until then, the Fed will continue to remain vigilant on the financial sector and financial stability. Staying The Course At his semiannual Congressional testimony last week, Fed Chair Powell reaffirmed that the Fed will maintain its gradual pace of rate hikes. Following his presentation, Powell met with legislators and discussed the yield curve, the impact of the Trump administration's trade policies, financial stability and the level of the neutral Fed funds rate. Powell repeated his June statement that the yield curve can be considered an indicator of monetary stance. Like Powell, BCA's position is that a steep curve signals that policy is stimulative and short-term rates will need to climb. The opposite holds if the yield curve inverts. A flat yield curve indicates that the policy stance is neutral. The 2/10-year curve has flattened to about 25 bps. Our view is that if the curve inverts with a few more Fed rate hikes, it would suggest that the neutral rate is lower than what the Fed believes and policy is becoming restrictive. Furthermore, BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy team anticipates that curve flattening will occur as the Fed lifts rates, but some flattening pressure will be mitigated by the re-anchoring of long-dated inflation expectations at a higher level. On tariffs, Powell stated that "in general, countries that have remained open to trade, that haven't erected barriers including tariffs, have grown faster. They've had higher incomes, higher productivity." He added that more and broader tariffs are bad for the economy. Furthermore, Powell said that the FOMC has not yet seen evidence that the trade uncertainty has affected wages, but he noted that the central bank is concerned that capital spending plans may be at risk. The latest Beige Book (see next section of this report) finds that the business community is increasingly apprehensive about trade policy. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service anticipates that trade-related uncertainty will remain in place at least until the U.S. mid-term elections in November.5 BCA views financial stability as a third mandate for the central bank,6 along with low and stable inflation, and full employment. Powell stated last week that financial stability vulnerabilities were "moderate right now," but he remarked that "we keep our eye on that very carefully after our recent experience." Chart 10 presents several indicators that the FOMC uses to assess financial vulnerabilities. Powell acknowledged the prominent status of financial stability when asked about the Fed's role. The central bank's Monetary Policy Report,7 released on July 13, has an entire section dedicated to financial stability. Powell spoke about the shape of the yield curve, saying it can relay a message about longer run neutral interest rates. BCA also recommends monitoring the price of gold for clues about the neutral rate of interest. Chart 11 shows that when the Fed funds rate is above its neutral or equilibrium rate, the 2/10 curve is flat (panel 3). Moreover, gold tends to appreciate when the stance of monetary policy is more accommodative and then the metal depreciates when the stance becomes more restrictive (panel 4). The steep decline in the gold price between 2013 and 2016 preceded downward revisions to the Fed's estimate of the neutral rate. An upside price breakout would signal that we should bump up our estimate of the neutral rate. Conversely, a large decline in gold prices would imply that monetary policy is turning restrictive. Gold prices recently headed lower. Chart 10FOMC Is Closely Monitoring##BR##Financial Stability Chart 11The 2/10 Curve,##BR##Gold And The Neutral Rate Bottom Line: The Fed will continue with gradual rate hikes until it believes policy has returned to near neutral. The yield curve and gold will help to indicate when that point is reached. Widespread Chart 12Inflation Words At A 23 Year High The Beige Book released last week ahead of the FOMC's Jul 31-August 1 meeting suggested that uncertainty surrounding U.S. trade policy remained an important headwind in June and July. The Fed's business and banking contacts mentioned either tariffs (31) or trade policy (20) a total of 51 times, an increase from 34 in May and 44 in April. In March, as President Trump announced the first round of proposed tariffs, there were only three mentions of trade or tariff-related uncertainty. Moreover, uncertainty arose nine times in July (Chart 12, panel 4); all were related to trade policy. A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis8 found that GDP per capita, wages and the investment-to-GDP ratio, all decline after tariffs are implemented (Chart 13). The study covered tariffs in 14 countries from 1980 through 2016. Importantly, the researchers noted that while the data showed that past tariff increases are followed by persistent decreases in economic activity, this evidence does not necessarily mean that higher tariffs triggered these changes. It is possible that other economic events may have driven tariff increases and ensuing recessions. Despite the headwind from trade, BCA's quantitative approach to the Beige Book's qualitative data continues to point to underlying strength in the U.S. economy, a tighter labor market and higher inflation. Moreover, references to a stronger dollar have disappeared from the Beige Book, despite the recent rise in the greenback. The report also finds widespread concern about profit margins. Chart 12, panel 2 shows that at 81% in July, BCA's Beige Book Monitor ticked up from May's 67% reading. The July reading was the highest since early 2016. The recent low in November 2017 at 53% was when doubts over the tax bill weighed on business sentiment. The number of weak words in the Beige Book hit an 18 -year low in July. On the other hand, the number of strong words climbed in July to a 30-month high. The 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act was noted 5 times in the latest Beige Book, up from 3 in May, but still far below 15 mentions in March and 12 in April. The legislation was cast in a positive light in three of the five mentions. The implication is that most of the good news related to the tax bill has already been discounted by businesses. BCA's stance is that the dollar will move up modestly in 2018. The trade-weighted dollar has climbed by 6% since mid-April, but the elevated value of the greenback is not yet a concern for Beige Book respondents. Furthermore, based on the handful of references to a robust dollar (only eight in the past eight Beige Books), the dollar should not be a meaningful issue for corporate profits in Q2 2018. We will provide an update on Q2 S&P 500 earnings in next week's report. The dearth of recent dollar references is in sharp contrast with a flood of comments during 2015 and early 2016 (Chart 12, panel 3). The last time that eight consecutive Beige Books had so few remarks about a strong dollar was in late 2014. The disagreement on inflation between the Beige Book and the Fed's preferred price metric widened in July as the number of inflation words surged (Chart 12, panel 1). Mentions of inflation in July's Beige Book were the greatest since at least 1995. In the past, increased remarks about inflation have led measured inflation by a few months, suggesting that core PCE may still rise. Chart 13The Economic Consequences Of Trade Wars Moreover, July's Beige Book continued to highlight labor shortages, especially among skilled workers in key areas of the economy. Shortages of qualified workers were reported in various specialized trades and occupations, including truck drivers, sales personnel, carpenters, electricians, painters and information technology professionals. Furthermore, several districts stated that a lack of workers was impeding growth. In addition, "widespread", which is part of BCA's inflation word count, was used 14 times in July to describe both labor shortages and swelling input costs, up from 11 times in May. We discussed the impact of escalating labor and input costs on margins in last week's report.9 The Beige Books released this year suggest that concerns about deteriorating margins is more prevalent in 2018 versus 2017. Only 57% of comments about margins in the first five Beige Books of 2017 noted deteriorating margins. In the 2018 Beige Books, 85% of references to margins indicated concern about higher labor, interest and raw materials costs. Bottom Line: July's Beige Book supports our stance that rising inflation pressures will result in at least two more Fed rate hikes by year-end and four next year. Moreover, the Beige Book confirms that labor shortages are restraining output of goods and services in some economic sectors. Furthermore, rising input costs are pervasive and will continue to pressure corporate profit margins. BCA expects both corporate profit growth and margins to peak later this year. The nation's tax policy still gets high marks from the business community, but the impact is fading. Ongoing uncertainty over trade policy will restrain growth. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Constrained", published July 16, 2018. Aailable at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary "Bond Bear Still Intact", published June 5, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report "Sector Winners & Losers When Fiscal Easing Offsets Monetary Tightening", published April 16, 2018. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report "Portfolio Positioning For A Late Cycle Surge", published May 22, 2018. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," published April 4, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate," published July 24, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/20180713_mprfullreport.pdf 8 https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2018/04/18/what-happens-when-countries-increase-tariffs 9 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Constrained", published July 16, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Subdued long-term inflation expectations and central bank bond purchases have suppressed the term premium. This is set to change, as quantitative easing turns into quantitative tightening and shrinking output gaps around the world start to push up inflation. The neutral rate in the U.S. is likely higher than the Federal Reserve realizes, which could leave the Fed behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. A spike in the term premium is unlikely this year, given the prospect of a stronger dollar and ongoing stresses in emerging markets. Next year may be a different story, however. Fixed-income investors with a 12-to-18 month horizon should maintain duration risk at below-benchmark levels. Asset allocators should keep equity and credit exposure at neutral. Within the equity space, investors should favor developed market equities over their EM peers and defensive sectors over cyclicals. Feature The Mystery Of The Falling Term Premium The yield on a bond can be decomposed into the expected path of short-term rates and a term premium. Historically, the term premium has been positive, meaning that investors could expect to earn a higher return by purchasing a bond rather than by rolling over a short-term bill.1 More recently, the term premium has turned negative in many economies (Chart 1). Not only are investors willing to forego the extra return for taking on duration risk, but they are actually willing to sacrifice return when buying long-term bonds. Chart 1Term Premia Across Developed Markets Are Low There are two main reasons why the term premium has fallen: Long-term inflation expectations have been very subdued, which has made bonds a hedge against bad economic outcomes. Central bank purchases have depressed yields, while forward guidance has dampened interest-rate volatility. Bonds And Risk Some commentators like to describe the riskiness of a security by how volatile its price is, or if they want to get a bit more sophisticated, the skew of its returns. But this is not really the right way to think about risk. As Harry Markowitz first discussed in 1952 in his seminal paper "Portfolio Selection," investors ultimately care about their overall level of wealth. If the price of a certain security goes up when the prices of all others go down, investors should prefer to hold this particular security even if it offers a subpar expected return. Bonds today play the role of this safe security. Chart 2 shows the rolling correlation between monthly changes in the 10-year Treasury bond yield and the S&P 500. The correlation was generally negative between the late-1960s and late-1990s: Bond yields back then tended to rise whenever the S&P 500 was falling. This made bonds a bad hedge against lower equity prices. Chart 2Bond Yields Now Tend To Rise When Equity Prices Go Up Over the past two decades, however, bond yields have generally declined whenever the stock market has swooned. Since a lower bond yield implies a higher bond price, bonds have been a good hedge against equity risk in particular, and a weaker economy in general. As a consequence, investors are now willing to pay a premium to hold long-term bonds. This has bid up the price of bonds, so much so that the term premium has dipped into negative territory. Receding Inflation Fears Have Made Bonds Safer Why did the correlation between bond yields and stock market returns change? The answer has a lot to do with what happened to inflation. Bond yields can go up because of expectations of stronger growth or because of the anticipation of higher inflation. The former is good for equities, while the latter is typically bad for equities because it heralds additional monetary tightening. As inflation expectations became increasingly unhinged in the second half of the 1960s, inflationary shocks became the dominant driver of bond yields. When bond yields went up during that period, stock prices usually fell. That changed in the 1990s, as inflation stabilized at low levels and growth became the primary driver of yields once again (Chart 3). Chart 3Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have ##br##Remained Subdued For Over Two Decades Following the financial crisis, inflationary concerns were supplanted by worries about deflation. Falling inflation is generally good for bond investors. If inflation declines, the real purchasing power of a bond's interest and principal payments will go up. For investors who have to mark-to-market their portfolios, the benefits of lower inflation are especially clear. A decline in inflation will take the pressure off central banks to hike rates. This will cause the price of existing bonds to rise, delivering an immediate capital gain to their holders. Moreover, to the extent that falling inflation expectations typically accompany rising worries about the growth outlook, investors will benefit from a decline in the expected path of real interest rates. QE And The Term Premium While falling inflation expectations have been the most important driver of the decline in the term premium, central bank asset purchases have also lent a helping hand. In standard macroeconomic models, bond yields are determined at the margin by the willingness of private investors to hold the existing stock of debt. If a central bank buys bonds, this reduces the volume of bonds that the private sector can hold. To induce private investors to hold fewer bonds, bond yields must decline. There is no consensus about how much quantitative easing has depressed bond yields. A Fed study published in April of last year estimated that QE had depressed the 10-year yield by 100 basis points at the time of writing, a number that the authors expected to decline to 85 basis points by the end of 2017.2 Other studies found that the peak impact on yields has ranged from 90-to-200 basis points. One thing that is empirically undeniable is that there is a large international component to bond yields. The steep decline in the U.S. term premium in 2014 was mainly driven by the expectation - ultimately proven correct - that the ECB would launch its own QE program. Asset purchases by the Bank of Japan, along with its yield curve control policy, also contributed to lower bond yields in the rest of the world. Things are beginning to change, however (Chart 4). The Fed is now letting its balance sheet shrink by about $40 billion per month, a number that will rise to $50 billion in October. The Bank of England has kept its holdings of gilts and corporate bonds constant for over a year, while the ECB intends to start tapering asset purchases later this year. The Bank of Japan continues to buy assets, but even there, the pace of annual purchases has fallen from about 80 trillion yen in 2015-16 to 35 trillion at present. Meanwhile, the use of forward guidance - which was arguably even more instrumental in suppressing interest rate volatility and pushing down the term premium than QE - is likely to be scaled back, at least in the United States. Fed Chair Powell said on May 25: "I think [forward guidance] will have a significantly smaller role going forward." Incoming New York Fed President John Williams echoed this sentiment, noting in a Bloomberg interview that "I think this forward guidance, at some point, will be past its shelf life."3 Opening The Fiscal Spigots Just as central banks are purchasing fewer bonds in the open market, bond issuance is set to rise. Usually the U.S. budget deficit narrows whenever the unemployment rate declines, as strong economic growth draws in more tax revenue and spending on social programs drops (Chart 5). Things are different this time around. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects the U.S. budget deficit to increase from 2.4% of GDP in 2015 to 4.6% of GDP in 2019. Chart 4From Quantitative Easing To ##br##Quantitative Tightening Chart 5Unlike In The Past, The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even ##br##If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline The Trump tax cuts have imperiled the long-term fiscal outlook. Up until last year, the U.S. fiscal picture appeared much better than it once did. In 2009, the amount of federal debt held by the public was projected to exceed 250% of GDP in 2046. By 2016, that forecast had been reduced to 113% of GDP, thanks mainly to the economic recovery and slower projected spending growth on health care following the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (Chart 6). The Trump tax cuts have blown those forecasts out of the water. We estimate that government debt held by the public will increase to almost 190% of GDP in 2046 if current policies are maintained. Chart 6Trump Tax Cuts Have Put Debt Trajectory ##br##Back On An Unsustainable Path While the stock of debt, rather than the flow, determines bond yields in the standard bond pricing model, flows can still matter if they provide a reliable signal as to how large the stock of debt will be in the future. Given that changes in fiscal policy are often hard to reverse, the deterioration in the fiscal outlook suggests that the stock of government debt will be much larger than investors had expected a few years ago. This justifies a higher term premium today. Broken Accelerator? Subdued inflation expectations have kept the term premium in check, but the prospect of ill-timed fiscal stimulus raises doubts about whether this state of affairs will persist. What would happen to inflation if the economy found itself in an overheated state for a prolonged period of time? The truth is that no one really knows the answer to that question. Some prominent economists have contended that nothing terrible would transpire. They argue that the entire concept of the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU) is passé. In their view, the magnitude of economic slack determines the level of inflation, not the rate of change in inflation. Recent data provides some support to their views. Shrinking output gaps in much of the world during the past eight years have failed to raise inflation by very much, let alone cause inflation to accelerate to the upside (Chart 7). If an overheated economy simply results in modestly higher inflation, rather than increasing inflation, central banks have little to fear. A bit more inflation would allow central bankers to target a higher nominal interest rate, thus giving them greater scope to cut rates in the event of an economic downturn. Higher inflation could also improve labor market flexibility by permitting real wages to fall in the presence of nominal wage rigidities.4 In addition, as we have argued in the past, modestly higher inflation could make the financial system less susceptible to asset bubbles.5 Unfortunately, the case for letting the economy overheat is not so straightforward. For one thing, the relationship between inflation and unemployment tends to be non-linear. As Chart 8 illustrates, an economy's aggregate supply curve is likely to be quite shallow when there is a lot of excess capacity but rather steep when most of the slack has been absorbed. We may simply have not yet reached the steep side of the aggregate supply curve. Chart 7Developed Markets: Inflation Has Remained ##br##Low Despite Shrinking Output Gaps Chart 8Inflationary Pressures Tend To Increase ##br##When Spare Capacity Is Absorbed The experience of the late 1960s illustrates this point. Core inflation was remarkably stable during the first half of the decade, even as the unemployment rate continued to drift lower. In economic parlance, the Phillips curve was very flat. However, once the unemployment rate fell below 4%, core inflation took off, rising from 1.5% in early 1966 to nearly 4% in 1967 (Chart 9). Inflation ultimately made its way to 6% in 1970, three years before the first oil shock struck. Anchors Away The upward trend in inflation observed during the 1970s underscores another point, which is that there is no unique mapping between the unemployment rate and inflation. To use a bit of economic jargon, not only does the slope of the Phillips curve vary depending on what the unemployment rate is, but the intercept of the curve could potentially move up or down in response to changes in long-term inflation expectations (Chart 10). Chart 9Inflation In The 1960s Took Off Once ##br##The Economy Began To Overheat Chart 10An Increase In Inflation Expectations Can ##br##Cause The Phillips Curve To Shift Upwards Chart 11Market Expectations Versus The Fed Dots This is a point that Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps made more than fifty years ago. Friedman and Phelps argued that central banks could only stimulate the economy if they delivered more inflation than people were anticipating. Higher-than-expected inflation would push down real interest rates, leading to more spending. As the two economists correctly noted, however, such an outcome would only occur if people systematically underestimated what inflation would end up being. If people made inflation forecasts in a fairly rational manner, the apparent trade-off between higher inflation and lower unemployment would evaporate: Inflation would rise, but output would not be any greater than before. One of the errors that central banks made in the 1970s is that they kept interest rates too low for too long in the mistaken belief that slower growth was the result of inadequate demand rather than a decline in the growth rate in the economy's productive capacity and a higher equilibrium rate of unemployment. Today, the error may be in thinking that the neutral rate of interest is lower than it really is. As we argued several weeks ago, cyclical factors have probably pushed up the neutral rate quite a bit over the past few years.6 Neither the Fed dots nor market pricing are adequately discounting this possibility (Chart 11). Inflation is a notoriously lagging indicator. It typically does not peak until after a recession has begun and does not bottom until the recovery is well underway (Chart 12). By the time the Fed realizes it is behind the curve, inflation could already be substantially higher. The fact that the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge - which leads core CPI inflation by about 18 months - has risen to over 3% provides some evidence in support of this view (Chart 13). Chart 12Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator Chart 13Upside Risks To U.S. Inflation Investment Conclusions A sudden increase in the term premium could set in motion a vicious circle where bond yields rise and the stock market falls at the same. In such a setting, bonds would lose much of their appeal as a hedge against equity drawdowns. This could put even more upward pressure on the term premium, leading to even lower stock prices. Chart 14 shows that the MOVE index, a measure of implied volatility for the Treasury market, remains near historically low levels. Just as investors were too complacent about the possibility of an equity volatility spike earlier this year, they are too complacent about the possibility of an increase in bond volatility. Chart 14Investors Are Too Complacent Getting the timing of any change in the term premium is critical, of course. It often takes a while for an overheated economy to generate inflation. The unemployment rate fell nearly two percentage points below its full employment level in the 1960s before inflation took off. The U.S. economy is only now starting to boil over. Moreover, if the dollar continues to strengthen over the coming months, as we expect, this could put downward pressure on commodity prices. Thus, we do not foresee a major inflation-induced spike in the term premium this year. Next year may be a very different story. If inflation ratchets higher in 2019, the term premium could jump. The resulting tightening in financial conditions could pave the way for a recession in 2020. Fixed-income investors with a 12-to-18 month horizon should maintain duration risk at below-benchmark levels. We downgraded global equities and credit exposure to neutral last month. Within the equity space, investors should favor developed market equities over their EM peers and defensive sectors over deep cyclicals such as industrials and materials. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Note that the term premium and the slope of the yield curve are different concepts. The slope of the yield curve measures the difference in yields between two maturities at any given point in time. In contrast, the term premium measures the difference between the return on a long-term bond and the return an investor would receive by rolling over a short-term bill over the life of that bond. Unlike the slope of the yield curve, which can be observed directly, the term premium has to be estimated using market expectations of the future path of short-term rates. 2 Please see Brian Bonis, Ihrig, Jane, and Wei, Min, "The Effect of the Federal Reserve's Securities Holdings on Longer-term Interest Rates," FEDS Notes, Federal Reserve (April 20, 2017); Edison Yu, "Did Quantitative Easing Work?" Economic Insight, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Research Department (First quarter 2016); and "Unconventional Monetary Policies -- Recent Experience And Prospects," IMF (April 18, 2013). 3 Jeanna Smialek, "Powell Sees Significantly Smaller Role for Fed Forward Guidance," Bloomberg (May 25, 2018); and Jeanna Smialek, "The Incoming New York Fed Chief Talks About Inflation and the Yield Curve," Bloomberg (May 16 2018). 4 A low-inflation environment can have adverse economic consequences during economic downturns due to the presence of downward rigidity of nominal wages. Firms typically try to reduce costs when demand for their products and services declines, but employers tend to be unwilling or unable to cut nominal wages. In this context, higher inflation provides a potential way to overcome nominal wage rigidity as it helps real wages to adjust to negative shocks. When inflation is low, real wages become less flexible, making it more likely that firms will opt for job cuts as a means to decrease overall costs. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Tinbergen's Ghost," dated May 11, 2018. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S. Housing Will Drive The Global Business Cycle... Again," dated July 6, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The real culprit for the mushrooming U.S./euro area trade imbalance is the ECB, and specifically its post-2014 experiment with ultra-loose monetary policy. There could be a major sea-change in ECB policy after November 2019 when Draghi's Presidency ends - just as there was after the last two changes in the ECB Presidency in November 2003 and November 2011. The yield spread between 30-year U.S. T-bonds and German bunds has much more scope to tighten than to widen. The euro's undervaluation - as calculated by the ECB itself - will ultimately correct. European exporters and equity markets heavily exposed to exporters - such as Sweden's OMX - will find the going tough, one way or another. If a stronger currency doesn't hit them, then President Trump surely will. Feature Chart of the WeekThe U.S./Euro Area Trade Imbalance Is A Near-Perfect Function Of Relative Monetary Policy Here in London last week President Trump trumpeted one of his biggest gripes: "The European Union treats the United States horribly. And that's going to change. And if it doesn't change, they're going to have to pay a very big price... Last year, we lost $151 billion with the European Union. We can't have that. We're not going to have that any longer, okay?" 1 President Trump is absolutely right about the size of the U.S. trade imbalance with Europe. But he is wrong to place the blame entirely on "trade barriers that are beyond belief". At least half of the imbalance - including with Germany - has appeared since 2014 (Chart I-2). Therefore, by definition, this part of the bilateral deficit is neither a structural issue, nor about trade barriers. Chart I-2Half of Germany's Export Surplus Appeared After 2014 The Real Culprit For The Mushrooming U.S/Euro Area Trade Imbalance As we have identified on these pages many times, the real culprit for the mushrooming U.S./euro area trade imbalance is the ECB, and specifically its post-2014 experiment with ultra-loose monetary policy. This experiment has resulted in a significantly undervalued euro, which has made the euro area grossly over-competitive vis-à-vis the United States, as calculated by the ECB itself. The Chart of the Week provides the damning and incontrovertible evidence: the U.S./euro area bilateral deficit is a near-perfect function of relative monetary policy. Of course, the ECB is targeting neither the euro nor the trade imbalance; the ECB is targeting its definition of price stability. The trouble is that the ECB definition of price stability omits owner-occupied housing costs, and thereby understates true euro area inflation by 0.5 per cent. To the extent that the ECB thinks in terms of real interest rates based on its own (faulty) definition of inflation, this means that the ECB is setting real interest rates that are far too low for the euro area's true economic fundamentals, resulting in the significantly undervalued euro and the associated trade imbalance (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3Relative Monetary Policy Has Driven The Euro's Undervaluation... Chart I-4...And The Euro's Undervaluation Has Driven The U.S./Euro Area Trade Imbalance The bilateral deficit, by definition, is based on a true cross-border comparison, so it is tracking the 'apples for apples' real interest rate differential almost tick for tick, as our charts compellingly show. This true real interest rate differential is stretched relative to the fundamentals. In effect, while incorrectly measured inflation is deceiving the ECB, the mushrooming trade imbalance tells us that something is seriously awry. That something is not trade barriers that are too high; that something is ECB monetary policy that is too loose. The Target2 Imbalance Reaches €1.5 Trillion The ECB's ultra-loose policy has spawned another huge distortion: the euro area Target2 banking imbalance, which now amounts to an unprecedented €1.5 trillion (Chart I-5). What is the Target2 imbalance (Box 1), and why should we care about it anyway? Chart I-5ECB Policy Has Lifted The Target2 Banking Imbalance To Euro 1.5 Trillion BOX 1 What Is Target2? Target2 stands for Trans-European Automated Real-time Gross settlement Express Transfer system. It is the settlement system for euro payment flows between banks in the euro area. These payment flows result from trade or financial transactions such as deposit transfers, sales of financial assets or debt repayments. If the banking system in one member country has more payment inflows than outflows, its national central bank (NCB) accrues a Target2 asset vis-à-vis the ECB. Conversely, if the banking system has more outflows than inflows, the respective NCB accrues a Target2 liability vis-à-vis the ECB. Target2 balances therefore show the cumulative net payment flows within the euro area. The ECB has delegated its QE sovereign bond purchases to the respective national central banks within the Eurosystem. In the case of Italian bonds, Italian investors have offloaded their BTPs to the Bank of Italy and deposited the received cash cross-border in countries with healthier banking systems - like Germany. Strictly speaking, this flow of Italian investor cash to German banks is not the same as the deposit flight during the depths of the euro debt crisis in 2012. Rather, we might call it precautionary cash management. Nevertheless, in Eurosystem accounting terms it still means that the Bundesbank has a new liability to German banks denominated in 'German' euros, while the Bank of Italy has a new asset - the BTP - denominated in 'Italian' euros (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). The Target2 imbalance is the aggregate of such mismatches between Eurosystem liabilities denominated in 'German and other core' euros and assets denominated in 'Italian and other periphery' euros. Chart I-6The Target2 Imbalance Reflects The##br## Cross-Border Flow Of Italian Investor Cash... Chart I-7...To German Banks Does any of this Target2 accounting gymnastics really matter? No, so long as a 'German' euro equals an 'Italian' euro, the imbalance is just an accounting identity within the Eurosystem. But if Germany and Italy started using different currencies, then suddenly all hell would break loose. The Bundesbank liability to German banks would be redenominated into deutschemarks, while the Bank of Italy asset would be redenominated into lira. Thereby the ECB would end up with much greater liabilities than assets, and a solvency shortfall potentially equivalent to hundreds of billions of euros would end up on the shoulders of the ECB's shareholders - largely, German taxpayers. Some people might argue that by increasing the cost of a divorce, an actual split becomes less likely. But this reasoning is weak. As we have seen in recent election and referendum outcomes, the biggest risk comes from a populist backlash against the status quo. And populist backlashes do not stop to do a detailed cost benefit analysis. A Sea-Change For The ECB In 2019? Although the ECB is unlikely to broadcast the undesired side-effects of its ultra-loose policy, it must by now be acutely aware that it is spawning huge imbalances. The costs are rising while the benefits are becoming questionable. The irony is that the one euro area economy that arguably does need stimulus - Italy - has a dysfunctional banking system which makes ultra-loose monetary policy largely ineffective anyway. Despite record low interest rates through the past four years, Italian bank credit growth has been virtually non-existent (Chart I-8). As we pointed out last week in Monetarists Vs Keynesians: The 21st Century Battle, the M5S/Lega coalition government is right to say: Italy would be better off with fiscal stimulus, not monetary stimulus.2 Chart I-8Italian Banks Have Not Been Lending The ECB will end its QE purchases at the end of this year, though the central bank has promised to maintain its current constellation of negative and zero interest rates "at least through the summer of 2019". However, it might be problematic to extend this forward guidance much beyond that. This is because Mario Draghi's eight year term as ECB President ends on October 31 2019, and it would be difficult both politically and operationally to tie the steering hands of his successor, especially if he/she comes from outside the current Governing Council. Interestingly, the last two changes in the ECB Presidency marked major sea-changes in policy direction: in 2003, Jean-Claude Trichet immediately stopped the rate cutting of his predecessor, Wim Duisenberg; and in 2011, Mario Draghi immediately reversed the rate hikes of his predecessor, Trichet. We would not bet against another major sea-change at the end of 2019 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9A Sea-Change For The ECB In 2019? If the end of 2019 does mark a turning point in relative monetary policy, investors should plan for three medium-term repercussions: The yield spread between 30-year U.S. T-bonds and German bunds has much more scope to tighten than to widen. The euro's undervaluation - as calculated by the ECB itself - will ultimately correct. European exporters and European equity markets heavily exposed to exporters - such as Sweden's OMX - will find the going tough, one way or another. If a stronger currency doesn't hit them, then President Trump's vow that "they're going to have to pay a very big price" surely will (Chart I-10). Chart I-10If A Stronger Currency Doesn't Hit European Exporters, Then President Trump Surely Will! 1 At the joint press conference with Theresa May. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'Monetarists Vs Keynesians: The 21st Century Battle' July 12 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* This week's recommended trade is to go long gold, whose 65-day fractal dimension is close to the lower bound that has reliably signaled previous tradeable trend reversals. Set a profit target of 3% with a symmetric stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights President Trump is a prisoner of his own mercantilist rhetoric - there is more trade tension and volatility to come; China's depreciation of the RMB can go further - and will elicit more punitive measures from Trump; Gasoline prices are a constraint on Trump's Maximum Pressure campaign against Iran, but only until midterm elections are done; Brexit woes are keeping us short GBP/USD, but Theresa May has discovered the credible threat of new elections - we are putting a trailing stop on this trade at 2%; The EU migration "crisis" is neither a real crisis nor investment relevant. Feature General Hummel: I'm not about to kill 80,000 innocent people! We bluffed, they called it. The mission is over. Captain Frye: Whoever said anything about bluffing, General? The Rock, 1996 As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has expected since November 2016, the risk of trade war poses a clear and present danger for investors.1 The U.S. imposed tariffs of 25% on $34 billion of Chinese goods on July 6, with tariffs on another $16 billion going into effect on July 20. President Trump announced on July 10 that he would levy a 10% tariff on an additional $200 billion of Chinese imports by August 31 and then on another $300 billion if China still refused to back down. That would add up to $550 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, more than China exported to the U.S. last year (Chart 1)! Chart 1President Trump Magically Threatens ##br##Even Non-Existent China Imports Table 1Market's Couldn't Care##br## Less About Tariffs The S&P 500 couldn't care less. Trade-related events - and other geopolitical crises - have thus far had a negligible impact on U.S. equities (Table 1). If anything, stocks appear to be slowly climbing the geopolitical wall of worry since plunging to a low of 2,581 on February 8, which was before any trade tensions emerged in full focus (Chart 2A and Chart 2B).2 Chart 2AStocks Climbing The 'Wall Of Worry' On Trade Tensions... Chart 2B...And On Military Tensions Speaking with clients, the consensus appears to be that President Trump is "bluffing." After all, did he not successfully create a "credible threat" amidst the tensions with North Korea, thus forcing Pyongyang to stand down, change its bellicose rhetoric, free U.S. prisoners, and freeze its nuclear device and ballistic tests? This was a genuinely successful application of his "Maximum Pressure" tactic and he did not have to fire a shot!3 Yes, but the Washington-Pyongyang 2017 brinkmanship caused 10-year Treasuries to plunge 35bps from their July 7 peak to their September 7 low.4 Our colleague Rob Robis - BCA's Chief Fixed Income Strategist - assures us that this move in Treasuries last summer was purely North Korea-related, which suggests that not all investors were relaxed and expecting tensions to resolve themselves.5 President Trump may be bluffing on protectionism, on Iran, and on the U.S.'s trade and geopolitical relationship with its G7 allies. However, we should consider two risks. The first is that his opponents might not back down. Yes, we agree with the consensus that China will ultimately lose a trade war with the U.S. It is a trade surplus country fighting a trade war with its chief source of final export demand (Chart 3). Chart 3China Has More To Lose Than The U.S. Forecasting when China backs down, however, is difficult. If Beijing backs down in 2018, investors betting on stocks ignoring trade risks will be proven correct. We do not see this happening. Instead, we expect Beijing to continue using CNY depreciation to offset the impact of tariffs, likely exacerbating the ongoing USD rally in the process, and eventually putting pressure on U.S. corporate earnings in Q3 and Q4. China does not appear to be panicking about the threat of a 10% tariff. In fact, Beijing may decide to double-down on its structural reform efforts, which have negatively impacted growth in the country thus far, blaming President Trump's protectionist policies for the pain. The other question is whether the U.S. political context will allow President Trump to end the trade war. Our clients, colleagues, and friends in the financial industry seem to have collective amnesia about the "trade truce" orchestrated by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on May 20. The truce lasted merely a couple of days, with the U.S. ultimately announcing on May 29 that the tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports would go forward. President Trump may have wanted to present the Mnuchin truce as a big victory ahead of the midterm elections. His tweets the next day were triumphant.6 However, once the collective American establishment (Congress, pundits, and even Trump's ardent supporters in the conservative media) got hold of the details of the deal, they were shocked and disappointed.7 Why? The American "median voter" is far more protectionist than the political establishment has wanted to admit. Now that this public preference has been elucidated, President Trump himself cannot move against it. He is a prisoner of his own mercantilist rhetoric. President Trump may be dealing with a situation similar to the one General Hummel faced in the iconic mid-1990s action thriller The Rock. Hummel, played by the steely Ed Harris, holed up in Alcatraz with VX gas-armed M55 rockets, threatening to take out tens of thousands in San Francisco unless a ransom was paid by the Washington establishment. Unfortunately for Hummel, the psychotic marines he brought to "The Rock" turned against him when he suggested that the entire operation was in fact a bluff. As such, we reiterate: Whoever said anything about bluffing? China: Beware Beijing's Retaliation Since 2017, we have cautioned investors that Beijing was likely to retaliate to the imposition of tariffs by weakening the CNY/USD.8 June was the largest one-month decline in CNY/USD since the massive devaluation in 1994 (Chart 4). BCA's China Investment Strategy has shown that the PBOC is indeed allowing China's currency to depreciate against the U.S. dollar.9 Chart 5 shows the actual CNY/USD exchange rate alongside the value that would be predicted based on its relationship with the dollar over the year prior to its early-April peak. The chart suggests that the decline in CNY/USD appears to have reflected the strength in the U.S. dollar until very recently. However, CNY/USD has fallen over the past few days by a magnitude in excess of what would be expected given movements in the greenback, implying that the very recent weakness is likely policy-driven. Chart 4The Biggest One-Month Yuan Drop Since 1994 Chart 5The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has pointed out that currency depreciation is also a way to stimulate the economy in the face of the central government's ongoing deleveraging policy.10 Not only does a weaker CNY dull the impact of Trump's tariffs, it also insulates China against a slowdown in global trade volumes (Chart 6). Moreover, China's current account fell into deficit last quarter (Chart 7). A weaker RMB helps deal with this issue, but the PBoC may be forced to cut Reserve Requirement Ratios (RRRs) further if the deficit remains in place, forcing the currency even lower. Chart 6China Needs A Buffer Against Slowing Trade Chart 7Supportive Conditions For A Lower CNY There is no silver lining in this move by Beijing. Evidence that China is manipulating its currency would be a clear sign of an outright, full-scale trade war between the U.S. and China. On one hand, a falling RMB will improve the financial position of China's exporters. On the other hand, it may invite further protectionist action from the U.S., including a threat by the White House to increase the tariff levels on the additional $500 billion of imports from the current 10% rate, or to enhance export restrictions on critical technologies, or to add new investment restrictions. Several of our clients have pointed out that China does not want a trade war, that it cannot win a trade war, and that it is therefore likely to offer concessions ahead of the U.S. midterm election. We agree that China is at a disadvantage.11 But we also reiterate that the concessions have already been offered, in mid-May following the Mnuchin negotiations with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He. China and the U.S. may of course resume negotiations at any time, but it will likely take months, at best, to arrange a deal that reverses this month's actual implementation of tariffs. We think that the obsession with "who will win the trade war" is misplaced. Of course, the U.S. will "win." The problem is that what the Trump administration and what investors consider a "victory" may be starkly different: victory may not include a rip-roaring stock market. In fact, President Trump may require a stock market correction precisely to convince his audience, including those in Beijing, that his threats are indeed credible. Bottom Line: President Trump's promise of a 10% tariff on $500 billion of Chinese imports can easily be assuaged by a CNY/USD depreciation. If we know that Beijing is depreciating its currency, so does the White House. The charge against Beijing for currency manipulation could occur as late as the Treasury Department's semiannual Report to Congress in October, or informally via a presidential tweet at any time before then. While the formal remedies against a country deemed to be officially engaged in currency manipulation are relatively benign in the context of the ongoing trade war, we would expect President Trump to up the pressure on China regardless. Iran: Can Midterm Election Stay President Trump's Hand? We identified U.S.-Iran tensions in our annual Strategic Outlook as the premier geopolitical risk in 2018 aside from trade concerns.12 We subsequently argued that President Trump's application of "Maximum Pressure" against Iran would likely exacerbate tensions in the Middle East, add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, and potentially lead to a military conflict in 2019 (Diagram 1).13 Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tension Decision Tree The Brent crude oil price has come off its highs just below $80/bbl in late May and appears to be holding at $75/bbl. Is the market once again ignoring bubbling U.S.-Iran tensions or is there another factor at play? We suspect that investors are placing their hopes on White House pressure on producers to bring massive amounts of crude online to offset the impact of "Maximum Pressure" on Iran. First, Trump tweeted in April that "OPEC is at it again," keeping oil prices artificially high. He followed this with another tweet at the end of June, directly requesting that Saudi Arabia increase oil production by up to 2 million b/d so that he may continue to play brinkmanship with Tehran. Second, the Libyan media leaked that President Trump sent letters to the representatives of Libya's warring factions, imploring them to restart oil exports or face international prosecution and potential U.S. military intervention.14 The pressure on the Libyan authorities appears to have worked, with the Tripoli-based National Oil Corporation (NOC) ending its force majeure, a legal waiver on contractual obligations, on the ports of Ras Lanuf, Es Sider, Zueitina, and Hariga. Third, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signaled on July 10 that the U.S. would consider granting waivers to countries seeking to avoid being sanctioned for buying oil from Iran. On July 15, however, the administration clarified the comment by stating that it would only grant limited exceptions based on national security or humanitarian efforts. The White House is realizing that, unlike its brinkmanship with North Korea, "Maximum Pressure" on Iran comes with immediate domestic costs: higher gasoline prices (Chart 8). The last thing President Trump wants to see is his household tax cut trumped by the higher cost of gasoline. Chart 8How Badly Do Americans Want A New Iran Deal? Chart 9Iran Is Not Yet At Peak North Korean Levels Of Threat Applying Maximum Pressure on Iran is tricky. Politically, the upside is limited for President Trump. First, a majority of Americans (62%) do not want to see the U.S. withdraw from the deal, and do not consider Iran to be as critical of a threat as North Korea (Chart 9). That said, 40% believe that Iran is a "very serious" threat - up from just 30% in October, 2017 - and 62% of Americans believe that "Iran has violated the terms" of the nuclear agreement. These are numbers that President Trump can "work with," but not if gasoline prices rise to consumer-pinching levels. As such, the question is whether we should stand down from our bullish oil outlook given President Trump's active role in eking out new supply. We should, if there were supply to be eked out. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy believes that global supply capacity will not be sufficient to keep prices below $80/bbl in the event that Venezuela collapses in 2019 or that Iranian export losses are greater than the 500,000 b/d we are currently projecting.15 The U.S. EIA estimates there is only 1.8mm b/d of spare capacity available worldwide this year, to fall to just over 1 mm b/d next year (Chart 10). Our commodity strategists believe that the idle and spare capacity of KSA, Russia, and other core OPEC 2.0 states that can actually increase production would be taxed to the extreme to cover losses of Iranian exports, especially if the losses reached 1 mm b/d. In fact, many secondary OPEC 2.0 producers are struggling to produce at their 2017-2018 production quota, suggesting that lack of investment and natural depletion have already taken their toll (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Spare Capacity##br## Stretched Thin Chart 11OPEC 2.0's Core Producers Would##br## Struggle To Replace Lost Exports Could President Trump back off from the threat of brinkmanship with Iran due to the risk of rising oil prices? Yes, absolutely. We have argued in the past that President Trump appears to be an intensely domestically-focused president. We also see little logic, from the perspective of U.S. interests broadly defined or President Trump's "America First" strategy specifically, in undermining the Obama-era nuclear agreement. As such, domestic constraints could stay President Trump's hand. On the other hand, these constraints would have the greatest force ahead of the November 2018 midterm and the 2020 general elections. This gives President Trump a window between November 2018 and at least the early summer of 2020 to put Maximum Pressure on Iran. As such, we think that investors should fade White House attempts to shore up global supply. Once the midterm election is over, the pressure will fall back on Iran. What about Iran's calculus? Tehran has an interest in dampening tensions ahead of the midterms as well. However, if the U.S. actually enforces sanctions, as we expect it will, we are certain that Iran will begin to ponder the retaliatory action we describe in Diagram 1. In fact, Iran's population appears to be itching for a confrontation, with an ever-increasing majority supporting the restart of Iranian nuclear facilities in response to U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA nuclear agreement (Chart 12). Iranian officials have also already threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz as we expected they would. Chart 12Iranians Supported Ending Nuclear Deal If The U.S. Did (And It Did!) Bottom Line: Between now and November, U.S. policy towards Iran may be much ado about nothing. However, we expect the pressure to rise by the end of the year and especially in 2019. Our subjective probability of armed conflict remains at an elevated 20%, by the end of 2019. This is four times greater than our probability of kinetic action amidst the tensions between the U.S. and North Korea. Brexit: Has Theresa May Figured Out How Credible Threats Work? We have long argued that a soft Brexit is incompatible with Euroskeptic demands for increased sovereignty (Diagram 2). And, indeed, sovereignty was one of the main demands - if not the main demand - of Brexit voters ahead of the referendum. A large percent, 32% of "leave" voters, said they would be willing to vote "stay" if a deal with the EU gave "more power to the U.K. parliament," an even greater share than those focused on migration (Chart 13). As such, since March 2016, we have expected the U.K. Conservative Party to split into factions regardless of the outcome of the vote on EU membership.16 Diagram 2The Illogic Of ##br##Soft Brexit Chart 13Sovereignty Topped The##br## List Of Brexit Voter Concerns U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May has fought against the inevitable by inviting notable Euroskeptics into her cabinet and by trying to pursue a hard Brexit in practice. The problem with this strategy is that it won't work in Westminster, where a whopping 74% of all members of parliament, and 55% of all Tory MPs, declared themselves as "remain" supporters ahead of the 2016 referendum (Chart 14). Given that the House of Commons has to approve the ultimate U.K.-EU deal, a hard-Brexit deal is likely to fail in Parliament. While such a defeat would not automatically bring up an election, May would be essentially left without any political capital with which to continue EU negotiations and would either have to resign or call a new election. Chart 14Westminster MPs Support Bremain! Theresa May therefore has two options. The first is to trust the political instincts of David Davis and Boris Johnson and try to push a hard Brexit through the House of Commons. But with a slim majority of just one MP, how would she accomplish such a feat? Nobody knows, ourselves included, which is why we shorted the GBP as long as May stubbornly listened to the Euroskeptics in her cabinet. However, it appears that May has finally decided to ditch her Euroskeptic cabinet members and establish the "credible threat" of a new election. While May has not uttered the phrase directly, she hinted at a new election when she suggested that "there may be no Brexit at all." The message to hard-Brexit Tory rebels is clear: back my version of Brexit or risk new elections. From an economic perspective, retaining some semblance of Common Market membership is obviously superior to the hard-Brexit alternative. It is so superior, in fact, that Boris Johnson himself called for it immediately following the referendum!17 From a political perspective, it is also much easier to persuade less than two-dozen committed Tory Euroskeptics that a new election would be folly than it is to convince half of the party that the economic risks of a hard-Brexit are inconsequential. The switch in May's tactic therefore warrants a cautionary approach to our current GBP/USD short. The recommendation is up 5.55% since February 14. However, the GBP could be given a tailwind if investors sniff out fear amongst hard Brexit Tories. We still believe that downside risks exist in the short term. First, there is no telling if the EU will accept the particularities of May's Brexit strategy. In fact, the EU may want to make May's life even more difficult by asking for more concessions. Second, Euroskeptic Tories in the House of Commons may be willing martyrs, rebelling against May regardless of the economic and political consequences. Bottom Line: We are keeping our short GBP/USD on for now, which has returned 5.55% since February 14, but we will tighten the stop to just 2%. We think that Theresa May has finally figured out how to use "credible threats" to cajole her party into a soft Brexit. The problem, however, is that she still needs Brussels to play ball and her Euroskeptic MPs to act against their ideology. Europe: Will The Immigration Crisis End The EU? Chart 15European Migration Crisis Is Over No. There is no migration crisis in the EU (Chart 15). Despite the posturing in Europe over the past several months, the migration crisis ended in October 2015. As we forecast at the time, Europe has since taken several steps ovet the succeeding years to increase the enforcement of its external borders, including illiberal methods that many investors thought beyond European sensibilities.18 Today, EU member states are openly interdicting ships carrying asylum seekers and turning them away in international waters. Chancellor Angela Merkel has become just the latest in a long line of policymakers to succumb to her political constraints - and abandon her preferences - by agreeing to end the standoff with her conservative Bavarian allies. Merkel has agreed to set up transit centers on the border of Austria from where migrants will be returned to the EU country where they were originally registered, or simply sent across the border to Austria. The idea behind the move is to end the "pull" that Merkel inadvertently created by openly declaring that Germany was open to migrants regardless of where they came from. Why wouldn't migrants keep coming to Europe regardless? Because if the promise of a job and a legal status in Germany or other EU member states is no longer available, the cost - in treasure, limb, and life - of the journey through the Sahara and unstable states like Libya, and the Mediterranean Sea will no longer make sense. As Chart 15 shows, potential migrants are capable of making the cost-benefit calculation and are electing to stay put. Bottom Line: The EU migration crisis is not investment-relevant. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the Appendices for the detailed description of events. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Pyongyang's Pivot To America," June 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No," dated September 12, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 6 His tweets in the immediacy of the deal suggest that this was the case. He tweeted, immediately following Mnuchin's Fox News appearance, "China has agreed to buy massive amounts of ADDITIONAL Farm/Agricultural Products - would be one of the best things to happen to our farmers in many years!" He then tweeted again, suggesting that his deal was superior to anything President Obama got, "I ask Senator Chuck Schumer, why didn't President Obama & the Democrats do something about Trade with China, including Theft of Intellectual Property etc.? They did NOTHING! With that being said, Chuck & I have long agreed on this issue! Trade, plus, with China will happen!" His third tweet suggested that the deal being negotiated was indeed a big compromise, "On China, Barriers and Tariffs to come down for first time." All random capitalizations are President Trump's originals. 7 We reacted to the truce by arguing that it would not "last long." It lasted merely three days! Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy)," dated May 23, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, and "Are You 'Sick Of Winning' Yet?" dated June 20, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Now What?" dated June 27, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World," dated June 29, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see "Trump's letter to rivals allegedly results in resumption of oil exports in Libya," Libyan Express, dated July 11, 2018, available at libyanexpress.com. 15 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf," dated July 5, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Johnson stated right after the referendum that "there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market." Please see "U.K. will retain access to the EU single market: Brexit leader Johnson," Reuters, dated June 26, 2016, available at uk.reuters.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refugees, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix 2A Appendix 2B Appendix 2B (Cont.) Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Duration Checklist: An update of our medium-term Duration Checklist highlights that the strategic backdrop for global government bonds remains bearish. A below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance is still warranted - even after our recent move to downgrade spread product exposure. Canada: The Bank of Canada hiked rates again last week, and additional increases are likely given growing capacity constraints and accelerating Canadian inflation. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds. Feature Chart of the WeekStagflation Keeping Yields Afloat Developed market bond yields are lacking direction at the moment, pulled by competing forces. Overall global economic activity has lost some momentum and is now less synchronized. Yet the majority of major countries in the developed world are still growing at an above-potential pace that is keeping unemployment low and slowly boosting wages. This is helping underpin inflation, both realized and expected, while keeping government bond yields elevated despite increasing concerns about the future path of the global economy (Chart of the Week). The growing worries about a potential "U.S. versus the world" trade war are weighing on growth expectations, although not yet by enough to cause a meaningful pullback in global equity markets which remain supported by current solid earnings growth. Credit spreads have increased for both developed market corporate debt, but are still at historically narrow levels suggesting that investors are not overly concerned about default/downgrade risk. Emerging market (EM) debt has seen more significant spread widening in recent months, with a stronger U.S. dollar playing a large role there, but there has been little spillover from weaker EM markets into developed market credit valuations. We recently downgraded our recommended allocation to global corporate debt to neutral, while also upgrading our weighting on government bonds to neutral. Yet we maintained our below-benchmark overall duration stance, given our view that bond markets were still underpricing the potential for faster global inflation and tighter monetary policies given the persistent underlying strength of economic growth (especially in the U.S.). In light of that change in our view, an update of one of more reliable tools over the past eighteen months - our Duration Checklist - is timely. The Duration Checklist Is Still Bearish We have maintained our strategic below-benchmark stance on duration exposure for some time now, dating back to January 2017. Shortly afterward, we introduced a list of indicators to monitor going forward to determine if that defensive duration posture on U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds was still justified.1 We called that list our "Duration Checklist", and it contains elements focused on economic growth, inflation, central bank policy biases, investor risk appetite and bond market technicals. The Checklist is meant to be a purely objective read on the data and how it relates to the likely future path of bond yields. We last updated the Checklist back on January 30th of this year.2 The conclusion was that the underlying economic and inflation backdrop was still indicating more upside for yields on a 6-12 month horizon in both the U.S. and Europe. There was a risk, however, that the bond selloff could pause given heightened bullishness on risk assets and extremely oversold conditions in government bond markets. Since that last update of the Checklist, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield is higher (2.86% vs. 2.72%) while the 10-year German Bund yield is lower (0.36% vs. 0.70%). Although yields in both markets did climb to even higher levels - 3.12% and 0.78%, respectively - in February and March before pulling back to current levels. As we update the Checklist once again this week, we see that the backdrop is still conducive to rising bond yields in the U.S. and Europe, but with differing risks compared to six months ago (Table 1). Note that the Checklist was designed to assess if we should maintain our duration tilt, thus we apply a checkmark ("check") to any indicator that points to potentially higher bond yields, and an "x" to any element that could signal a bond market rally. Table 1The Message From Our Duration Checklist Is Still Bearish For Both USTs & Bunds Global growth momentum is decelerating. The OECD's global leading economic indicator (LEI) is in a clear downtrend, having fallen for five consecutive months (Chart 2). That weakening is broad based, as shown by the depressed level of our LEI diffusion index. The global ZEW index, measuring investor sentiment towards growth in the major developed economies, has been falling sharply since March of this year and now sits at the lowest level since January 2012. The Citigroup Global Data Surprise index peaked at the beginning of 2018 and has fallen steadily to below zero, although it may be in the process of bottoming out. Meanwhile, our global credit impulse - a reliable leading indicator of global growth - has noticeably slowed. We are giving an "x" to all these elements of our Duration Checklist, indicating that the current "soft patch" of global growth represents a risk to the performance of our below-benchmark duration stance. U.S. growth remains solid, but Europe is cooling a bit. The U.S. economy is firing on all cylinders at the moment (Chart 3). The ISM manufacturing index is near 60, while both consumer and business confidence are above the mid-2000s peak of the previous business cycle. Corporate profits are growing around 20% and our models suggest that this trend can continue over the rest of 2018. All these indicators earn a "check" on the U.S. side of our Duration Checklist. Chart 2Global Growth Indicators Are##BR##No Longer Bond Bearish Chart 3U.S. Growth##BR##Remains Strong The growth story is mixed in the euro area, however (Chart 4). The manufacturing PMI has been steadily falling since February of this year, but still remains well above the 50 line indicating an expanding economy. Consumer and business confidence are both at cyclical highs, but the upward momentum has stalled. Corporate profits are growing at a robust pace, but our models suggest that earnings should slow over the remainder of this year. In our Duration Checklist, the momentum of the growth indicators is the relevant measure and not the level. So we are now placing an "x" on the manufacturing PMI, which is giving a clear signal on slowing growth, while maintaining a "check" next to confidence and profit growth but with a question mark given that both may be in the process of rolling over. Inflation pressures are strengthening on both sides of the Atlantic. Back in January, the inflation elements of the Checklist were providing the most mixed signals. That is no longer the case (Charts 5 & 6). Oil prices are accelerating in both U.S. dollar and euro terms, which suggests upside risks on headline inflation in the U.S. and euro area. Unemployment rates are now below the OECD estimates of full employment, and wage inflation is accelerating, in both regions. Thus, all the inflation components of our Duration Checklist earn a "check". Chart 4Is Euro Area Growth Peaking? Or Just Cooling? Chart 5U.S. Inflation Backdrop Is Bond Bearish Chart 6Euro Area Inflation Backdrop Is Bond Bearish Both the Fed and European Central Bank (ECB) are biased to tighten monetary policy. The Fed continues to signal that additional rate hikes are coming given the underlying strength of the U.S. economy and rising trend in U.S. inflation. The ECB has announced that it will taper its net new bond purchases to zero by year-end in its asset purchase program, and has provided forward guidance on the timing of a first rate hike in 2019. Both policies are credible given falling unemployment and rising core inflation rates in both the U.S. and euro area. Thus, we are keeping the "check" on both sides of the policy portion of the Checklist. Investor risk appetite has grown more cautious. This element of our Checklist was a potential headwind to our below-benchmark duration stance back in January, but is much less of an impediment to higher yields now (Charts 7 & 8). Chart 7U.S. Investor Risk Appetite##BR##Has Cooled Off A Bit Chart 8European Investor Risk Appetite##BR##Has Also Cooled Off The cyclical advances of both the S&P 500 and EuroStoxx 600 have stalled, and both indices are now back close to their 200-day moving averages, suggesting that equity markets are not overstretched (and, therefore, ripe for a correction that could drive down bond yields in a risk-off move). The VIX and VStoxx volatility indices remain at low levels, even after the spike that occurred in early February and the more modest volatility shock in the aftermath of the Italian election in May. This implies that investors still prefer owning risky assets over risk-free government bonds. These elements warrant a "check" on both sides of our Duration Checklist. Corporate bond spreads, however, have widened over the past few months, suggesting that investors are pricing in some increased uncertainty over future creditworthiness. While the overall level of spreads is still historically low, the rising trend justifies an "x" in our Checklist as a possible headwind to rising Treasury and Bund yields from waning investor risk appetite. Treasuries and Bunds are not as oversold compared to January, but large short positions remain an issue. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield is now trading just above its 200-day moving average, while the deeply oversold price momentum seen earlier in the year has eased up a bit but remains negative (Chart 9). The combined signal is a neutral one but, in our Checklist framework, neither of these measures is stretched enough to suggest that yields cannot move higher. Thus, we are giving a weak "check" to both momentum elements on the U.S. side. There is still a large short position in 10-year Treasury futures according to the CFTC data, however, and this remains an impediment to higher Treasury yields - we are keeping the "x" for this piece of the Checklist. For Bunds, yields are now trading just below the 200-day moving average while price momentum has turned slightly positive (Chart 10). While neither indicator is stretched from an historical perspective, they are not sending a message that Bunds are oversold. Thus, we are giving a weak "check" to both technical elements on the European side of our Checklist (note that due to a lack of available data, we exclude investor positioning when evaluating the technical backdrop for Bunds). Chart 9USTs Not Oversold,##BR##But Large Short Positions Remain Chart 10Bund Technicals##BR##Are Neutral The majority of indicators in our Duration Checklist continue to point to upward pressure on U.S. Treasury and German Bund yields. Thus, we conclude that a continued below-benchmark duration stance is warranted for both markets. Not all of the news is bond bearish, however. The cooling of global growth indicators, the euro area manufacturing PMI, the widening of corporate credit spreads and the persistent short position in the Treasury market remain potential headwinds to a renewed period of rising bond yields. Yet without evidence that U.S. or European capacity constraints are loosening up, triggering a dovish shift from the Fed and ECB, the upward trend in inflation will prevent any meaningful decline in yields from current levels. Bottom Line: An update of our medium-term Duration Checklist highlights that the strategic backdrop for global government bonds remains bearish. A continued below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance is warranted - even after our recent move to downgrade spread product exposure. Canada Delivers Another Rate Hike, With More To Follow Chart 11The BoC & The Fed: Follow The Leader The Bank of Canada (BoC) hiked its policy rate last week by 25bps to 1.5%, once again delivering a tightening in lagged response to U.S. rate increases over the past year. The hike was not a surprise, as the Canadian economy is operating at full capacity and core inflation is at the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target band. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) markets are now pricing that both the BoC and the Fed will raise rates by another 75bps over the next twelve months, and we see the potential for even more increases than that - even with the Canadian economy cooling from the very rapid growth seen last year (Chart 11). The current spread between 2-year government bond yields in the U.S. and Canada is the widest since 2008, which is weighing on the level of the Canadian dollar versus the greenback (3rd panel). The latter is helping to ease financial conditions in Canada (bottom panel), especially at a time when the country is benefitting from the positive terms of trade impact of strong oil prices. The loonie is also being impacted by worries about future U.S. trade policy. The Trump administration has already imposed tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum exports and is demanding serious concessions in the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In their latest Monetary Policy Review (MPR) that was released after the BoC policy meeting last week, the central bank provided an estimate of the impact of the steel and aluminum tariffs that went into effect on June 1st. The conclusion was that the 25% tariff on U.S. imports of Canadian steel, and 10% levy on U.S. aluminum imports, would have little net impact on the Canadian economy once the Canadian response was factored in. The BoC concluded that the level of total real Canadian exports would be reduced by -0.6% by year-end, but that Canadian real imports would also decline by a similar amount as the Canadian government slapped its own tariffs on U.S. exports of steel, aluminum and various consumer products. This neutral view on U.S.-Canada trade tensions appeared throughout the BoC's updated economic forecasts, as its projections on the growth of Canadian exports, imports and U.S. real GDP growth (the critical driver of Canadian trade) were all increased from the previous MPR published in April. That may be an overly optimistic assessment of the potential impact of a trade dispute with the U.S. Yet the BoC did admit that it can only estimate the impact of tariffs once the precise details are known, thus it cannot adjust its forecasts based on what might happen in the NAFTA negotiations. The BoC can only base its forecasts on what they can observe now, which is that Canada's overall economy remains in decent shape, even though the composition of growth is shifting. The BoC's latest Business Outlook Survey indicates that Canadian firms continue to see robust demand and are facing increasing capacity constraints. This is boosting hiring plans and keeping capital spending intentions reasonably firm even with the uncertainties over NAFTA that is causing some firms to delay investment (Chart 12). The BoC is projecting that overall Canadian real GDP will only grow by 2% in 2018, even with a smaller contribution to growth from consumer spending and housing. The year-over-year rate of change in retail sales volumes has already dipped into negative territory and is now at the lowest since the end of 2009 (Chart 13). The BoC has attributed this to some slowing in interest-sensitive spending in response to tighter BoC monetary policy. At the same time, household debt growth has been slowing and house price inflation has plunged over the past year (although most of this decline occurred in the overheated Toronto market). The BoC is not concerned about the impact of its rate hikes on the interest burden for households, despite the high level of household debt, given the accelerating pace of wages and income growth. The BoC is likely happy to see a shift away from overheating consumption fueled by speculative increases in house prices, but there is a risk that additional rate hikes could finally trigger the long-awaited bursting of the Canadian housing bubble. Chart 12Canadian Businesses Are Optimistic,##BR##Even With Trade Worries Chart 13Higher BoC Rates##BR##Do Have An Impact (On a related note - the topic of housing bubbles will be discussed at the upcoming BCA Investment Conference in Toronto on September 23-25 by Hilliard Macbeth of Richardson GMP, who has written several books on the topic of global asset bubbles and has some particularly strong views to share on Canadian housing.) Yet the BoC will have to take the risk that additional rate increases could cause a bigger shakeout in the Canadian housing market, given that Canadian inflation is trending higher. Headline CPI inflation is now above the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target band, while all the various measures of core inflation that the BoC monitors are hovering around 2% (Chart 14). The BoC estimates that the output gap in Canada is now closed, and that the tight labor market will continue to boost inflation. Chart 14Inflation On The Rise In Canada Chart 15Market Is Underpricing The BoC Already, the average hourly earnings measure of wage inflation is growing close to 4% on a year-over-year basis, although the BoC has noted in recent research that other measures of labor costs are not growing as fast.3 Nonetheless, with 10-year inflation expectations in the Canadian inflation-linked government bond market now trading just below the BoC's 2% target (bottom panel), and with a high number of Canadian businesses reporting increasing difficulties in sourcing quality labor, the inflationary message sent by the surging rate of average hourly earnings growth will likely prove to be correct. Even though the Canadian OIS curve is now discounting another 75bps of rate hikes over the next year, that would only take the BoC policy rate to 2.25% - still below the central bank's estimate of the neutral policy rate, which is between 2.5-3% (Chart 15). Given the likely need for the BoC to eventually move to a restrictive stance to cool off an overheating economy and keep inflation around the 2% target, we see more potential upside for Canadian bond yields, especially with very little increase currently priced in the forwards. Stay underweight Canada in hedged global bond portfolios. Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada hiked rates again last week, and additional increases are likely given growing capacity constraints and accelerating Canadian inflation. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "A Duration Checklist For U.S. Treasuries & German Bunds", dated February 15th, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Some Thoughts On The Treasury-Bund Spread", dated January 30th, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/san2018-2.pdf Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: Weakening global growth is unlikely to derail the Fed, which must also contend with mounting domestic inflationary pressures. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and only a neutral allocation to spread product versus Treasuries. MBS & CMBS: Non-Agency CMBS offer attractive return potential, but remain too risky for the current environment. Agency MBS are unattractively valued but should remain insulated from negative shocks. Agency CMBS offer an alluring combination of risk and potential reward. Monetary Policy: The effective fed funds rate has been creeping toward the upper-end of the Fed's target band, signaling that bank reserves are becoming scarce. If the situation persists the Fed will be forced to cease the shrinking of its balance sheet. Feature Crosscurrents Two opposing forces are acting on financial markets at the moment and U.S. Treasury yields are caught in the middle. One the one hand, rising U.S. inflation and the gradual tightening of monetary policy are pressuring yields higher. But on the other hand, cyclical indicators point to a slowdown in global economic growth at a time when protectionist trade policies already have investors on edge. The end result is that U.S. Treasury yields are aimless, awaiting a catalyst that will push the prevailing winds in one direction or the other. On the domestic front, inflationary pressures are clearly mounting. The year-over-year core consumer price index rose to 2.23% in June while the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge moved up to 3.33%, its highest level since 2005 (Chart 1). The Fed's preferred core PCE deflator grew 1.96% during the 12 months ending in May, only a hair below the 2% target. Meanwhile, our Boom/Bust Indicator - a composite of global metals equities, commodity prices and U.S. unemployment insurance claims - has rolled over and investor expectations as measured by the Global ZEW survey have collapsed. Both indicators correlate strongly with long-maturity bond yields (Chart 2). Chart 1Inflation Picking Up Steam Chart 2Global Growth Slowdown The plunge in Global ZEW investor expectations is particularly interesting because the same survey shows that investors continue to describe current economic conditions as incredibly strong (Chart 3). Clearly, investors view the current state of global demand as constructive but are worried about threats to the global economy from trade barriers and the persistent removal of monetary accommodation. Oftentimes, negative readings from the Global ZEW expectations survey precede similar drops in the current conditions survey, such as prior to the 2008 and 2001 recessions. But other times, such as in 1998, the drop in expectations sends a false signal that is quickly unwound. Chart 3ZEW Expectations Vs. Current Conditions Only time will tell which outcome will occur, but we think global growth will slow further before finding a floor.1 The implication for U.S. bond portfolios is that investors should maintain only a neutral allocation to spread product versus Treasuries. Weakening foreign growth and the resultant upward pressure on the U.S. dollar will negatively impact corporate bond spreads, as will persistent Fed tightening. Investors should also maintain below-benchmark overall portfolio duration, as rising inflation will make it difficult for the Fed to pause its rate hike cycle for any significant length of time. Picking Up Yield In MBS And CMBS? The combination of weakening global growth and rising domestic inflation makes finding attractive U.S. fixed income plays difficult. This week we consider the risk/reward proposition in residential mortgage-backed securities (Agency only) and commercial mortgage-backed securities (both Agency and non-Agency). We conclude that non-Agency CMBS offer attractive return potential, but remain too risky for the current environment. Agency MBS are unattractively valued but should remain insulated from negative shocks. Agency CMBS offer an alluring combination of risk and potential reward. Chart 4 shows our excess return Bond Map, a good place to start when considering the risk/reward trade-off between the different spread sectors of the U.S. fixed income universe. The horizontal axis shows the number of months of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus an equivalent-duration position in Treasury securities. The vertical axis shows the number of months of average spread tightening required to earn 100 bps. Sectors plotting closer to the bottom-left are less likely to lose 100 bps, but are also less likely to gain 100 bps. Sectors plotting closer to the top-right are more likely to gain 100 bps, but are also more likely to lose 100 bps. In Chart 4 we use an interval from 2000-present to estimate monthly spread volatility. Since the Agency CMBS index only begins in 2014, it is excluded from this chart. Chart 4Excess Return Bond Map (Spread Volatility Estimated From 2000 - Present) The Bond Map shows that neither Agency MBS nor non-Agency CMBS offer an attractive risk/reward proposition. Non-Agency CMBS carry a similar risk of losses as the riskiest corporate bonds while offering less return potential. Agency MBS offer only slightly greater return potential than Consumer ABS, but with considerably more risk. Chart 5 shows the same Bond Map but using a post-2014 time interval to estimate monthly spread volatility. This allows us to include Agency CMBS. Chart 5 shows that Agency CMBS clearly dominate Agency MBS, offering similar reward with less risk. It also makes non-Agency CMBS look much more attractive, since spread volatility in the CMBS sector has been much lower in the post-2014 period. Chart 5Excess Return Bond Map (Spread Volatility Estimated From May 2014 - Present) Macro Environment Favors Residential MBS Despite the poor valuation picture painted by the Bond Map, the macro environment casts Agency MBS in a more favorable light. The two main factors that influence MBS spreads are residential mortgage lending standards and mortgage refinancing activity. Neither factor is likely to send MBS spreads wider during the next 6-12 months. Extension risk can also influence MBS spreads from time to time, but we have shown in prior research that the required yield increase is massive and unlikely to occur.2 The shaded regions in Chart 6 correspond to periods when banks are tightening lending standards on residential mortgage loans. We can see that lending standards tightened sharply during the financial crisis and have generally been easing since then. More important, however, is that the post-crisis easing in lending standards has been extremely modest. The median FICO score for new mortgage borrowers has barely come down, and remains well above pre-crisis levels (Chart 6, panel 3). The Urban Institute's Housing Credit Availability Index, which measures the percentage of home purchase loans that are likely to default over the next 90 days, is also extremely low (Chart 6, panel 4). In addition, the household debt-service ratio remains incredibly healthy (Chart 6, bottom panel). With such high borrower quality, banks are much more likely to ease lending standards going forward. Mortgage refinancing activity has also been very low, and this should continue to be the case for some time. A good predictor of refinancing activity is the percentage of the MBS index (by par value) that carries a coupon above the current mortgage rate (Chart 7). At present, only 5% of the index carries a coupon above the current 30-year mortgage rate of 4.53%. We calculate that even if the mortgage rate fell to below 4% the percentage of the MBS index with the incentive to refinance would only rise to 38%, still consistent with muted refi activity. Only a drop in the mortgage rate to below 3.5% would cause the refinanceable percentage to spike significantly, reaching 73%. Chart 6MBS: The Macro Environment Chart 7Refi Risk Is Non-Existant Or course, mortgage rates are much more likely to rise during the next 6-12 months as the Fed continues to tighten monetary policy. In other words, the risk that an increase in refi activity will drive MBS spreads wider is very low. All in all, valuation is not attractive in the Agency MBS sector, but the macro environment is favorable and should ensure that spreads remain tight on a 6-12 month horizon. We recommend a neutral allocation to Agency MBS, and could upgrade the sector further at the expense of corporate bonds as we approach the turn in the credit/default cycle. Fading Headwinds In CMBS? Chart 8CMBS: The Macro Environment Non-Agency Aaa-rated CMBS appear relatively unattractive in Chart 4 and somewhat attractive in Chart 5. The latter chart uses a post-2014 time interval to estimate monthly spread volatility and this period flatters the CMBS sector. The macro picture for the sector is also decidedly mixed. A typical negative environment for CMBS spreads is characterized by tightening bank lending standards on commercial real estate (CRE) loans, falling demand for CRE loans and decelerating CRE prices (Chart 8). CRE lending standards were tightening throughout 2016 and 2017, while demand remained reasonably strong and CRE prices decelerated. But CMBS spreads performed quite well during this period, taking cues from the rally in corporate bonds rather than the slightly negative message from CRE fundamentals. More recently, we are receiving very mixed signals from our CRE indicators. Lending standards are no longer tightening, but CRE prices continue to decelerate and demand is close to unchanged. It is possible that a renewed easing in lending standards will cause CRE prices to accelerate, but that is far from certain. Our U.S. Equity Strategy service recently flagged numerous risks in the CRE space, including the fact that occupancy rates have already begun to contract.3 A possible signal that demand is waning. While the return of CRE lending standards to "net easing" territory is a positive development, it remains to be seen whether the easing will help spur a rebound in CRE prices in the face of weakening demand. The uncertain macro picture and the unattractive valuation shown in Chart 4 cause us to maintain an underweight allocation to non-Agency CMBS. In contrast, we remain overweight Agency-backed CMBS based on the attractive risk/reward profile presented in Chart 5. A Note On Monetary Policy Operations While we maintain that the expected pace of Fed rate hikes is by far the most important monetary policy question for investors, some technical issues related to the implementation of monetary policy have come to light during the past few months that merit a mention. These issues will likely gain even more attention later this summer when they are discussed at the Jackson Hole Monetary Policy Symposium where the chosen theme is "Changing Market Structure and Implications for Monetary Policy". The main problem that has emerged during the past few months is that the effective fed funds rate has begun to creep toward the upper-end of the Fed's target channel (Chart 9). While the Fed currently targets a range of 1.75% to 2% for the effective fed funds rate, the rate itself currently sits at 1.91%, dangerously close to the top. Chart 9Is The Fed Losing Control? IOER Is A Treatment, Not A Cure The Fed tried to push the effective fed funds rate back toward the middle of its target range following the June FOMC meeting when it lifted the interest rate on excess reserves (IOER) by only 20 bps instead of 25 bps. Previously, the IOER had been set at the upper-bound of the Fed's target range, now it is 5 bps below. At best, this manipulation of IOER is a stop-gap measure that will not permanently solve the Fed's problem. This is because the Fed's problem is that the effective fed funds rate is rising because bank reserves are once again becoming scarce. The Fed currently controls interest rates using a "floor system". In order for such a system to work the Fed must ensure that the banking system is supplied with more bank reserves than it wants. The excess supply of bank reserves then pressures the effective funds rate lower, toward a "floor" interest rate set by the Fed. The Fed currently uses two different interest rates to act as the "floor", the IOER and the overnight reverse repo rate (ON RRP).4 The problem is that if banks are not over-supplied with reserves then the floor is not binding and the fed funds rate could break above the Fed's target range. Several factors have conspired to drain reserves from the banking sector during the past few months. First and foremost is that the Fed is allowing the securities to run off its balance sheet. Table 1 shows a simplified version of the Fed's balance sheet as of July 5 and as of September 28 of last year, just before the Fed started to shrink its bond portfolio. The change in each balance sheet item between the two dates is also shown. Table 1A Simplified Federal Reserve Balance Sheet Changes in the Fed's securities holdings are the main driver of bank reserves, and Table 1 shows that the Fed has reduced its portfolio holdings by $156 billion since last September. This has drained $156 billion of reserves from the banking system. Reserves appear as a liability on the Fed's balance sheet, but as an asset on the banking sector's consolidated balance sheet. But Table 1 also shows that the U.S. Treasury's General Account at the Fed has increased by $170 billion since last September, draining bank reserves by the same amount. This occurred because the Treasury department has been rebuilding its cash holdings which had become very low due to repeated encounters with the debt ceiling. But this process is largely complete. The Treasury department was targeting a cash balance of $360 billion by the end of June and that target has essentially been met. Table 1 also shows that reverse repos declined significantly since September, offsetting some of the reserve drain from the run-off of the Fed's securities holdings and the increase in the Treasury's cash balance. As reserves become scarcer it becomes less necessary for banks to engage in reverse repos with the Fed, so reverse repo balances should continue to decline as long as the Fed is shrinking its securities holdings. There Is Only One Cure The key point is that if the Fed continues to shrink its balance sheet and drain reserves from the banking system, then at some point bank reserves will no longer be over-supplied and the Fed will lose control of interest rates if the situation is not rectified. What makes things particularly confusing is that nobody (including the Fed) is quite sure what level of bank reserves constitutes "scarcity" in the new post-crisis environment. Chart 10 shows that if the Fed's planned shrinking of its balance sheet continues un-interrupted then bank reserves will reach zero by March 2022. But under the stricter post-crisis regulatory regime, banks will desire reserve balances that far exceed what they demanded before the financial crisis. Unfortunately, the only way to find out at what point bank reserves become scarce is for the Fed to drain reserves from the system and wait for signs that interest rates are starting to rise above its target range. At that point, the Fed will be forced to stop shrinking its balance sheet in order to maintain control over interest rates. Based on the current behavior of the fed funds rate, we cannot rule out this situation arising within the next year. Some Notes On Treasury Operations Many have blamed sizeable T-bill issuance for the creep higher in the fed funds rate, and this is somewhat true. The Treasury department has been issuing T-bills in large amounts and parking the proceeds in its cash account at the Fed. As explained above, this has drained reserves from the banking system and put upward pressure on the effective fed funds rate. But the focus should be on the Treasury's cash balance and not T-bill issuance itself. This is important because going forward T-bill issuance will remain elevated. The Treasury must finance the increasing deficits mandated by Congress and has pledged to concentrate a large portion of this financing in bills. Specifically, the Treasury is targeting a range of 25% to 30% for the proportion of bills in the outstanding funding mix. At present, bills make up only 15% of the mix (Chart 11). But while bill issuance will stay strong, as long as the Treasury maintains its cash balance near current levels, then there will be no impact on bank reserves or the effective fed funds rate. Chart 10The Pace Of Balance Sheet Reduction Chart 11Gross T-Bill Issuance The Treasury department will also increase coupon issuance to finance the rising fiscal deficit (Chart 12), and has decided to do so by increasing issuance for every coupon but with a focus on the 2-year, 3-year and 5-year notes. Gross issuance in the 2-year and 3-year notes has already started to increase, and it will soon exceed 5-year and 7-year note issuance (Chart 13). Because so much of the Treasury's new issuance will be concentrated at the front-end of the curve (and in bills), it has dropped its prior stated goal of increasing the weighted-average maturity (WAM) of the funding mix. Its current policy states that "the WAM is just an outcome of an issuance strategy and not a goal in and of itself." Chart 12Gross Coupon Issuance Chart 13Gross Coupon Issuance By Maturity Bottom Line: The effective fed funds rate has been creeping toward the upper-end of the Fed's target band, signaling that bank reserves are becoming scarce. If the situation persists the Fed will be forced to cease the shrinking of its balance sheet. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Out Of Sync", dated July 3, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "On The Move", dated February 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "UnReal Estate Opportunity", dated July 9, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 4 A detailed explanation of the floor system and its alternative "corridor system" can be found in U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Cleaning Up After The 100-Year Flood", dated June 10, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Upside risks on base metals are being ignored. The U.S. labor market continues to tighten and businesses face escalating labor and input costs. There will be costs associated with current fiscal trends, even on a relatively short 5-10 year horizon. Feature Chart 1Core Inflation Creeping Higher Along With Wages Last week, U.S. equity prices reached their highest level since early February. The 1% drop in the trade-weighted U.S. dollar contributed to weakness in both oil and gold prices. 10-year Treasury yields were little changed, despite higher U.S. inflation readings. Base metal prices continued to decline, linked to escalating trade tensions between the U.S. and China and concerns over the health of China's economy. Comments from Fed Chair Powell late in the week on the benefits of fiscal policy for the U.S. economy were welcomed by markets. We discuss base metal prices, trade, inflation, the Fed and the implication of the U.S.'s precarious fiscal position in this week's report. We examine BCA's view on base metals in the context of disruptions to global trade and a slowdown in Chinese economic activity in the next section. The June CPI report suggests U.S. inflation is drifting towards the Fed's target. However, with no serious inflation outburst occurring at the moment, there is no need for the Fed to deviate from its path of gradual rate hikes in the near term. U.S. core CPI rose by 0.16% m/m in June, which is not quite consistent with a 2% annual inflation rate. Nonetheless, the underlying trend still shows a steady creep higher in inflation (Chart 1). The year-over-year core CPI rate ticked up to 2.3% from 2.2%. Core CPI inflation of about 2.5% is consistent with the Fed's 2% target for the core PCE deflator. The main source of upward pressure on U.S. inflation will come from core services (ex-shelter and medical care). We find that this subcomponent of core CPI is the most correlated with the tightness in the labor market and wage pressures. However, it accounts for only 25% of core CPI and, while improving, the acceleration in wages is mild (panel 4). Inflation, the labor market and trade were all discussed at the June FOMC meeting. Below, we assess the central bank's mid-June discussion on these topics as markets brace for the Fed's latest Beige Book (July 18) and the late July FOMC meeting. Fiscal policy was also discussed at the June FOMC meeting. The final section of this week's report examines the long term budget outlook and its implication for the economy and financial assets. Base Metals Update BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service notes1 that the London Metal Exchange Index (LMEX) will remain under significant downward pressure until fears of an escalating Sino - U.S. trade dispute are allayed. If this dispute evolves into a full-blown trade war, as our geopolitical strategists expect,2 emerging markets (EM) economies embedded in global supply chains could be hard hit. This would have ramifications for commodity prices in general and base metals in particular. Alternatively, if this trade dispute develops into a more open and free global trading system, EM income growth will significantly drive up commodity demand, especially for metals (Chart 2). However, a more open trading system would take time to develop and is beyond a 6-12 month investment horizon. BCA's view is that the dollar will continue to climb as the Fed boosts rates more than the market expects and as U.S. domestic economic growth outpaces global growth (Chart 3). Moreover, the ongoing trade row will put upward pressure on the dollar. We remain long on the dollar.3 Chart 2EM Macro Variables##BR##Drive LMEX Chart 3Divergent Paths For Growth And##BR##Rates To Drive U.S. Dollar Higher Bottom Line: Fears of a global trade war are punishing the EM economies and weighing on the prices of base metals. However, upside risks, for the most part, are being ignored, according to BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service. As a result, our commodity team sees some tactical long trading opportunities in copper, but the prospect of a worsening trade war is not kind for base metals. Oil is a different story.4 The Disappearing Act Data from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) in June and the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) in May support our stance that the slack in the U.S. labor market is disappearing and will ultimately lead to higher wage inflation and a peak in profit margins. Job openings and hiring plans at small businesses are at an all-time high (Chart 4, panel 1). Chart 4 also shows that small business owners' compensation plans (panel 2) remained near record levels in April and that concerns about "quality of labor" have never been higher (panel 3). Moreover, 7% of small firms say that the cost of labor is their most critical problem (panel 4). This concern has more than doubled since 2013. Job openings according to the JOLTS data also hit a new zenith in April, but ticked down a bit in May, which created an even wider gap between openings and hires (Chart 5, panel 1). Moreover, quits minus layoffs, another indicator of labor market slack, reached a record high (panel 2). The implication is that businesses of all sizes face a much tighter labor market. Chart 4Labor Market Slack Is Disappearing... Chart 5... Putting Pressure On Margins Moreover, the robust labor situation is widespread. Charts 6A and 6B show the ratio of job openings to the number of unemployed in 10 sectors of the economy. The ratio is at an all-time high in nine of the sectors. The exception is the information segment, which includes newspapers and magazines, broadcasting and telecommunications. Chart 7 shows that businesses are increasingly worried about the impact of escalating input costs on margins. Firms in the Atlanta Fed region expect a 2% bump in their input costs in the next 12 months; in early 2016, those same firms saw only a 1.3% rise (panel 1). Nearly 80% of managements expect their unit costs to climb by at least 1.1% in the next year. More than 20% of firms expect their input costs to jump at least 3.1% in the same period. Chart 6AStrength In The Labor Market... Chart 6B... Is Broad-Based Chart 7Businesses Worried About Input Costs Small businesses are increasingly able to pass on prices to consumers (Chart 5, panels 3 and 4). At 14%, having rolled over slightly, the percentage of small businesses reporting price changes remains near a 10-year high in June (panel 2). Moreover, 24% of small businesses planned price hikes in June, also a 7-year high. In late 2016, only about 4% of these entities expected to boost prices in the next 12 months (panel 3). Moreover, the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge5 hit a 13-year high in June (not shown). Bottom Line: The U.S. labor market continues to tighten and businesses face escalating labor and input costs. The implication is that margins may soon reach a top. In last week's report,6 we showed that the performance of a broad range of U.S. and global risk assets falters after margins peak late in the business cycle. Moreover, shortages of labor and some raw materials will push up inflation and keep the Fed on track to tighten two more times this year. BCA's view is that by mid-2019, the central bank will find itself behind the curve on inflation and begin to tighten more aggressively. Shortages and capacity constraints in the important trucking industry support our view. Keep On Trucking The trucking industry exemplifies the robust labor market, with strong demand for trucking services and shortages of drivers. Wage inflation remains muted in the trucking industry, despite strong demand for trucking services and shortages of drivers. Nonetheless, anecdotal data suggest that wages are understated in the trucking industry. Freight costs, which are key components in firms' input costs, affect the economy as a whole. Table 1 shows that trucking is one of many industries with labor shortages according to the 2018 Beige Books. However, the JOLTS data show that trucking has labor constraints, but very little wage inflation. The PPI for truck transportation services7 (a good proxy for what trucking firms charge customers) is up 7.7% year-over year (Chart 8). Some of that increase is linked to higher gasoline prices. However, it is difficult to split out the impact of wage costs from the gasoline costs in the PPI. Table 1Labor 'Shortages' Identified##BR##In The Beige Book Chart 8Margin Pressure In##BR##The Trucking Industry A Cass Freight Index that tracks full-truckload prices, but excludes fuel and fuel surcharges, rose 9% year-over-year in May (not shown).8 The broad Cass Freight Index climbed 17.3% year-over year in May, and suggests further gains are ahead for U.S. capital spending (Chart 9). Moreover, the latest survey by the FTR Transport Intelligence for June surged for orders of heavy trucks, with June being the highest on record at 140% year-over-year (not shown).9 Chart 9Supply Constraints In The Freight Business Will Erode U.S. Profit Margins The implication is that demand for trucking services remains vigorous and will ultimately push up wages. Higher wages in trucking mean higher shipping costs, and portends a peak in U.S. corporate margins later this year. A Divided FOMC The labor market, wages and inflation were key topics at the June 12-13 Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting. Trade and fiscal policy were also discussed. Policymakers noted that some firms have responded to a lack of qualified workers by offering training, introducing automation and boosting wages. This is typical late-cycle behavior. Fed economists recently updated their quantitative assessments of the FOMC's meeting minutes.10 The note provides a guide (Table 1 in the Fed paper and Table 2) to the number of quantitative descriptors (one, a couple, a few, etc.). We use this rubric to assess the FOMC's latest views. Table 3 evaluates the Fed's latest thinking on the labor market and wages, while Table 4 assesses the FOMC's discussion of inflation and inflation expectations. Table 2FOMC Minutes Rubric Table 3FOMC Assessment Of The Labor Market And Wages At June 2018 Meeting FOMC participants generally expected the unemployment rate to either remain below or decline further below their estimates of the longer run normal rate. Only several FOMC members thought that the unemployment rate overstated the labor market's strength. Furthermore, a number of members anticipated wage inflation to pick up (Table 3) given that the unemployment rate is expected to stay below the committee's view of NAIRU. Table 4 shows that FOMC members generally agreed that inflation was on track to meet the Fed's 2% target. However, many participants saw downside risks to inflation linked to political and economic turmoil in Europe and the emerging markets. A number noted that it was premature to conclude that the Fed had achieved its 2% inflation target. Nonetheless, some members worried that a prolonged stretch of economic activity above the economy's long-term potential could "give rise to inflationary pressures or financial imbalances." Only a few noted that inflation expectations were not consistent with the Fed's 2% objective. Only one member argued that the postponing rate hikes would help push up inflation expectations. Table 4FOMC Assessment Of Inflation And Inflation Expectations At June 2018 Meeting On trade, most FOMC participants noted that the uncertainty and risks associated with trade policy had intensified and expressed concern over the potential negative effects on business sentiment and investment spending. The committee continued to see fiscal policy as a plus for economic growth in the next few years. Nonetheless, a few participants worried that fiscal policy is not on a sustainable path (See next section, "An Unprecedented Macro Experiment"). Financial stability was not on the agenda at the latest FOMC meeting, although Fed Chair Powell discussed the topic at his mid-June news conference.11 Moreover, in a radio interview12 last week, Powell also mentioned financial stability. Our view is that the Fed will continue to focus on vulnerabilities in the U.S. and overseas financial markets in upcoming meetings.13 Bottom Line: So far, Fed policymakers have maintained their gradual approach to tightening policy (i.e. 25 basis points per quarter) as they try to balance the risk of a major inflation overshoot against the hazards of prematurely ending the economic expansion. Several policymakers reiterated that long-term inflation expectations are still not high enough to be consistent with meeting the 2% inflation target over the medium term. That is why we expect the Fed to become more aggressive in targeting an economic slowdown when the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate moves back into its 2.3-2.5% range.14 Stay tuned. An Unprecedented Macro Experiment15 Congress is conducting an extra-ordinary economic experiment: substantial fiscal stimulus when the economy is already at full employment. Investors are celebrating the growth-positive aspects of the new fiscal tailwind. However, the celebration could be followed by a hangover as the Fed is forced to lean hard against the resulting inflationary pressures. Moreover, even in the absence of a recession, the federal government will likely spill far more red ink than during any other economic expansion since the 1940s (Chart 10). Moreover, the debt ratio, which swelled to 106% in 1946 after WWII, could rocket past that level before 2030, even in the absence of a recession (Chart 11). What are the long-term implications of this macro experiment? Will the U.S. continue to easily fund large and sustained budget deficits? Chart 10U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period Chart 11U.S. Debt In Historical Context Historically, shockingly large budget deficits sparked some attempt by Congress to limit the damage. Unfortunately, there will be little appetite to tighten the fiscal purse strings for the next decade. Politicians are following the voters shift to the left. While the U.S. is not at imminent risk of a market riot over the deteriorating fiscal trends, the dollar will be weaker, borrowing rates will be higher and living standards will be lower than otherwise would be the case. "Starve the Beast" refers to the idea that the size of government can be restrained through a low-tax regime that spurs growth and pressures Congress to cut spending and control the budget deficit. It has been the mantra of Republicans since the Reagan era. The 1981 Reagan tax cuts included an across-the-board reduction in marginal tax rates, taking the top rate down from 70% to 50%. Corporate taxes were slashed by $150 billion over a 5-year period and tax rates were indexed for inflation, among other changes. It was not surprising that the budget deficit subsequently ballooned. Outrage grew among fiscal conservatives, but Congress spent the next few years passing laws to reverse the loss of revenues, rather than aggressively attacking the spending side. Today, Congressional fiscal hawks are in retreat and the Republican Party under President Donald Trump is not as fiscally conservative as in the past. This trend reflects the pull toward the center of the economic policy spectrum in response to a shift to the left among voters. BCA's political strategists have highlighted that this is the "median voter theory" (MVT) in action.16 The MVT posits that parties and politicians will approximate the policy choices of the median voter in order to win an election or stay in power. Every U.S. presidential election involves candidates making a mad dash to the most popularly appealing positions. President Trump exhibited this process when he ran in the Republican primary on a platform of increased infrastructure spending and zero cuts to "entitlement" spending. The Great Financial Crisis, disappointingly slow growth, stagnating middle-class incomes and the widening income distribution have resulted in a leftward shift among voters on economic issues. Adding to the shift is the rising political clout of the Millennial generation, which generally favors more government involvement in the economy and will become the major voting block in the 2020s. President Trump's shift to the left on economic policy helped him to out-flank Clinton in the election, particularly in the Rust Belt, where his protectionist and anti-austerity message resonated. Even his anti-immigration appeal is mostly based on economic reasoning (i.e. jobs rather than cultural factors). Trump has admitted that he is not all that concerned about taking the country deeper into hock. The Republican rank-and-file has generally gone along with Trump's agenda because he has delivered traditional Republican tax cuts and continues to have high approval ratings among his supporters. Fiscal hawks within the GOP have been forced to the sidelines while Trump and moderate Republicans have passed bipartisan spending increases with Democratic assistance. Unlike the Reagan years, we do not expect that there will be a strong political force capable of leading a fight against budget deficits. The long-term U.S. fiscal outlook was dire even before the Great Recession and the associated shift to the political left in America. Fiscal conservatism is out of fashion and this is unlikely to change before the mid-2020s, no matter which party is in power. This means that a market riot will be required to shake up voters and the political establishment into making tough decisions. Given demographic trends, it appears more likely that taxes will be on the rise than entitlements will be cut. We do not foresee a crisis in the next few years. Nonetheless, arguing that the U.S. fiscal situation is sustainable for the foreseeable future does not mean that it is desirable. There will be costs associated with current fiscal trends, even on a relatively short 5-10 year horizon. Interest costs will mushroom, potentially crowding out government spending in other areas (Chart 12). U.S. government debt has already been downgraded by the S&P to AA+ in 2013, and the other two main rating agencies will probably follow suit during the next recession as the deficit balloons to 8% or more. Investors may begin to demand a risk premium to entice them to continually raise their exposure to U.S. government bonds. Chart 12An Unsustainable Debt Accumulation Chart 13Structural Drivers Of The U.S. Dollar Taxes will eventually rise to service the government debt and some capital spending will be crowded out, both of which will undermine the economy's growth potential (Chart 13). Finally, the dollar will also be weaker than it otherwise would be in the long-term, representing an erosion in America's standard of living because imports will be more expensive. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals", published July 12, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis", published July 11, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S. Housing Will Drive The Global Business Cycle... Again", published July 6, 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf", published July 5, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/underlying-inflation-gauge 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Revisiting The Late Cycle View", published July 9, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 See Table 10 https://www.bls.gov/ppi/ppidr201806.pdf 8 https://www.cassinfo.com/transportation-expense-management/supply-chain-analysis/cass-freight-index.aspx 9 https://ftrintel.com/news/ftr-reports-north-american-class-8-orders-for-june-at-historic-highs 10 https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-fomc-meeting-minutes-an-update-of-counting-words-20170803.htm 11 https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20180613.pdf 12 https://www.marketplace.org/2018/07/12/economy/powell-transcript 13 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate," July 24, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary "The Deflationary Mindset", published July 10, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Research's The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Publication, "July 2018", published June 28, 2018. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing The Median Voter Theory," June 8, 2016. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Investors are too complacent about the risks of a trade war. Standard economic models understate the potential economic damage that a trade war could cause. Global equities would suffer mightily from a trade war. Deep cyclical sectors would be hardest hit. Financial equities would also fare poorly. Regionally, European and EM stock markets would underperform. A trade war would benefit Treasurys and other safe-haven government bonds. A contained trade war would likely be somewhat dollar-bearish. In contrast, a full-out war could send the greenback soaring. Feature From Phony War To Real War? After months of posturing, Trump's trade war is starting to heat up. The U.S. imposed tariffs of 25% on $34 billion of Chinese goods last Friday. Tariffs on another $16 billion of goods are set to go in effect on July 20th. China has stated that it will retaliate in kind. On Tuesday, Trump further upped the ante, announcing that he will levy a 10% tariff on an additional $200 billion of Chinese imports by August 31. He also threatened tariffs on another $300 billion on top of that if China still refuses to back down. That would add up to $550 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, more than what China exported to the U.S. last year! China is not the only country in Trump's crosshairs. The Trump administration levied tariffs of up to 25% on steel and aluminum from the EU, Canada, Mexico, and other U.S. allies on June 1, 2018. The affected regions have retaliated with their own tariffs. As Marko Papic, BCA's chief geopolitical strategist, has repeatedly stressed, there is little reason to think that trade tensions will ease over the coming months. Protectionism is popular with the American public (Chart 1). Trump ran on a protectionist platform and now he is trying to fulfill his campaign promises. It does not help that Trump is accusing foreign governments of doing things they are not doing. Chart 2 shows that U.S. tariffs are actually higher than in most other G7 economies. As we have argued in the past, the U.S. runs a persistent current account deficit because it has a higher neutral real rate of interest - otherwise known as r-star - than most other countries.1 Standard interest rate parity equations imply that a country with a relatively high neutral rate will have an "overvalued" currency that is expected to weaken over time, whereas a country with a low neutral rate will have an "undervalued" currency that is expected to strengthen over time. Intuitively, this must happen because investors will only hold low-yielding bonds if they expect a currency to strengthen. The result is a current account deficit for countries with overvalued currencies such as the U.S., and a current account surplus for regions with undervalued currencies such as the euro area (Chart 3). Chart 1Free Trade Is Not In Vogue In The U.S. Chart 2Tariffs: Who Is Robbing The U.S.? Chart 3Interest Rates And Current Account Balances The Economic Costs Of A Trade War How much damage could a trade war do to the global economy? As it turns out, this is a surprisingly difficult question to answer. Standard economic theory offers little guidance on the matter. By definition, global exports are always equal to imports. In a conventional Keynesian model, countries with trade deficits would gain some demand from a trade war, while countries with surpluses would lose some demand. However, the contribution of net exports to global demand would always be zero. Granted, there would be some efficiency losses, but in the standard Ricardian model of comparative advantage, they would not be that large. As Box 1 explains, the deadweight loss from a tariff can be computed as one-half times the change in the tariff rate multiplied by the percentage-point decline in imports that results from the tariff. Suppose, for example, that a trade war leads to a 10% across-the-board increase in U.S. tariffs, which causes U.S. imports to fall by 30%.2 Given that imports are 15% of U.S. GDP, the resulting deadweight loss would be 0.5*0.1*0.3*15=0.225% of GDP. That's obviously not a lot. The True Cost Of A Trade War Is Likely To Be High Our sense is that the true cost of a trade war would be much greater than these simple models suggest. There are at least six reasons for this: Most simple models assume that labor and capital are completely fungible and that the economy is always at full employment. In practice, it is doubtful that workers could easily move to companies that would benefit from tariff protection from those that would suffer from retaliatory measures. Workers have specialized skills. Likewise, a piece of machinery that is useful in one sector of the economy may be completely useless in another. Industries are often concentrated in particular regions. As such, a trade war could severely degrade the value of the existing stock of human and physical capital. This would result in lower potential GDP. It would also result in temporarily higher unemployment as workers, laid off from firms which have been adversely affected by tariffs, are forced to scramble for a new job elsewhere. Comparative advantage is not the only source of trade gains. Arguably more important are economies of scope and scale. A firm that has access to a global market can spread fixed costs over a larger quantity of output, thus lowering average costs (and ultimately prices). The existence of large global markets also allows companies to offer niche products that might not be worthwhile to develop for smaller markets. Modern trade is dominated by the exchange of intermediate goods within complex supply chains (Chart 4). This arrangement has many advantages, but it also harbors numerous fragilities. A small fire at a factory in Japan that manufactured 60 percent of the epoxy resin used in chip casings led to a major spike in RAM prices in 1993. Flooding in Thailand in 2011 wreaked havoc on the global auto industry. U.S. firms are particularly vulnerable to supply-chain disruptions because the Trump administration has dotardly chosen to levy tariffs mainly on intermediate and capital goods (Chart 5). This stands in contrast to China and the EU, which have raised tariffs mainly on final goods in a politically strategic manner (agricultural products in Trump-supporting rural areas and Harley Davidson bikes, which are manufactured in Paul Ryan's home district in Wisconsin). Chart 4Trade In Intermediate Goods Dominates Chart 5The U.S. Is Not Very Smart In ##br## Implementing A Protectionist Agenda Uncertainty over the magnitude and duration of a trade war could cause companies to postpone new investment spending. A vast economic literature pioneered by Avinash Dixit and Robert Pindyck has shown that firms tend to defer capital expenditure decisions when faced with rising uncertainty.3 Furthermore, as I discussed in an academic paper which was published early on in my career, business investment is typically higher when firms have access to larger markets.4 Higher tariffs could lead to an implicit tightening in fiscal policy. If the U.S. raises tariffs by an average of ten percentage points across all imports, a reasonable estimate is that this would imply a tightening in fiscal policy by around 1% of GDP - enough to wipe out the entire stimulus from Trump's tax cuts. Of course, the tariff revenue could be injected back into the economy through more tax cuts or increased spending. However, given the possibility that gridlock will increase in Washington if the Republicans lose the House of Representatives in November, it is far from obvious that this would happen. A trade war would lead to lower equity prices and higher credit spreads. This would translate into tighter financial conditions. Historically, changes in financial conditions have been highly correlated with changes in real GDP growth (Chart 6). Changes in financial conditions have, in turn, led the stock market. The S&P 500 index has risen at an annualized pace of 10% since 1970 when BCA's Financial Conditions Index (FCI) was above its 250-day moving average, while gaining only 1.5% when the FCI was below its 250-day average (Chart 7). Given today's elevated valuations across many asset markets, the risk is that a trade war triggers a sizable correction in asset prices. Chart 6Changes In Financial Conditions Have Been Highly Correlated With Changes In Real GDP Growth Chart 7The Link Between Financial Conditions ##br##And The Stock Market Protecting Your Equity Portfolio From A Trade War We think investors are understating the risks of a trade war. This, along with a host of other reasons, prompted us to downgrade global risk assets from overweight to neutral on June 20.5 As bad as a trade war would be for Main Street, it would be even worse for Wall Street. The mega- cap companies that comprise the S&P 500 have a lot more exposure to foreign markets and global supply chains than the broader U.S. economy. The "beta" of corporate profits to changes in GDP growth is also quite high (Chart 8). Chart 9 shows how U.S. equity sectors performed during days when the S&P 500 suffered notable losses due to heightened fears of protectionism. We identified seven separate days, including Wednesday's selloff, which was spurred by Trump's threat to impose tariffs on another $200 billion of Chinese imports. Chart 8Profits Are Much More Volatile Than GDP Chart 9This Is How Markets Trade When They Are Worrying About Trade Wars The chart shows that deep cyclical sectors such as industrials, materials, and energy fared badly during days of protectionist angst. Financials also underperformed, largely because such days saw a flattening of the yield curve. Tech, health care, and telecom performed broadly in line with the S&P 500. Consumer stocks outperformed the market, but still declined in absolute terms. Utilities and real estate were the only two sectors that saw absolute price gains. Considering that the sector composition of European and EM bourses tends to be more tilted towards cyclicals than the U.S., it is not surprising that the former have underperformed during days of increased protectionist worries. Bonds: Yields Likely To Rise, But A Trade War Is A Risk To That View In contrast to equities, a trade war would benefit Treasurys and other safe-haven government bonds. Admittedly, the imposition of tariffs would push up import prices. However, the effect on inflation would be temporary. Just as the Fed tends to disregard one-off increases in commodity prices, it will play down any transient boost to inflation stemming from a trade war. Instead, the Fed will focus on the growth impact, which is likely to be negative. To be clear, trade jitters are not the only thing affecting bond yields. Judging by numerous business surveys, the U.S. economy is starting to overheat (Chart 10). Last week's employment report does not alter this conclusion. While the unemployment rate rose by 0.2 percentage points, this was mainly because of a jump in the participation rate. Considering that the number of workers outside the labor force who want a job is near a record low, the ability of the economy to draw in additional workers is limited (Chart 11). Chart 10The U.S. Economy Is Overheating Chart 11A Small Pool Of People Want ##br##To Jump Into The Labor Market Historically, continuing unemployment claims have closely tracked the unemployment rate over time (Chart 12). The fact that continuing claims have dropped by 9% since the end of January, while the unemployment rate has dipped by only 0.1 percentage points, suggests that the unemployment rate will fall further over the coming months. On balance, we continue to maintain our bearish recommendation on Treasurys, but acknowledge that a trade war is a risk to that view. Trade Wars And Currencies Unlike safe-haven bonds, whose yields are likely to decline in proportion to the magnitude of the trade war, the impact on the dollar is more difficult to predict. On the one hand, a modest trade dispute is likely to be somewhat dollar bearish, inasmuch as it hurts U.S. growth and forces the Fed to slow the pace of rate hikes. Since most other major central banks are not in a position to cut rates, expected rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners would narrow. On the other hand, a severe trade war would probably be dollar bullish. As the dollar's behavior during the Global Financial Crisis illustrates, even major shocks that originate from the U.S. still tend to attract capital inflows into the safe-haven Treasury market. The U.S. is a fairly closed economy, and hence would be relatively less affected by a breakdown in global trade. Commodities are also likely to suffer if trade flows decline (Chart 13). Lower commodity prices tend to be bullish for the greenback. Moreover, as we discussed in our latest Strategy Outlook, a tit-for-tat trade war with China could force the Chinese government to devalue the yuan. That would have a knock-on effect on other emerging market currencies. Chart 12Unemployment Can Fall Further Chart 13Commodities Are A Potential Victim Of Trade War Notably, the greenback has fared better recently than it did earlier this year during days when protectionist rhetoric intensified. On Wednesday, the broad trade-weighted dollar gained 0.3% while the DXY picked up 0.6%. This supports our view that the dollar will strengthen over the remainder of the year. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame?," dated April 6, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 This assumes an elasticity of import demand of 3, which is broadly consistent with most academic estimates. 3 Avinash K. Dixit, and Robert S. Pindyck, "Investment Under Uncertainty," Princeton University Press, (1994). 4 Peter Berezin, "Border Effects Within A Dynamic Equilibrium Trade Model," The International Trade Journal, 14:3 (2000), 235-282. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral," dated June 20, 2018. BOX 1 The Deadweight Loss From A Trade War Box Chart 1Tariffs Increase Budget Revenues, But Lead To A Bigger Loss In Consumer Surplus In the simplest models of international trade, an increase in tariffs leads to higher prices, resulting in a loss of consumer surplus. This is depicted by the blue region (ABCE) in Box Chart 1. The government collects revenue from the tariff shown by the red-colored rectangle (ABDE). The difference between the loss in consumer surplus and the gain in revenue - often referred to as the "deadweight loss" from a tariff - is depicted by the green-colored triangle (BCD). Arithmetically, the area of the triangle can be calculated as: Deadweight loss = 0.5 x Tariff x (Pre-tariff level of imports - Post-tariff level of imports) If one divides both sides by GDP, the formula reduces to: Deadweight loss/GDP = 0.5 x Tariff x Percentage Point Change In Import Share of GDP Resulting From Tariff There are many things in the real world that are not captured by this equation. For example, if the country that imposes the tariff is sufficiently large, this could push down the international price of the goods that it imports. The country would then benefit from an improvement in its terms of trade. As Robert Torrens showed back in the 19th century, if a country has any degree of market power (i.e., it is not a complete price-taker on international markets), there will always be a level of tariffs that makes it better off. The caveat is that this "optimal tariff" only exists if other countries do not retaliate. If everyone retaliates against everyone else, everyone will be worse off from a trade war. Moreover, as discussed in the main text, there are many factors that this simple model does not capture which could result in significant economic damage from raising tariffs even when retaliation does not take place, especially in cases where the tariffs are imposed on intermediate and capital goods. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The fundamental case to buy the dollar and sell non-U.S. risk assets is currently extremely obvious. This suggests that investors likely have already placed their bets. As such, the case for a counter-trend correction espoused last week has grown. The impact of tariffs on the dollar seems more dependent on the dollar's momentum than economics. As a result, getting a handle on how the greenback's momentum will evolve seems crucial. The behavior of Chinese assets, various currency pairs and other assets suggests the dollar may experience a significant loss of momentum that could prompt a correction of DXY to 92. The Canadian dollar seems the best place to take advantage of this move. Feature The currency market does not feel right. We do not mean that it is sick; however, we cannot help but feel a great level of discomfort right now. The economic environment clearly supports a stronger dollar. Global liquidity is weak, global growth has weakened, the yuan has been very soft and trade wars are on the front page of newspapers as the Trump administration has announced an additional $200 billion of potential new tariffs on Chinese exports. Hence, the bullish-dollar negative-EM story seems like a "no brainer." However, there rarely, if ever, is such thing as a "no-brainer" in the FX market. When fundamentals point as obviously in one direction as they do today, the narrative is likely to be appreciated by the vast majority of market participants. As a result, the bets are likely to have been placed. This risk seems especially acute today. Hence, we recommend investors temporarily move away from the dollar-bullish thesis. Occam's Razor At first glance, the recent wave of strength in the dollar seems to have been prompted by the new wave of trade war intensification. While China has not announced new tariffs on the U.S., the renminbi has continued to depreciate, evocating memories harkening back to August 2015 and the emerging market calamity that culminated in January 2016. While the risk created by a lower CNY is real, the dollar has had a schizophrenic approach to pricing in the impact of tariffs. In the first half of 2018, announcements of tariffs were greeted by a weaker dollar. However, since May, the same type of news has been greeted by a stronger dollar. An economic argument can be made as to why this is the case. In early 2018, global rates were still at rock-bottom levels, with the GDP-weighted average policy rate in the G-10 outside the U.S. being at 0.2%. Moreover, U.S. inflation was still tepid, but the fed funds rate was 1.5%. As result, if tariffs were to slow growth, only the Fed had room to ease. Moreover, since as of early 2018 global growth still looked to be on the upswing, it was argued that global monetary conditions were still accommodative enough than non-U.S. growth would barely be affected. Today, global growth is already showing signs of sagging, with weakness in Korean exports vindicating this analysis (Chart I-1). This means that growth outside the U.S. is perceived as more vulnerable to tariffs than was the case back in the first quarter of this year, especially as the amount of tariffs imposed on the world has grown. While the U.S. will also suffer from these tariffs, it is in better position to weather their impact. As such, since FX determination goes beyond just rate differentials and is also affected by growth differentials, the greater risk to non-U.S. growth is what is lifting the dollar. This narrative makes sense and is probably playing a role in the dollar's strength. However, we suspect something much simpler is exerting an even greater influence on the greenback: momentum. As we have long been arguing, the dollar is the epitome of momentum currencies in the G-10 (Chart I-2).1 Chart I-1Global Growth Slowdown Chart I-2USD Is A Momentum Currency Among all the momentum strategies we have tested, the one that works best at capturing the momentum continuation effect in the USD is tracking crossovers of the 20-day and 130-day moving averages. When the 20-day moving average is above the 130-day one, the dollar has an upward bias that is tradeable, and vice versa when the faster moving average lies below the slower one. Through most of 2017 all the way until May 9, 2018, the 20-day moving average for the dollar was in fact underneath the 130-day moving average. However, since May 10, it has been above (Chart I-3). Here is where things get interesting. When the moving average crossover strategy was sending a bearish signal for the greenback, tariff announcements would weaken the dollar; but since the crossover has been in bullish territory, tariff announcements have been lifting the dollar (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Favorable Momentum ##br##Backdrop On The Dollar Chart I-4Momentum Drives The Dollar's ##br##Reaction To Tariffs What does this mean for investors going forward? So long as the dollar is in a bullish momentum configuration, trade announcements will support the greenback. However, on this front we could expect a period of temporary calm after the storm (a low-conviction call, to be clear). The Trump team just announced an enormous tariffs package, Europe and Canada have put in place their own retaliation tariffs, the NATO meeting is over and the CNY has fallen by 6.4% since April 11. For the dollar to strengthen further, the onus thus falls back on momentum itself and market signals. But, as we highlighted last week, we are concerned that the dollar momentum could actually weaken from current levels. Bottom Line: Trade war risks seem to have been supporting the USD and weakened EM assets. However, the picture is not that clear-cut. Until May, moving average crossovers for the dollar were sending a bearish signal; during that time frame, tariff announcements were welcomed by a weak dollar. Since May, the dollar's moving average crossovers have been sending a bullish signal; since that time, tariff announcements have been welcomed by a strong dollar, which in turn has weighed on non-U.S. risk assets. Thus, with a likely period of calm on the trade front in the coming weeks, the outlook for momentum is likely to determine the trend in the dollar and in the price of risk assets outside the U.S. Reading The Market Tea Leaves At this point, having a sense of how momentum is likely to evolve is crucial. This is where that sinking feeling comes into play. Fundamentals seem to give a clear picture, but when the picture is so clear, a trap often lies ahead. The first clue to this trap comes from the Zew expectations survey. The Zew is a survey of market professionals, asking them their view on growth, and so on. These views are likely to be reflected in current market pricing. What is interesting is that this global growth survey has been tanking violently. The perception is thus that global growth is decelerating fast. Indeed, global growth has slowed, but as the global PMI illustrates - a variable that moves coincidently with the global Zew - it is not falling nearly as fast as expectations are (Chart I-5). This creates a risk for the dollar bulls - bulls who need further growth weakness to justify additional dollar strength. China is at the epicenter of the global growth slowdown. Interestingly, the Shanghai Composite Index is already testing the lows it experienced in early 2016 (Chart I-6). However, the Chinese economic picture is not as dire as was the case back then. PPI inflation is at 4.6% today, while it hit -5.9% at its nadir in November 2015. Thus, real interest rates faced by borrowers are 9.9% lower than they were back then. Moreover, the Li-Keqiang index of industrial activity is rebounding smartly. Finally, while FX reserves are contracting, they are not falling at the pace of US$108 billion a month endured in the worst months of 2015, which means that liquidity conditions in China are not experiencing the same tightening as back then. In fact, the Chinese repo rate is currently falling, supporting this notion (Chart I-7). This combination of economic indicators and financial market prices suggests that ample bad news is already priced into Chinese assets and thus China-linked assets for now. Chart I-5Analysts Know Growth Is Slowing Chart I-6Chinese Shares As Sick As In Early 2016 Chart I-7Some Reflation In China? Chinese shares expressed in USD-terms are also interesting. Not only are they re-testing their 2016 lows, but by the end of June their RSI oscillator had hit more deeply oversold levels than in January 2016 (Chart I-8). Very saliently, despite this week's announcement of a potential $200 billion of new tariffs imposed on China, Chinese shares expressed in U.S. dollars are not making new lows, and the RSI is slowly rebounding. This resilience is surprising, considering the magnitude of the bad news. Copper too is interesting. It seems that Dr. Copper has had a bit of a hangover lately, as its response speed has slowed considerably. Copper used to be a very reliable leading indicator, but since 2015 it seems to have become a coincident indicator of EM equities (Chart I-9). The recent 16% decline in the price of copper seems to be a catch-up to the weakness already evident in EM assets and EM currencies more than an early signal of additional problems to come for these markets. In fact, it may even indicate an intermediate capitulation in the price of these assets. Chart I-8Chinese Shares In USD: A Rebound Soon? Chart I-9Dr. Copper Is Hungover Other than these assets directly linked to China, since the end of June Treasury yields have also not been able to fall lower, and have proven very resilient in the face of the latest wave of CNY weakness and Trump tariffs (Chart I-10, top panel). Additionally, the euro/yen exchange rate, which is normally very levered to global growth conditions, has not only been rallying but breaking out of a downward trend in place since the beginning of 2018 (Chart I-10, second panel). Moreover, the extraordinarily pro-cyclical AUD/JPY cross bottomed in March and looks barely affected by the recent tumult (Chart 10, third panel). Finally, the growth-sensitive EUR/CHF is currently also strengthening, not weakening (Chart I-10, bottom panel). The behavior of all these market prices is inconsistent with an imminent new upswing in the dollar. The behavior of these variables is instead consistent with the movement of our favorite leading indicator of global growth: EM carry trades. We have used the EM carry trade to flag risks to global growth that have gripped the dollar and non-U.S. risk assets in recent months. However, despite the bad news piled onto the global economy, the performance of EM carry trades funded in yen seems to be trying to form a bottom (Chart I-11). This could indicate that we may be in for a period of temporary stabilization in global growth - a phenomenon that would weigh on the dollar's momentum. Without this ally, the dollar should correct meaningfully and non-U.S. risk assets should stage a rally. When thinking of a target for the dollar, a correction toward 92 on the DXY, implying a rebound of just under 1.20 on EUR/USD, seems very likely. At these levels, it will be time to re-evaluate whether the thesis we espoused last week - that this correction is a counter-trend move - is still valid or not. Also, we would expect commodity currencies to benefit even more than the euro in the context of this correction. Commodity currencies are especially levered to China, and Chinese stocks seem well positioned for a significant rebound. Moreover, as Chart I-12 illustrates, commodity currencies have been stronger than the relative performance of Swedish stocks vis-à-vis U.S. ones suggests, implying some underlying support. Finally, the yen and Swiss franc should prove the greatest losers in this environment. Chart I-10Despite Bad News, These Pro-Cylical Prices Are Resilient Chart I-11Stabilization In EM Carry Trades Chart I-12Important Divergence In terms of factors we continue to monitor, the price of gold remains a key variable. While the trend line we flagged last week has been re-tested, the yellow metal has not been able to punch through it. Meanwhile, EM bonds and junk bonds too have not suffered much in the face of the recent tariffs, and the rebound that has materialized since early July still seems in place. If any of these development change, the rebound in EM assets will peter off, and the dollar greenback will continue its march higher without much of a pause. Bottom Line: Fundamentals are making an extremely clear case that the dollar will strengthen further in the coming months, and that non-U.S. risk assets are in for a dive. However, when fundamentals are as clear as they are today, especially after the market moves we have seen in recent months, they rarely translate into the price action one would anticipate. The behavior of Chinese shares, of bond yields and of various currency pairs, including EM carry-trades, suggests instead that the dollar is likely to lose momentum. However, the life blood of any dollar rally is this very momentum. As such, we worry that despite apparently massively favorable fundamentals, the dollar could experience a correction toward 92 before being able to move higher as the fundamentals currently suggest. Commodity currencies could enjoy the greatest dividend from this counter-trend move. A Few Words On The CAD The Bank of Canada was anticipated to deliver a dovish hike this week, increasing rates to 1.5%, but also downgrading the path of additional expected rates. The BoC did deliver a hike, but it stuck to its guns and did not temper future interest rate expectations. Within the BoC's analytical framework, this move makes sense. Despite incorporating both tariff and NAFTA risks into its forecast, the BoC has barely changed its growth expectations for Canada. Essentially, the hit to Canadian exports will be balanced out by the hit to Canadian imports created by Canada's own retaliatory tariffs on the U.S. This means that the lack of excess capacity in the Canadian economy remains as salient a problem for the BoC as it was before NAFTA risks entered the picture. This warrants higher rates. The economic backdrop seems to indeed be in agreement with the BoC. This summer's Business Outlook Survey showed that Canadian businesses continue to find it increasingly difficult to meet demand and that labor shortages are still prevalent and becoming more intense, highlighting the upside risk to wages (Chart I-13). Higher wages are thus likely to buffet Canadian households from the risk created by higher policy rates. Moreover, higher wages also stoke inflationary pressures, while core inflation is already at target. In this environment, a real short rate at -0.4% makes little sense. The CAD looks like the best vehicle to take advantage of a rebound in commodity currencies. The CAD is currently trading at a deep discount to its fair value (Chart I-14) and the Canadian dollar proved surprisingly resilient in the face of a 7% decline in Brent prices on Wednesday. Additionally, speculators have accumulated large short bets on the Canadian currency. With the BoC being the only central bank among G-10 commodity producing nations that is lifting rates, this would create an additional impetus for the loonie to rebound and outperform other commodity currencies. Chart I-13Canadian Capacity Pressures ##br##Point To A Hawkish BoC Chart I-14Loonie Is ##br##Cheap Bottom Line: The BoC has resumed its hiking campaign because the economy is at full capacity and inflationary pressures continue to build up, while monetary policy remains too accommodative. As a result, the cheap CAD currently seems the best G-10 currency to take advantage of the correction in the USD. We are selling USD/CAD this week. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled “Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets”, dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was positive: JOLTS Job Openings climbed to 6.638 mn in May, beating expectations; Headline producer prices increased by 3.4% annually, the most in 11 years; Core producer prices increased by 2.8% in annual terms; Core consumer prices increased by 2.3% annually in June, in line with expectations, however, the month-on-month number was a bit soft; Continuing jobless claims underperformed, while initial jobless claims came in lower than expected. New threats from the White House of tariffs for USD 200 billion worth of Chinese imports circulated the media networks. At this point in time, almost 90% of U.S. imports from China are under threat of tariffs. The risks surrounding these tariffs going forward is likely to add substantially more pressure on emerging markets and commodity currencies down the road. Meanwhile, the U.S. is experiencing a robust economy with higher inflation supported by more expensive raw materials, higher lumber and housing prices, and a tight trucking market. This should keep the Fed in line with its hawkish bias, and the greenback afloat, even if on the short-run, much of this seem well discounted, raising the risk of a tactical correction in the DXY. Report Links: Time To Pause And Breathe - July 6, 2018 What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 European data was mixed: The German trade balance increased to EUR 20.3 billion on the back of a 1.8% annual export growth and a 0.7% annual import growth; The Sentix Investor Confidence increased to 12.1 in July from 9.3 in June, and beating the expected 8.2; French and Italian industrial output both underperformed expectations, coming in at -0.2% and 0.7% in monthly terms, respectively; The Economic Sentiment from the ZEW Survey came in less than expected for both Germany and the euro area, at -24.7 and -18.7 respectively; A slight misunderstanding between policymakers at the ECB emerged as the interpretation of interest rates being held "through the summer of 2019" proved contentious. Some officials say an increase as early as July 2019 is possible, while others rule out a move until autumn. We believe the latter is more likely, given the euro's negative reaction to the U.S.' announcement of additional tariffs of USD 200 billion imports from China, and also due to the current slowdown within the common area. Report Links: Time To Pause And Breathe - July 6, 2018 What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been positive: Machinery orders yearly growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 16.5%. Moreover, labor cash earnings yearly growth also surprised to the upside, coming in at 2.1%. Finally, housing starts yearly growth also outperformed expectations, coming in at 1.3%. USD/JPY has rallied by more than 1.4% this week. Even amid the increasing trade tensions and risk-off sentiment, the yen has been unable to rally against the dollar, as the momentum for the greenback is too strong for the yen to overcome. Overall, we favor the yen over the euro, however if the dollar were to correct at current levels, EUR/JPY would likely suffer in the process. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Manufacturing production yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.1%. Moreover, Industrial production yearly growth also surprised negatively, coming in at 0.8%. However, mortgage approvals outperformed expectations, coming in at 64.526 thousand. Finally, Markit Services PMI also surprised positively, coming in at 55.1. GBP/USD has remained flat this week. Overall, we expect cable to continue to fall, as the dollar should continue its upward momentum for the time being. That being said, on the remainder of 2018, the pound will probably outperform the euro, as the U.K. is less exposed to the effects of Chinese tightening than Europe. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was mixed: NAB Business Confidence and Conditions both underperformed expectations, coming in at 6 and 15 respectively; Westpac Consumer Confidence increase to 3.9% in July from 0.3%; Home Loans grew by 1.1%, much better than the expected -1.9%. The Aussie sold off substantially as the U.S. threatened China with further tariffs amounting to USD 200 bn worth of goods. Adding to the sell-off were copper prices, which fell by almost 3%, also triggered by the tariff announcement. Furthermore, as the Australian economy remains mired in slack, the RBA is unlikely to hike in an environment with no real wage growth. As such, the AUD is unlikely to see much durable upside this year and is likely to lag other commodity currencies in the event of a dollar correction. Report Links: What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD/USD has been flat this week. Even if it can rebound on the back of USD correction, we expect this currency to ultimately fall, given that the current environment of trade tensions and Chinese tightening will weigh on high yielding currencies like the NZD. Additionally, the policies implemented by the new government like lower immigration and a dual mandate will structurally lower the neutral rate in New Zealand, which will create further downside on the NZD. However, the NZD should outperform the AUD cyclically, as Australia is more exposed to a slowdown in the Chinese industrial cycle, given that copper has a higher beta than dairy products. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Canadian data was decent: Housing starts grew by 248,100 year-on-year, beating expectations of 210,000; Building permits increased by 4.7% in monthly terms. The Bank of Canada this week hiked interest rates to 1.5%. The Bank displayed quite a hawkish stance in its statement and Monetary Policy report, noting a stronger than expected U.S. economy, high export growth, robust inflation, and a tight labor market. In addition, the Bank incorporated the newly implemented tariffs into its policy function. Nevertheless, recent comments by Governor Poloz imply a "data dependent" approach, which is consistent with policy responses to internal inflationary pressures. We therefore expect the CAD to continue to outperform all G10 currencies except USD. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: The KOF leading indicator outperformed expectations, coming in at 101.7. Moreover, the SVME PMI also outperformed expectations, coming in at 61.6. However, the unemployment rate underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.6%. Finally, headline inflation came in at 1.1%, in line with expectations. EUR/CHF has been flat since last week. Overall, we expect this cross to continue to go up, given that the SNB will keep intervening in the currency markets to keep the franc low enough for the economy to reach the central bank inflation mandate. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been positive: Retail sales yearly growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 1.8%. Moreover, headline inflation surprised positively, coming in at 2.6%, while core inflation came in at 1.1%, in line with expectations. Finally, registered unemployment, came in at 2.2%, in line with expectations. USD/NOK has gone up by roughly 0.6% this week. While it has short-term downside, we continue to be cyclically bullish on this cross, as the upside to oil prices is limited at this point, while a tightening fed should continue to put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. That being said, the NOK will likely outperform the AUD and the NZD, given that the constrained supply of oil will help it to outperform other commodities. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The minutes from the July meeting highlighted some reservation by officials given the current economic background. The forecast is that slow rate rises will be initiated towards the end of the year. However, the majority of the Executive Board emphasized that monetary policy proceeds cautiously with hikes, given the volatile development of the exchange rate and the increased risks associated with Italy and trade protectionism. The majority also advocated for the extension of the mandate that facilitates foreign exchange intervention. However, Governors Ohlsson and Flodén argued against this view, even supporting hikes earlier as inflation is already at target. The SEK is very cheap on several valuation metrics, and thus is ripe for an up move, which is likely when the majority of the Riksbank officials aligns with a hawkish view. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

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 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 Chart 3EM 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 Chart 5China 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 Chart 6U.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 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 Chart 9Copper, Aluminum Markets Are Key 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 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 Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017