Equities

Highlights Divergence between U.S. and global economic outcomes is bullish for the U.S. dollar and bad for EM assets; Maximum Pressure worked with North Korea, but it may not with Iran, putting upside pressure on oil; An election is the only way to resolve split over Brexit and the new anti-establishment coalition in Italy is not market positive; Historic election outcome in Malaysia and the prospect of a weakened Erdogan favors Malaysian over Turkish assets; Reinitiate long Russian vs EM equities in light of higher oil price and reopen French versus German industrials as reforms continue unimpeded in France. Feature "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." - Theodore Roosevelt, in a letter to Henry L. Sprague, January 26, 1900. May started with a geopolitical bang. On May 4, a high-profile U.S. trade delegation to Beijing returned home after two days of failed negotiations. Instead of bridging the gap between the two superpowers, the delegation doubled it.1 On May 8, President Trump put his Maximum Pressure doctrine - honed against Pyongyang - into action against Iran, announcing that the U.S. would withdraw from the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal - also referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). These geopolitical headlines were good for the U.S. dollar, bad for Treasuries, and generally miserable for emerging market (EM) assets (Chart 1).2 We have expected these very market moves since the beginning of the year, recommending that clients go long the DXY on January 31 and go short EM equities vs. DM on March 6.3 Chart 1EM Breakdown? Chart 2U.S. Dollar Rallies When Global Trade Slows Geopolitical risks, however, are merely the accelerant of an ongoing process of global growth redistribution. A key theme for BCA's Geopolitical Strategy this year has been the divergent ramifications of populist stimulus in the U.S. and structural reforms in China. This political divergence in economic outcomes has reduced growth in the latter and accelerated it in the former, a bullish environment for the U.S. dollar (Chart 2).4 Data is starting to support this narrative: Chart 3Global Growth On A Knife Edge Chart 4German Data... The BCA OECD LEI has stalled, but the diffusion index shows a clear deterioration (Chart 3); German trade is showing signs of weakness, as is industrial production and IFO business confidence (Chart 4); Another bellwether of global trade, South Korea, is showing a rapid deterioration in exports (Chart 5); Global economic surprise index is now in negative territory (Chart 6). Chart 5...And South Korean, Foreshadows Risks Chart 6Unexpected Slowdown In Global Growth Meanwhile, on the U.S. side of the ledger, wage pressures are rising as the number of unemployed workers and job openings converge (Chart 7). Given the additional tailwinds of fiscal stimulus, which we see no real chance of being reversed either before or after the midterm election, the U.S. economy is likely to continue to surprise to the upside relative to the rest of the world, a bullish outcome for the U.S. dollar (Chart 8). In this environment of U.S. outperformance and global growth underperformance, EM assets are likely to suffer. Chart 7U.S. Labor Market Is Tightening Chart 8U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD Additionally, it does not help that geopolitical risks will weigh on confidence and will buoy demand for safe haven assets, such as the U.S. dollar. First, U.S.-China trade relations will continue to dominate the news flow this summer. President Trump's positive tweets on the smartphone giant ZTE aside, the U.S. and China have not reached a substantive agreement and upcoming deadlines on trade-related matters remain a risk (Table 1). Table 1Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch Second, President Trump's application of Maximum Pressure on Iran will cause further volatility and upside pressure on the oil markets. The media was caught by surprise by the president's announcement that he is withdrawing the U.S. from the JCPOA, which is puzzling given that the May 12 expiration of the sanctions waiver was well-telegraphed (Chart 9). It is also surprising given that President Trump signaled his pivot towards an aggressive foreign policy by appointing John Bolton and Mike Pompeo - two adherents of a hawkish foreign policy - to replace more middle-of-the-road policymakers. It was these personnel changes, combined with the U.S. president's lack of constraints on foreign policy, that inspired us to include Iran as the premier geopolitical risk for 2018.5 Chart 9Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran-U.S. Tensions: Maximum Pressure Is Real Last year, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy correctly forecast that President Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine would work against North Korea. First, we noted that President Trump reestablished America's "credible threat," a crucial factor in any negotiation.6 Without credible threats, it is impossible to cajole one's rival into shifting away from the status quo. The trick with North Korea, for each administration that preceded President Trump, was that it was difficult to establish such a credible threat given Pyongyang's ability to retaliate through conventional artillery against South Korean population centers. President Trump swept this concern aside by appearing unconcerned with what were to befall South Korean civilians or the Korean-U.S. alliance. Second, we noted in a detailed military analysis that North Korean retaliation - apart from the aforementioned conventional capacity - was paltry.7 President Trump called Kim Jong-un's bluff about targeting Guam with ballistic missiles and kept up Maximum Pressure throughout a summer full of rhetorical bluster. As tensions rose, China blinked first, enforcing President Trump's demand for tighter sanctions. China did not want the U.S. to attack North Korea or to use the North Korean threat as a reason to build up its military assets in the region. The collapse of North Korean exports to China ultimately starved the regime of hard cash and, in conjunction with U.S. military and rhetorical pressure, forced Kim Jong-un to back off (Chart 10). In essence, President Trump's doctrine is a modification of President Theodore Roosevelt's maxim. Instead of "talking softly," President Trump recommends "tweeting aggressively".8 It is important to recount the North Korean experience for several reasons: Maximum Pressure worked with North Korea: It is an objective fact that President Trump was correct in using Maximum Pressure on North Korea. Our analysis last year carefully detailed why it would be a success. However, we also specifically outlined why it would work with North Korea. Particularly relevant was Pyongyang's inability to counter American economic pressure and rhetoric with material leverage. Kim Jong-un's only objective capability is to launch a massive artillery attack against civilians in Seoul. Given his preference not to engage in a full-out war against South Korea and the U.S., he balked and folded. Trump is tripling-down on what works: President Trump, as all presidents before him, is learning on the job. The North Korean experience has convinced him that his Maximum Pressure tactic works. In particular, it works because it forces third parties to enforce economic sanctions on the target nation. If China were to abandon its traditional ally North Korea and enforced painful sanctions, the logic goes, then Europeans would ditch Iran much faster. Iran is not North Korea: The danger with applying a Maximum Pressure tactic against Iran is that Tehran has multiple levers around the Middle East that it could deploy to counter U.S. pressure. President Obama did not sign the JCPOA merely because he was a dove.9 He did so because the deal resolved several regional security challenges and allowed the U.S. to pivot to Asia (Chart 11). Chart 10Maximum Pressure Worked On Pyongyang Chart 11Iran Nuclear Deal Had A Strategic Imperative To understand why Iran is not North Korea, and how the application of Maximum Pressure could induce greater uncertainty in this case, investors first have to comprehend why the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal was concluded in the first place. Maximum Pressure Applied To Iran The 2015 U.S.-Iran deal resolved a crucial security dilemma in the Middle East: what to do about Iran's growing power in the region. Ever since the U.S. toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, the fulcrum of the region's disequilibrium has been the status of Iraq. Iraq is a natural geographic buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two regional rivals. Hussein, a Sunni, ruled Iraq - 65% of which is Shia - either as an overt client of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia (1980-1988), or as a free agent largely opposed to everyone in the region (from 1990s onwards). Both options were largely acceptable to Saudi Arabia, although the former was preferable. Iran quickly seized the initiative in Iraq following the U.S. overthrow of Hussein, which created a vast vacuum of power in the country. Elite members of the country's Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), the so-called Quds Force, infiltrated Iraq and supplied various Shia militias with weapons and training that fueled the anti-U.S. insurgency. An overt Iranian ally, Nouri al-Maliki, assumed power in 2006. Soon the anti-U.S. insurgency evolved into sectarian violence as the Sunni population revolted and various Sunni militias, supported by Saudi Arabia, rose up against Shia-dominated Baghdad. The U.S. troops stationed in Iraq quickly became either incapable of controlling the sectarian violence or direct targets of the violence themselves. This rebellion eventually mutated into the Islamic State, which spread from Iraq to Syria in 2012 and then back to Iraq two years later. The Obama administration quickly realized that a U.S. military presence in Iraq would have to be permanent if Iranian influence in the country was to be curbed in the long term. This position was untenable, however, given U.S. military casualties in Iraq, American public opinion about the war, and lack of clarity on U.S. long-term interests in Iraq in the first place. President Obama therefore simultaneously withdrew American troops from Iraq in 2011 and began pressuring Iran on its nuclear program between 2011 and 2015.10 In addition, the U.S. demanded that Iran curb its influence in Iraq, that its anti-American/Israel rhetoric cease, and that it help defend Iraq against the attacks by the Islamic State in 2014. Tehran obliged on all three fronts, joining forces with the U.S. Air Force and Special Forces in the defense of Baghdad in the fall 2014.11 In 2014, Iran acquiesced in seeing its ally al-Maliki replaced by the far less sectarian Haider al-Abadi. These moves helped ease tensions between the U.S. and Iran and led to the signing of the JCPOA in 2015. From Tehran's perspective, it has abided by all the demands made by Washington during the 2012-2015 negotiations, both those covered by the JCPOA overtly and those never explicitly put down on paper. Yes, Iran's influence in the Middle East has expanded well beyond Iraq and into Syria, where Iranian troops are overtly supporting President Bashar al-Assad. But from Iran's perspective, the U.S. abandoned Syria in 2012 - when President Obama failed to enforce his "red line" on chemical weapons use. In fact, without Iranian and Russian intervention, it is likely that the Islamic State would have gained a greater foothold in Syria. The point that its critics miss is that the 2015 nuclear deal always envisioned giving Iran a sphere of influence in the Middle East. Otherwise, Tehran would not have agreed to curb its nuclear program! To force Iran to negotiate, President Obama did threaten Tehran with military force. As we have detailed in the past, President Obama established a credible threat by outsourcing it to Israel in 2011. It was this threat of a unilateral Israeli attack, which Obama did little to limit or prevent, that ultimately forced Europeans to accept the hawkish American position and impose crippling economic sanctions against Iran in early 2012. As such, it is highly unlikely that a rerun of the same strategy by the U.S., this time with Trump in charge and with potentially less global cooperation on sanctions, will produce a different, or better, deal. The recent history is important to recount because the Trump administration is convinced that it can get a better deal from Iran than the Obama administration did. This may be true, but it will require considerable amounts of pressure on Iran to achieve it. At some point, we expect that this pressure will look very much like a preparation for war against Iran, either by U.S. allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, or by the U.S. itself. First, President Trump will have to create a credible threat of force, as President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did in 2011-2012. Second, President Trump will have to be willing to sanction companies in Europe and Asia for doing business with Iran in order to curb Iran's oil exports. According to National Security Advisor John Bolton, European companies will have by the end of 2018 to curb their activities with Iran or face sanctions. The one difference this time around is Iraqi politics. Elections held on May 13 appear to have resulted in a surge of support for anti-Iranian Shia candidates, starting with the ardently anti-American and anti-Iranian Shia Ayatollah Muqtada al-Sadr. Sadr is a Shia, but also an Iraqi nationalist who campaigned on an anti-Tehran, anti-poverty, anti-corruption line. If the election signals a clear shift in Baghdad against Iran, then Iran may have one less important lever to play against the U.S. and its allies. However, we are only cautiously optimistic about Iraq. Pro-Iranian Shia forces, while in a clear minority, still maintain the support of roughly half of Iraqi Shias. And al-Sadr may not be able to govern effectively, given that his track record thus far mainly consists of waging insurgent warfare (against Americans) and whipping up populist fervor (against Iran). Any move in Baghdad, with U.S. and Saudi backing, to limit Iranian-allied Shia groups from government could lead to renewed sectarian conflict. Therein lies the key difference between North Korea and Iran. Iran has military, intelligence, and operational capabilities that North Korea does not. This is precisely why the U.S. concluded the 2015 deal in the first place, so that Iran would curb those capabilities regionally and limit its operations to the Iranian "sphere of influence." In addition, Iran is constrained against reopening negotiations with the U.S. domestically by the ongoing political contest between the moderates - such as President Hassan Rouhani - and the hawks - represented by the military and intelligence nexus. Supreme Leader Khamenei sits somewhere in the middle, but will side with the hawks if it looks like Rouhani's promise of economic benefits from the détente with the West will fall short of reality. The combination of domestic pressure and capabilities therefore makes it likely that Iran retaliates against American pressure at some point. While such retaliation could be largely investment-irrelevant - say by supporting Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel or ramping up military operations in Syria - it could also affect oil prices if it includes activities in and around the Persian Gulf. Bottom Line: We caution clients not to believe the narrative that "Trump is all talk." As the example in North Korea suggests, Trump's rhetoric drove China to enforce sanctions in order to avert war on the Korean Peninsula. We therefore expect the U.S. administration to continue to threaten European and Asian partners and allies with sanctions, causing an eventual drop in Iranian oil exports. In addition, we expect Iran to play hardball, using its various proxies in the region to remind the Trump administration why Obama signed the 2015 deal in the first place. Could Trump ultimately be right on Iran as he was on North Korea? Absolutely. It is simply naïve to assume that Iran will negotiate without Maximum Pressure, which by definition will be market-relevant. Impact On Energy Markets BCA Energy Sector Strategy believes that the re-imposition of sanctions could result in a loss of 300,000-500,000 b/d of production by early 2019.12 This would take 2019 production back down to 3.3-3.5 MMB/d instead of growing to nearly 4.0 MMb/d as our commodity strategists have modeled in their supply-demand forecasts. In total, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for 2019 oil markets by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing the production that Iran has brought online since 2016 (Chart 12). Is the global energy market able to withstand this type of loss of production? First, Chart 13 shows that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been cut from 450 million barrels at its peak to less than 100 million barrels today. Surplus inventories are destined to shrink to nothing by the end of the year even without geopolitical risks. In short, there is no excess inventory cushion. Chart 12Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Chart 13Excess Petroleum Inventories Are All But Gone Second, spare capacity within the OPEC 2.0 alliance - Saudi Arabia and Russia - is controversial. Many clients believe that OPEC 2.0 could easily restore the 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. However, our commodity team has always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually has achieved (Chart 14). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 15). Chart 14Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are ##br##Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 15Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors"##br## Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Third, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.23 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 16). Venezuelan production declined by 450,000 b/d over the course of 21 months (December 2015 to September 2017), followed by another 450,000 b/d plunge over the past six months (September 2017 to March 2018), as the country's failing economy goes through the death spiral of its 20-year socialist experiment. The oil production supply chain is now suffering from shortages of everything, including capital. It is difficult to predict what broken link in the supply chain is most likely to impact production next, when it will happen, and what the size of the production impact will be. The combination of President Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine applied to Iran, continued deterioration in Venezuelan production, and the inability of OPEC 2.0 to surge production as fast as the market thinks is unambiguously bullish for oil prices. Oil markets are currently pricing in a just under 35% probability that oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end (Chart 17).13 We believe these odds are too low and will take the other side of that bet. Indeed, we think that the odds of Brent prices ending above $90/bbl this year are much higher than the 16% chance being priced in the markets presently, even though this is up from just under 4% at the beginning of the year. Chart 16Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Chart 17Market Continues To Underestimate High Oil Prices Bottom Line: Our colleague Bob Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist, also expects higher volatility, as news flows become noisier. The recommendation by BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy is to go long Feb/19 $80/bbl Brent calls expiring in Dec/18 vs. short Feb/19 $85/bbl calls, given our assessment that the odds of ending the year above $90/bbl are higher than the market's expectations. A key variable to watch in the ongoing saga will be President Trump's willingness to impose secondary sanctions against European and Asian companies doing business with Iran. We do not think that the White House is bluffing. The mounting probability of sanctions will create "stroke of pen" risk and raise compliance costs to doing business with Iran, leading to lower Iranian exports by the end of the year. Europe Update: Political Risks Returning Risks in Europe are rising on multiple fronts. First, we continue to believe that the domestic political situation in the U.K. regarding Brexit is untenable. Second, the coalition of populists in Italy - combining the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and the Euroskeptic Lega - appears poised to become a reality. Brexit: Start Pricing In Prime Minister Corbyn Since our Brexit update in February, the pound has taken a wild ride, but our view has remained the same.14 PM May has an untenable negotiating position. The soft-Brexit majority in Westminster is growing confident while the hard-Brexit majority in her own Tory party is growing louder. We do not know who will win, but odds of an unclear outcome are growing. The first problem is the status of Northern Ireland. The 1998 Good Friday agreement, which ended decades of paramilitary conflict on the island, established an invisible border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Membership in the EU by both made the removal of a physical border a simple affair. But if the U.K. exits the bloc, and takes Northern Ireland with it, presumably a physical barrier would have to be reestablished, either in Ireland or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. The former would jeopardize the Good Friday agreement, the latter would jeopardize the U.K.'s integrity as a state. The EU, led on by Dublin's interests, has proposed that Northern Ireland maintain some elements of the EU acquis communautaire - the accumulated body of EU's laws and obligations - in order to facilitate the effectiveness of the 1998 Good Friday agreement. For many Tories in the U.K., particularly those who consider themselves "Unionists," the arrangement smacks of a Trojan Horse by the EU to slowly but surely untie the strings that bind the U.K. together. If Northern Ireland gets an exception, then pro-EU Scotland is sure to ask for one too. The second problem is that the Tories are divided on whether to remain part of the EU customs union. PM May is in favor of a "customs partnership" with the EU, which would see unified tariffs and duties on goods and services across the EU bloc and the U.K. However, her own cabinet voted against her on the issue, mainly because a customs union with the EU would eliminate the main supposed benefit of Brexit: negotiating free trade deals independent of the EU. It is unclear how PM May intends to resolve the multiple disagreements on these issues within her party. Thus far, her strategy was to simply put the eventual deal with the EU up for a vote in Westminster. She agreed to hold such a vote, but with the caveat that a vote against the deal would break off negotiations with the EU and lead to a total Brexit. The threat of such a hard Brexit would force soft Brexiters among the Tories to accept whatever compromise she got from Brussels. Unfortunately for May's tactic, the House of Lords voted on April 30 to amend the flagship EU Withdrawal Bill to empower Westminster to send the government back to the negotiating table in case of a rejection of the final deal with the EU. The amendment will be accepted if the House of Commons agrees to it, which it may, given that a number of soft Brexit Tories are receptive. A defeat of the final negotiated settlement could prolong negotiations with the EU. Brussels is on record stating that it would prolong the transition period and give the U.K. a different Brexit date, moving the current date of March 2019. However, it is unclear why May would continue negotiating at that point, given that her own parliament would send her back to Brussels, hat in hand. The fundamental problem for May is the same that has plagued the last three Tory Prime Ministers: the U.K. Conservative Party is intractably split with itself on Brexit. The only way to resolve the split may be for PM May to call an election and give herself a mandate to negotiate with the EU once she is politically recapitalized. This realization, that the probability of a new election is non-negligible, will likely weigh on the pound going forward. Investors would likely balk at the possibility that Jeremy Corbyn will become the prime minister, although polling data suggests that his surge in popularity is over (Chart 18). Local elections in early May also ended inconclusively for Labour's chances, with no big outpouring for left-leaning candidates. Even if Labour is forced to form a coalition with the Scottish National Party (SNP), it is unlikely that the left-leaning SNP would be much of a check on Corbyn's Labour. Chart 18Corbyn's Popularity Is In Decline Bottom Line: Theresa May will either have to call a new election between now and March of next year or she will use the threat of a new election to get hard-Brexit Tories in line. Either way, markets will have to reprice the probability of a Labour-led government between now and a resolution to the Brexit crisis. Italy: Start Pricing In A Populist Government Leaders of Italy's populist parties - M5S and Lega - have come to an agreement on a coalition that will put the two anti-establishment parties in charge of the EU's third-largest economy. Markets are taking the news in stride because M5S has taken a 180-degree turn on Euroskepticism. Although Lega remains overtly Euroskeptic, its leader Matteo Salvini has said that he does not want a chaotic exit from the currency bloc. Is the market right to ignore the risks? On one hand, it is a positive development that the anti-establishment forces take over the reins in Italy. Establishment parties have failed to reform the country, while time spent in government will de-radicalize both anti-establishment parties. Furthermore, the one item on the political agenda that both parties agree on is to radically curb illegal migration into Italy, a process that is already underway (Chart 19). On the other hand, the economic pact signed by both parties is completely and utterly incompatible with reality. It combines a flat tax and a guaranteed basic income with a lowering of the retirement age. This would blow a hole in Italy's budget, barring a miraculous positive impact on GDP growth. The market is likely ignoring the coalition's economic policies as it assumes they cannot be put into action. This is not because Rome is afraid to flout Brussels' rules, but because the bond market is not going to finance Italian expenditures. Long-dated Italian bonds are already cheap relative to the country's credit rating (Chart 20), evidence that the market is asking for a premium to finance Italian expenditures. This is despite the ongoing ECB bond buying efforts. Once the ECB ends the program later this year, or in early 2019, the pressure on Rome from the bond market will grow. Chart 19European Migration Crisis Is Over Chart 20Italian Bonds Still Require A Risk Premium We suspect that both M5S and Lega are aware of their constraints. After all, neither M5S leader Luigi Di Maio nor Lega's Salvini are going to take the prime minister spot. This is extraordinary! We cannot remember the last time a leader of the winning party refused to take the top political spot following an election. Both Di Maio and Salvini are trying to pass the buck for the failure of the coalition. In one way, this is market-positive, as it suggests that the anti-establishment coalition will do nothing of note during its mandate. But it also suggests that markets will have to deal with a new Italian election relatively quickly. As such, we would warn investors to steer clear of Italian assets. Their performance in 2017, and early 2018, suggests that the market has already priced in the most market-positive outcome. Yes, Italy will not leave the Euro Area. But no, there is no "Macron of Italy" to resolve its long-term growth problems. Bottom Line: The Italian government formation is not market-positive. Italian bonds are cheap for a reason. While it is unlikely that the populist coalition will have the room to maneuver its profligate coalition deal into action, the bond market may have to discipline Italian policymakers from time to time. In the long term, none of the structural problems that Italy faces - many of which we have identified in a number of reports - will be tackled by the incoming coalition.15 This will expose Italy to an eventual resurgence in Euroskepticism at the first sight of the next recession. Emerging Markets: Elections In Malaysia And Turkey Offer Divergent Outcomes As we pointed out at the beginning of this report, an environment of rising U.S. yields, a surging dollar, and moderating global growth is negative for emerging markets. In this context, politics is unlikely to make much of a difference. The recently announced early election in Turkey is a case in point. Markets briefly cheered the announced election (Chart 21), before investors realized that there is unlikely to be a consolidation of power behind President Erdogan (Chart 22). Even if Erdogan were to somehow massively outperform expectations and consolidate political capital, it is not clear why investors would cheer such an outcome given his track record, particularly on the economy, over the past decade. Chart 21Investors Briefly Cheered Ankara's Snap Election Chart 22Is Erdogan In Trouble? Malaysia, on the other hand, could be the one EM economy that defies the negative macro context due to political events. Our most bullish long-term scenario for Malaysia - a historic victory for the opposition Pakatan Harapan coalition - came to pass with the election on May 9 (Chart 23).16 Significantly, outgoing Prime Minister Najib Razak accepted the election results as the will of the people. He did not incite violence or refuse to cede power. Rather, he congratulated incoming Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and promised to help ensure a smooth transition. This marks the first transfer of power since Malaysian independence in 1957. It was democratic and peaceful, which establishes a hugely consequential and market-friendly precedent. How did the opposition pull off this historic upset? Ethnic-majority Malays swung to the opposition; Mahathir's "charismatic authority" had an outsized effect; Barisan Nasional "safety deposits" in Sabah and Sarawak failed; Voters rejected fundamentalist Islamism. What are the implications? Better Governance - Governance has been deteriorating, especially under Najib's rule, but now voters have demanded improvements that could include term-limits for prime ministers and legislative protections for officials investigating wrongdoing by top leaders (Chart 24). Economic Stimulus - Pakatan Harapan campaigned against some of the painful pro-market structural reforms that Najib put in place. They have promised to repeal the new Goods and Services Tax (GST) and reinstate fuel subsidies. They have also proposed raising the minimum wage and harmonizing it across the country. While these pledges will be watered down,17 they are positive for nominal growth in the short term but negative for fiscal sustainability in the long term. Chart 23Comfortable Majority For Pakatan Harapan Coalition Chart 24Voters Want Governance Improvements The one understated risk comes from China. Najib's weakness had led him to court China and rely increasingly on Chinese investment as an economic strategy. Mahathir and Pakatan Harapan will seek to revise all Chinese investment (including under the Belt and Road Initiative). This review is not necessarily to cancel projects but to haggle about prices and ensure that domestic labor is employed. Mahathir will also try to assert Malaysian rights in the South China Sea. None of this means that a crisis is impending, but China has increasingly used economic sanctions to punish and reward its neighbors according to whether their electoral outcomes are favorable to China,18 and we expect tensions to increase. Investment Conclusion On the one hand, in the short run, the picture for Malaysia is mixed. Pakatan Harapan will likely pursue some stimulative economic policies, but these come amidst fundamental macro weaknesses that we have highlighted in the past - and may even exacerbate them. On the other hand, a key external factor is working in the new government's favor: oil. With oil prices likely to move higher, the Malaysian ringgit is likely to benefit (Chart 25), helping Malaysian companies make payments on their large pile of dollar-denominated debt and improving household purchasing power, a key election grievance. Higher oil prices are also correlated with higher equity prices. Over the long run, we have a high-conviction view that this election is bullish for Malaysia. It sends a historic signal that the populace wants better governance. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has found that improvements in governance are crucial for long-term productivity, growth, and asset performance.19 Hence, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy recommends clients go long Malaysian equities relative to EM. Now is a good entry point despite short-term volatility (Chart 26). We also think that going long MYR/TRY will articulate both our bullish oil story as well as our divergent views on political risks in Malaysia and Turkey (Chart 27). Chart 25Oil Outlook Favors Malaysian Assets Chart 26Long Malaysian Equities Versus EM Chart 27Higher Oil Prices Favor MYR Than TRY We are re-initiating two trades this week. First, the recently stopped out long Russian / short EM equities recommendation. We still believe that the view is on strong fundamentals, at least in the tactical and cyclical sense.20 Russian President Vladimir Putin has won another mandate and appears to be focusing on domestic economy and the constraints to Russian geopolitical adventurism have grown. The Trump administration has apparently also grown wary of further sanctions against Russia. However, our initial timing was massively off, as tensions between Russia and West did not peak in early March as we thought. We are giving this high-risk, high-reward trade another go, particularly in light of our oil price outlook. Second, we booked 10.26% gains on our recommendation to go long French industrials versus their German counterparts. We are reopening this view again as structural reforms continue in France unimpeded. Meanwhile, risk of global trade wars and a global growth slowdown should impact the high-beta German industrials more than the French. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Senior Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Washington's demand that China cut its annual trade surplus has grown from $100 billion, announced previously by President Trump, to at least $200 billion. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: A Correction Or Bear Market?" dated May 10, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "'America Is Roaring Back!' (But Why Is King Dollar Whispering?),"dated January 31, 2018, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, and "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Instead of a "big stick," President Trump would likely also recommend a "big nuclear button." 9 This is an important though obvious point. We find that many liberally-oriented clients are unwilling to give President Trump credit for correctly handling the North Korean negotiations. Similarly, conservative-oriented clients refuse to accept that President Obama's dealings with Iran had a strategic logic, even though they clearly did. President Obama would not have been able to conclude the JCPOA without the full support of U.S. intelligence and military establishment. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 While there was no confirmed collaboration between Iranian ground forces in Iraq and the U.S. Air Force, we assume that it happened in 2014 in the defense of Baghdad. The U.S. A-10 Warthog was extensively used against Islamic State ground forces in that battle. The plane is most effective when it has communication from ground forces engaging enemy units. Given that Iranian troops and Iranian backed Shia militias did the majority of the fighting in the defense of Baghdad, we assume that there was tactical communication between U.S. and the Iranian military in 2014, a whole year before the U.S.-Iran nuclear détente was concluded. 12 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," dated May 9, 2018, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility," dated May 10, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Bear Hunting And A Brexit Update," dated February 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, and "Europe's Divine Comedy Party II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof)," dated March 21, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 For instance, the proposed Sales and Services Tax (SST) is more like a rebranding of the GST than a true abolition. And while fuel subsidies will be reinstated - weighing on the fiscal deficit - they will have a quota and only certain vehicles will be eligible. It will not be a return to the old pricing regime where subsidies were unlimited and were for everyone. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Ranking EM Countries Based on Structural Variables," dated August 2, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights An examination of the three pillars of China's economy provides an unambiguous signal that a slowdown is underway. This would normally warrant, at most, a neutral allocation to Chinese stocks, but several factors argue against cutting exposure for now. Stay overweight, but with a short leash. Recent changes in the BCA China Investable Sector Alpha Portfolio's recommended allocation have validated two of our recent investment recommendations. In addition, the model is providing a curiously bullish signal about the relative performance of Chinese vs global stocks that heightens our reluctance to reduce Chinese equity exposure. Our China Reform Monitor signals that investors do not view the current pace of structural reforms as being overly burdensome for the economy. In addition, while Chinese policymakers have made some significant gains in improving China's air quality over the past 18 months, these changes have mostly occurred from a near-hazardous starting point (suggesting that more progress will be needed). As such, we recommend that investors stick with our long ESG leaders / short investable benchmark trade over the coming year. Feature Global investor sentiment improved modestly on Monday, in response to statements from President Trump indicating a possible détente between the U.S. and China on the issue of trade. In particular, Mr. Trump signaled a willingness to assist ZTE, a Chinese telecommunications equipment maker, whose operations would have been enormously impacted by the U.S. Commerce Department's decision last month to ban American companies from selling to the firm. In the view of our Geopolitical Strategy Service, announcements like these should be viewed as marginally positive developments within the context of a serious downtrend in U.S./China relations. Investors appear to be eager to respond to positive news about waning U.S. protectionism, but the reality is that several important decisions related to the U.S.' section 301 probe have yet to be announced.1 As we noted in last week's Special Report,2 this underscores that the near-term risks to China from the external sector are clearly to the downside. Abstracting from the day-to-day assessment of the trade picture, we have emphasized that other core elements of the China outlook have deteriorated. As we present below, an aggregate view of the three pillars of China's economy continues to argue for a (contained) slowdown, with protectionism acting as a downside risk to an already sober economic outlook. Extremely cheap valuation and the high-beta nature of Chinese ex-tech stocks continue to justify an overweight stance versus global equities, but we recommend that investors keep Chinese stocks on downgrade watch for the remainder of Q2 as the risks to the Chinese economy warrant an ongoing assessment of what is currently a finely balanced equity allocation decision. Assessing The Three Pillars Chart 1 presents our stylized framework for analyzing China's economy. It highlights that China's business cycle is largely driven by three "pillars": industrial activity, the housing market, and trade. While the services sector, the Chinese consumer, and/or the technology sector are of interesting secular relevance, generally-speaking China's business cycle continues to be subject to its "old" growth model centered on investment and exports. Chart 1The Three Pillars Of China's Business Cycle Industrial Activity: We took an empirical approach to predicting China's industrial sector activity in our November 30 Special Report,3 and tested the ability of 40 different macro data series to lead the Li Keqiang index (LKI). While the LKI is closely followed and somewhat cliché, we have focused on it because of its strong correlation with ex-tech earnings and import growth. The results of our November report pointed to the success of monetary condition indexes, money supply, and credit measures to reliably predict the LKI since China's real GDP growth peaked in 2010. We constructed our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator based on these measures, and we have frequently highlighted over the past few months that the indicator is pointing to a continued deceleration in China's industrial activity (Chart 2). Housing: We noted in our November report that housing market data also correlates with the LKI, albeit less well than the components of our Leading Indicator. One important observation about China's housing market that we highlighted in our February 8 Weekly Report is that residential floor space sold appears to have reliably led floor space started (a proxy for real residential investment) since 2010 (Chart 3). Over the past 6-8 months, however, floor space started appears to have diverged from the trend in floor space sold, which may have been caused by a non-trivial reduction in housing inventories over the past few years.4 Nonetheless, we also noted that the level of inventories remains quite elevated, suggesting that the uptrend in floor space started is unlikely to continue without a renewed uptrend in sales volume. In our view, this conclusion implies that the housing outlook over the coming 6-12 months is neutral, at best. Chart 2China's Industrial Sector ##br##Will Continue To Slow Chart 3Resi Sales Volume Does Not Point To ##br##A Sustained Pickup In Construction Trade: The third pillar of China's economy is the external sector, which remains important even though net exports have fallen quite significantly in terms of contribution to China's growth. We noted in our April 18 Weekly Report that there is a strongly positive relationship between the annual change in contribution to growth from China's net exports and subsequent gross capital formation, highlighting that external demand provides an important multiplier effect for Chinese activity. For now, nominal export growth (in CNY terms) remains at the high end of its 5-year range, reflecting the strength of the global economy. But three significant risks remain to the export outlook: 1) the clear and present danger of U.S. import tariffs, 2) the possibility that Chinese policymakers may accelerate their reform efforts to take advantage of the "window of opportunity" provided by robust global demand,4 and 3) the very substantial rise in the export-weighted RMB (Chart 4), which is fast approaching its 2015 high. As a final point on trade, Chart 5 highlights that the recent divergence between the LKI and nominal import growth is resolved when examining the latter in CNY terms. The chart suggests that while export growth has been buoyed by a strong global economy, China's contribution to the global growth impulse is diminishing. The very tight link demonstrated in Chart 5 also suggests that industrial activity is the most important pillar to watch among the three noted above, which means that Chart 2 argues for a negative export outlook for China's major trading partners. Chart 4A Non-Trivial Deterioration ##br##In Competitiveness Chart 5The Rise In CNYUSD Is Flattering ##br##Imports Measured In Dollars Our assessment of the three pillars of China's economy points to a conclusion that we have highlighted frequently in our recent reports: China's industrial sector is slowing, and there are downside risks to the export outlook. The character of the slowdown does not suggest that a major shock to the global economy is likely to emanate from China over the coming 6-12 months, but the outlook is more consistent with a reduction than an expansion in China's contribution to global growth. Under normal circumstances, at best this would warrant a neutral asset allocation outlook to China-related financial assets. Chart 6The Uptrend In Relative Chinese ##br##Ex-Tech Performance Is Intact However, we have also argued that the relatively attractive valuation and the technical profile of Chinese equities suggests that investors should have a high threshold for reducing their exposure to China within a global equity portfolio. Chart 6 highlights that Chinese ex-tech share prices continue to demonstrate resilient performance versus their global peers, despite the ongoing slowdown in China's economy. In addition, as we will note below, our BCA China Investable Sector Alpha Portfolio is providing a curiously bullish signal about the relative performance of Chinese stocks, which heightens our reluctance to cut exposure. Bottom Line: An examination of the three pillars of China's economy provides an unambiguous signal that a slowdown is underway. This would normally warrant, at most, a neutral allocation to Chinese stocks, but several factors argue against cutting exposure for now. Stay overweight, but with a short leash. Reading The Tea Leaves From Our Sector Alpha Portfolio We introduced our BCA China Investable Sector Alpha Portfolio in a January Special Report, in part to demonstrate that the concept of alpha persistence (i.e. alpha that is persistently positive or negative) has material implications for portfolio returns. In particular, we noted that the portfolio's strategy of allocating to China's investable equity sectors based on the significance of alpha has resulted in over 200bps of long-term outperformance versus the investable benchmark, without taking on any additional risk (Table 1). Table 1An Alpha-Based Sector Model Has Historically Outperformed China's Investable Stock Market Table 2 presents the portfolio's current allocation, relative to the current benchmark weights for each sector as well as the portfolio's sectoral allocation when we published our January report. Two observations are noteworthy: The model recommends an overweight allocation to resources; consumer staples; health care; utilities; and real estate, at the expense of industrials; consumer discretionary; financials; technology; and telecom services. These positions are largely in-line with the model's recommendations in January, except for a non-trivial increase in exposure to energy and financials, and a significant reduction in technology and consumer discretionary. The portfolio's reduced exposure to technology and consumer discretionary stocks validate two recent investment recommendations from BCA's China Investment Strategy team: we recommended a long consumer staples / short consumer discretionary trade on November 16,5 and we recommend that investors retain cyclical exposure to investable Chinese stocks while neutralizing exposure to the tech sector on February 15.6 Table 2Our Sector Alpha Portfolio Has Validated Two Of Our Recent Recommendations Chart 7 highlights another interesting insight from the model, by presenting the beta of the portfolio relative to the investable benchmark alongside the benchmark's performance versus global stocks. First, the chart underscores the limited systemic risk of the portfolio, as the portfolio's beta rarely deviates materially from 1. But more importantly, it appears that the portfolio's beta versus the investable benchmark is somewhat correlated with (and leads) China's performance versus global stocks: Chart 7A Curiously Bullish Signal From ##br##Our Sector Alpha Portfolio Prior to the global financial crisis, the portfolio's beta was above 1 and rising, until early-2007 (preceding the peak in relative performance by about a year). Following the crisis, the portfolio beta steadily declined until late-2014/early-2015, interrupted only by a brief rise back above 1 from 2009-2010. Chinese stock prices steadily underperformed global equities during this period. The portfolio beta rose back to 1 in mid-2015, and stayed flat until early last year. Chinese stocks technically underperformed global stocks during this period, but by a much more modest amount than what occurred on average from 2009 to 2014. In this case, the rise in the portfolio beta in 2015 appeared to correctly signal that a sharply underweight stance towards Chinese stocks was no longer warranted. Finally, the portfolio beta surged rapidly higher last year, in line with a material rise in the relative performance of Chinese stocks. It has fallen modestly since January, but remains at one of the highest levels seen over the past 15 years. Drawing pro-cyclical inferences from the beta characteristics of risk-adjusted performers is a novel approach for BCA's China Investment Strategy service, and for now we regard the results of Chart 7 as a curious signal that warrants further examination. Still, this bullish sign is consistent with the general resilience of Chinese stocks that we have observed over the past several months, which continues to argue in favor of a high threshold to cut exposure to China within a global equity portfolio. Bottom Line: Recent changes in the BCA China Investable Sector Alpha Portfolio's recommended allocation have validated two of our recent investment recommendations. In addition, the model is providing a curiously bullish signal about the relative performance of Chinese vs global stocks that heightens our reluctance to reduce Chinese equity exposure. An Update On The "Reform Trade" We noted in the aftermath of last November's Communist Party Congress that China was likely to step up its reform efforts in 2018, and make meaningful efforts to: Pare back heavy-polluting industry Hasten the transition of China's economy to "consumer-led" growth7 Halt leveraging in the corporate/financial sector Eliminate corruption and graft As a result of this outlook, we highlighted that the pace of renewed structural reforms would be a key theme to watch this year, in order to ensure that the pursuit of these policies would not unintentionally cause a repeat of the significant slowdown in the economy that occurred in 2014/2015. We presented our framework for monitoring this risk in our November 16 Weekly Report, which was to track an index that we called the BCA China Reform Monitor. The monitor is calculated as an equally-weighted average of four "winner" sectors that outperformed the investable benchmark in the month following the Party Congress relative to an equally-weighted average of the remaining seven sectors. We argued that significant underperformance of "loser" sectors could be a sign that reform intensity has become too burdensome for the economy (and thus a material headwind ex-tech equity performance), and highlighted that we would be watching for signs that our monitor was rising largely due to outright declines in the denominator. Using this framework, Chart 8 suggests that structural reform efforts are ongoing but that investors do not view the current pace of these reforms as overly burdensome for the economy. In particular, panel 2 highlights that recent movements in our Reform Monitor have been driven by fairly steady outperformance of the "winner" sectors, with "loser" sectors simply trending sideways. While it is possible that Chinese policymakers will intensify their efforts to reform the economy over the coming 6-12 months,4 for now our China Reform Monitor continues to support an overweight stance towards Chinese ex-tech stocks vs their global peers. However, given the message of our Reform Monitor, it is somewhat surprising that another of our reform-themed trades has fared so poorly over the past three months. Chart 9 presents the performance of our long investable environmental, social and governance (ESG) leaders / short investable benchmark trade, which was up approximately 4% since inception in late-January but is now down 1.4%. The basis of this trade was to overweight stocks that are best positioned to deliver "sustainable" growth, which we argued would fare well in a reform environment. Does the underperformance of this trade suggest that the reform theme is unlikely to be investment-relevant over the coming year? Chart 8Structural Reforms Not Viewed As ##br##Economically Restrictive By Investors Chart 9ESG Leaders Should Fare Quite ##br##Well In A Reform Environment In our view, the answer is no. First, while the MSCI ESG leaders index maintains roughly similar sector weights as the investable benchmark (which limits the beta risk of the trade), Table 3 highlights that differences do exist. These modest differences in sector allocation do appear to be impacting performance (Chart 10), in particular the underweight allocation to energy stocks (which are outperforming) and the overweight allocation to technology (which has sold off since mid-March). Table 3Sector Allocation Has Impacted The Recent Performance Of China's ESG Leaders Chart 10Sector Allocation Impacting Recent ##br##Performance Of ESG Leaders Second, while China made significant gains last year in improving air quality in several major population centers (such as Beijing and Shanghai), these improvements have mostly occurred from a near-hazardous starting point and have simply rendered China's air to be less unhealthy. Even in Beijing, Chart 11 highlights that PM2.5 readings have started to increase again, from a level that only briefly reached "good" quality. In addition, Chart 12 highlights that some of the improvement in air quality last year occurred, at least in part, because China shifted polluting activity from one province to another. This implies that Chinese policymakers will continue to wrestle with improving the country's air quality for some time to come, which in our view continues to favor ESG leaders over the coming year and beyond. Chart 11Some Significant Recent Gains In Air ##br##Quality, But Part Of An Ongoing Battle Chart 12Air Quality Gains In Some Provinces, At The Expense Of Others Bottom Line: Our China Reform Monitor signals that investors do not view the current pace of structural reforms as being overly burdensome for the economy. In addition, while Chinese policymakers have made some significant gains in improving China's air quality over the past 18 months, these changes have mostly occurred from a near-hazardous starting point (suggesting that more progress will be needed). As such, we recommend that investors stick with our long ESG leaders / short investable benchmark trade over the coming year. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Inside The Beltway," dated May 2, 2018, available on gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report "China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks," dated May 9, 2018, available on cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China's Business Cycle," dated November 30, 2017, available on cis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China: A Low-Conviction Overweight," dated May 2, 2018, available on cis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Messages From The Market, Post-Party Congress," dated November 16, 2017, available on cis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "After The Selloff: A View From China," dated February 15, 2018, available on cis.bcaresearch.com 7 Investors should note that BCA's China Investment Strategy service has long been skeptical of calls to shift China's economy to a consumption-driven growth model, because it significantly raises the odds that the country will not be able to escape the middle income trap. For example, please see Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "On A Higher Note", dated October 5, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Overweight Despite a blockbuster earnings season, banks have come under pressure recently. Worrisomely, they have not followed the 10-year Treasury yield higher and that is cause for concern, particularly since they have re-established a correlation with the yield curve. This positive correlation shift from interest rates to the yield curve slope is important as it will likely squeeze banks' net interest margins, a key profit driver (second panel). The third and bottom panels show that there is increasing empirical evidence that banks have already started making this transition away from the 10-year UST yield and toward the 10/2 yield curve, and we are thus compelled to book profits and remove this early cyclical index from the high-conviction overweight call list. The S&P banks index is now also on downgrade alert. Bottom Line: Stay overweight banks for now, but lock in gains of 6% and remove the S&P banks index from the high-conviction overweight call list, as our confidence is not as high as in late-November. Further, we are putting this key financials sub index on downgrade alert reflecting the negative implication from our later stages of the business cycle analysis (please see our Weekly Report for our analysis of the business cycle). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX - WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT, SIVB.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Firming industry demand at a time when global energy capital spending budgets are renormalizing, along with rising crude oil prices, signal that high-beta energy services equities have more running room. Our confidence in additional significant bank relative price gains has decreased. There is budding evidence that the bank/yield curve correlation is getting re-established, as we had posited last autumn, and coupled with later cycle dynamics signal that the bank outperformance is getting long in the tooth. Recent Changes Crystalize gains of 6% in the S&P banks index and remove from the high-conviction overweight call list. Put the S&P banks index on downgrade alert. Prefer large caps to small caps (please refer to the May 10th Sector Insight). Table 1 Feature Equities staged a breakout attempt last week and the SPX reclaimed the 50-day moving average, with the energy sector leading the pack. However, the lateral move in place over the past quarter is not over yet as the market is still digesting the February 5th drawdown. Importantly, EPS euphoria cannot last forever and the inevitable profit growth deceleration post the calendar 2018 onetime tax reform fillip is weighing on the market. The 12-month forward EPS growth rate has come down to 15%, and as we move into the back half of 2018 it will continue to glide toward a still impressive 10% (or two times nominal GDP growth), which is where the calendar 2019 estimate currently stands (Chart 1). Following up from last week's 'Til Debt Do Us Part' Special Report, the overall market's (ex-financials and ex-real estate) 'Altman Z-score' is waving a mini yellow flag. Cyclical momentum in this indicator is giving way and the broad market's deteriorating creditworthiness is also, at the margin, anchoring profit growth (Chart 2). Chart 1Unsustainable EPS Euphoria Chart 2Watching Balance Sheets... Nevertheless, we remain constructive on the broad market from a cyclical 9-12 month horizon as the odds of recession are close to nil, and interpret recent market action as a sign of resiliency. The SPX refuses to give way to the bearish narrative plagued by geopolitical uncertainty/fears and slowing global growth. Chart 3 shows an extremely economically sensitive indicator, lumber, alongside the ISM manufacturing survey. Since 1969 when lumber futures first commenced trading, these two series have been tightly positively correlated. Recently, a rare and steep divergence is visible and our inclination is to expect all-time high lumber prices to arrest the ISM's fall in the coming months. True, lumber prices reflect a NAFTA-related premium and at the current juncture cannot be fully trusted that they are emitting an accurate economic signal. We, thus, resort to another - daily reported - global growth barometer, the Baltic Dry Index (BDI). The third panel of Chart 3 shows that a wide gap has opened between the ISM manufacturing index and the BDI. If our assessment is correct and this global growth soft patch is transitory, then the ISM will remain squarely clear of the 50 boom/bust line. Taken together, these two economically sensitive high frequency series comprise our Global Trade Indicator which is underscoring that global export growth will pick up in the back half of the year (bottom panel, Chart 3). Finally, on the domestic freight front,1 the composite freight index is also reaccelerating, signaling that domestic demand conditions are firing on all cylinders (fourth panel, Chart 3). Circling back to profit growth, long-term S&P 500 EPS growth expectations have vaulted to the highest level since the dotcom bubble (bottom panel, Chart 4). While in isolation, this measure signals we are in overshoot territory and such breakneck EPS growth is clearly unsustainable, the SPX PEG ratio tells a different story (we divide the 12-month forward price to earnings ratio by the long-term EPS growth rate to arrive at the current reading near 1 on the S&P 500 PEG ratio, Chart 4). Chart 3...But Economy Is Humming Chart 4Market Is Cheap According To PEG Ratio On this valuation measure the SPX appears cheap. Historically, every time the PEG ratio has sunk to one standard deviation below the mean, at least a reflex rebound ensued. Table 2 summarizes the five most recent iterations we included in the analysis since 1985. While we cannot rule out a steep undershoot, if history at least rhymes, the S&P should be higher in the subsequent 12 months (Chart 5). Chart 5SPX Cycle-On-Cycle Return Profile When The PEG Ratio Gets Depressed Table 2S&P 500 Yearly Returns* This week we are removing an early cyclical index from our high-conviction call list, locking in handsome profits, and updating a high-beta energy sub-index. Put Banks On Downgrade Watch Despite a blockbuster earnings season, banks have come under pressure recently. Worrisomely, they have not followed the 10-year Treasury yield higher and that is cause for concern. We first cautioned last October that banks would shatter their near one-to-one relationship with the 10-year UST yield and re-establish it with the yield curve likely in the back half of 2018 as the Fed would further lift the fed funds rate away from the zero lower bound.2 This positive correlation shift from interest rates to the yield curve slope is important as it will likely squeeze banks' net interest margins, a key profit driver (Chart 6). Charts 7 & 8 show that there is increasing empirical evidence that banks have already started making this transition away from the 10-year UST yield and toward the 10/2 yield curve, and we are thus compelled to book profits of 6% and remove this early cyclical index from the high-conviction overweight call list. The S&P banks index is now also on downgrade alert. Chart 6NIM Trouble? Chart 7Monitoring Shifting... Chart 8...Correlations What would cause us to change our yearlong cyclical constructive view and move to a benchmark allocation, is a lack of relative price outperformance in the next 10-year Treasury yield jump. Crudely put, if banks fail to best the market when the bond market further sells off roughly to 3.25%, as BCA's fixed income strategists expect, we will pull the trigger and downgrade to a neutral stance. Another reason we are likely to become more wary of bank relative performance in the coming quarters is the stage of the business cycle. Importantly, we wanted to test our hypothesis that in the late/later stages of the expansion early cyclicals, banks included, fare poorly. Therefore, at some point we should move away from our sanguine view on this index and not overstay our welcome as the current expansion has become the second longest on record according to the NBER designated recessions. In more detail, what we did to test this hypothesis was to document relative bank performance from when the ISM manufacturing peaked for the cycle until the recession commenced going back to the 1960s (Chart 9). Table 3 aggregates the results using monthly data. What is clear is that if the recession is a financial crisis related recession, then shy away from banks. But, in 4 out of the 7 last cycles dating back to the 1960s, banks outperformed the broad market in the later stages of the business cycle. Chart 9Banks Tend To Slump In Later Stages Of The Cycle Table 3Late Cycle Analysis Nevertheless, breaking down the results in two periods is instructive. One period recalibrates the bank relative returns from the ISM peak until the SPX peak, and the second one from the SPX peak until the recession commences (Table 3). Banks clearly underwhelm 4 out of the 7 iterations as the SPX crests, confirming our negative return hypothesis. Subsequently, as the SPX deflates when the economy heads into recession, relative bank performance significantly improves with the caveat that during financial crises, banks continue to bleed (in an upcoming Special Report we will be performing the same analysis on the GICS1 U.S. equity sectors, stay tuned). Two weeks ago we lifted our peak SPX target to 3200,3 and the implication is that banks' best days have likely passed, if history at least rhymes. Bottom Line: Stay overweight banks for now, but lock in gains of 6% and remove the S&P banks index from the high-conviction overweight call list, as our confidence is not as high as in late-November.4 Further, we are putting this key financials sub index on downgrade alert reflecting the negative implication from our later stages of the business cycle analysis. We are closely monitoring the yield curve slope and interest rate correlation with bank performance, and if banks refrain from participating in the next leg up in interest rates it will serve as a catalyst to prune exposure to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX - WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT, SIVB. Energy Servicers: The Phoenix Is Rising Quarter-to-date the S&P energy services index is up 12% compared with the 2% rise in the broad market. Even year-to-date, oil servicing companies have bested the market by 600bps. The steep rebound in oil prices primarily lies behind such stellar outperformance, and BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy still-upbeat crude oil view is a harbinger of even brighter days ahead for this high-beta energy sub sector (Chart 10). While we are exploring our capex upcycle theme via a high-conviction overweight in the broad S&P energy index, oil services companies are also a prime beneficiary of our synchronized global capital outlays upcycle theme. In fact, relative share price momentum does not yet fully reflect the rebound in industry investment (using national accounts) that remains in a V-shaped recovery since the Q1/2016 oil market trough (second panel, Chart 11). Importantly, OPEC 2.0 and $70/bbl oil prices have resulted in a semblance of normality in the E&P space (a key industry client) that has lifted spending budgets (bottom panel, Chart 11). The upshot is that energy services revenues will continue to expand (Chart 11). Energy related capital spending budgets are not only rising in the U.S. (primarily in shale oil), but also globally. The global rig count is breaking out, and declining OECD oil stocks suggest that drilling activity will remain robust (top and second panel, Chart 12). Chart 10Catch up Phase Chart 11Capex Upcycle... Chart 12...Beneficiary Taking the pulse of oil services industry slack is extremely important for profitability. Our global idle rig proxy is also making a breakout attempt following a massive two year plus retrenchment phase (top panel, Chart 13). Keep in mind that energy servicers have only recently exited deflation, that wreaked havoc in the sector's financial metrics. Now as a renormalization period is unfolding with higher underlying commodity prices breathing life into industry new order growth, even a modest pricing power rebound will go a long way in lifting depressed profits. In fact, new orders-to-inventories are in a reflex rebound. While such an exponential rise is unsustainable, firming oil services demand should continue to remove excess slack, a boon for industry selling prices and profits (middle and bottom panels, Chart 13). Sentiment toward this energy sub-index remains bombed out and there is widespread disbelief that this rebound is sustainable. Rather, the risk of a deflationary relapse has kept investors at bay pushing relative valuations deep into undervalued territory. Both our composite relative Valuation Indicator (VI) and relative price-to-book are hovering near all-time lows (bottom panel, Chart 12). Technicals are not as depressed as the VI reading, with the recent relative share price bounce lifting our relative Technical Indicator to the neutral zone (Chart 14). Chart 13Deflation Is Over Chart 14Unloved And Underowned In sum, there are more gains in store for the S&P energy services index. Firming industry demand at a time when global energy capital spending budgets are renormalizing, along with rising crude oil prices, signal that high-beta energy services equities have more running room. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P energy service index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5ENRE -NOV, SLB, FTI, BHGE, HAL, HP. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 The freight transportation services index consists of: For-hire trucking (parcel services are not included); Freight railroad services (including rail-based intermodal shipments such as containers on flat cars); Inland waterway traffic; Pipeline movements (including principally petroleum and petroleum products and natural gas); and Air freight. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Later Cycle Dynamics," dated October 23, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Lifting SPX Target," dated April 30, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "High-Conviction Calls," dated November 27, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Underweight In line with our renewed focus on balance sheets as a measure of risk in our portfolio positioning (please see this week's Special Report for more details), we have applied the same rigor to our size bias. With elevated debt levels waving a red flag, today we are acting on our downgrade alert and recommend a large over small cap bias. Over the past decade, the Goldman Sachs weak/strong equity baskets share price ratio has moved in tandem with the small/large share price ratio (SLR, top panel). However, a large and exploitable gap has opened recently that will likely narrow via a convergence lower in the SLR. Respective net debt-to-EBITDA ratios corroborate this downbeat relative indebtedness backdrop, which have seen small caps binging on debt (middle panel); a resulting widening relative equity risk premium should precipitate a decline in small caps relative to their large cap peers. When the net debt-to-EBITDA ratio is expressed as a year-over-year change, it is an excellent leading indicator of relative share price momentum (bottom panel); currently, the signal is crystal clear: over-levered small caps appear destined to underperform better capitalized large cap stocks. Bottom line: We are executing our downgrade alert and moving to a large over small cap preference.

Highlights The U.S. dollar still has meaningful upside versus the majority of currencies. We continue to recommend shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: TRY, ZAR, BRL, IDR, MYR and KRW. Fixed-income investors should continue to adopt a defensive allocation with respect EM local bonds. Asset allocators should underweight EM sovereign and corporate credit within a global credit portfolio. Argentine financial markets are rioting. We elaborate on our investment strategy below. Downgrade Indonesian stocks from neutral to underweight within an EM equity portfolio. Feature The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought. Rüdiger Dornbusch Emerging markets (EM) currencies have come under substantial selling pressure. Various indexes of EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar have broken below their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-1). EM sovereign spreads are widening, and local bonds yields are moving higher from very low levels. Chart I-1EM Currencies: A Breakdown? Our view is that we are witnessing the beginning of a major down leg in EM currencies and a major up leg in the U.S. dollar. This constitutes a negative environment for all EM risk assets. As the above quote from professor Rüdiger Dornbusch eloquently states, a meltdown in financial markets could take much longer to develop, but once it commences it is likely to play out much faster than investors expect. This does not mean we are certain that a full-blown EM crisis is bound to happen. Neither can we predict the speed of financial market moves. Nevertheless, based on our macro themes, we maintain that this down leg in EM currencies and EM risk assets will likely be large enough to qualify as a bear market rather than a correction. Consistently, we continue to recommend that investors adopt defensive strategies or play EM risk assets on the short side. This bear market in EM could be comparable to the EM selloff episodes of 2013 (Taper Tantrum) or 2015 (China's slowdown). In this report, we first discuss the outlook for the broad U.S. dollar, then examine the factors that typically drive EM currencies, and those that do not. The Dollar: A Major Bottom In Place The U.S. dollar has recently rebounded sharply, and we believe this marks the beginning of a major rally. The following factors will support the greenback in the months ahead: The U.S. dollar does well in periods of a slowdown in global trade (Chart I-2). The average manufacturing PMI index of export-oriented Asia economies such as Korea, Taiwan and Singapore points to a peak in global export volumes (Chart I-3). Further, China's Container Freight index signifies an impending deceleration in Asian export shipments (Chart I-4, top panel). Chart I-2U.S. Dollar Rallies When Global Trade Slows Chart I-3A Peak In Global Export Growth Chart I-4A Leading Indicator For Asian Exports ##br##And Asian Currencies Notably, this freight index - the price to ship containers - also correlates with emerging Asia currencies, and suggests that the latter stands to depreciate (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Chart I-5U.S. Dollar Liquidity And Exchange Rate The dollar should do particularly well if the epicenter of the global growth slowdown is centred in China - and if U.S. domestic demand remains robust due to fiscal stimulus, as we expect. Within advanced economies, the U.S. is the least vulnerable to a China and EM slowdown. Delta of relative growth will be shifting in favor of the U.S. versus the rest of the world. This will propel the dollar higher. Amid weakness in the world trade, growth will be priced at a premium. This will favor financial markets with stronger growth. The greenback will be the winner in the coming months. The U.S. twin deficits - the current account and budget deficits - would have acted as a drag on the dollar if global growth was robust/recovering. However, amid weakening global growth, the U.S. twin deficits are not a malignant phenomenon for the dollar; they will in fact support it as they instigate and reflect strong U.S. growth. As the Federal Reserve continues to reduce its balance sheet, the banking system's excess reserves will decline. Our U.S. dollar liquidity measure has petered out, which has historically been consistent with a bottom in the dollar; the latter is shown inverted on Chart I-5. As we have argued for some time, and to the contrary of widespread investor consensus, the U.S. dollar is not expensive. According to the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs, the greenback is fairly valued, as is the euro (Chart I-6). The yen is cheap but the Korean won is expensive (Chart I-6, bottom two panels). In our opinion, a real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs is the most pertinent measure of exchange rate valuation. The basis is that it takes into account both wages and productivity. Labor costs are the largest cost component in many companies and unit labor costs are critical to competitiveness. Chart I-7 demonstrates that commodities-related currencies including those of Australia, New Zealand and Norway are on the expensive side, while the Canadian dollar is fairly valued. Chart I-6The U.S. Dollar Is Not Expensive Chart I-7Commodities Currencies Are Not Cheap There are no measures of real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs for many EM currencies. If DM commodities currencies are not cheap, then it is fair to assume that EM commodities currencies are not cheap either. We are not suggesting that exchange rates of commodity producing EM nations are expensive, but we do believe their valuations are probably closer to neutral. When valuations are neutral, they are not a constraint for the underlying asset price. The latter can go either up or down. In short, the dollar is not expensive, and valuations will not deter its appreciation in the coming months. Finally, from the perspective of market technicals, the dollar's exchange rates versus many currencies appear to have encountered resistance at their long-term moving averages, as illustrated in Chart I-8A and Chart I-8B. Usually, when a market finds support (or resistance) at its long-term moving average, it often makes new highs (or lows). Chart I-8ATechnicals Are Positive For Dollar, ##br##Negative For EM Currencies Chart I-8BTechnicals Are Positive For Dollar, ##br##Negative For EM Currencies We are not certain if the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar will make a new high. However, some EM currencies will drop close to or retest their early 2016 lows. Such potential downside is substantial enough to short the most vulnerable EM currencies. Bottom Line: The U.S. dollar has meaningful upside versus the majority of currencies. We continue to recommend shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: TRY, ZAR, BRL, IDR, MYR and KRW. What Really Drives EM Currencies A common narrative is that EM balance of payments and fiscal balances have already improved, making many EMs less vulnerable than they were during the 2013 Taper Tantrum. What's more, the interest rate differential between EM and the U.S. is still positive, heralding upward pressure on EM currencies. We do not subscribe to this analysis. First, current account balances do not always drive EM exchange rates. Chart I-9A and Chart I-9B illustrates that there is no meaningful positive correlation between EM currencies and both the level and changes in their current account balances. The same holds for the correlation between fiscal balances and exchange rates. Chart I-9ACurrent Account Balances ##br##And Currencies: No Correlation Chart I-9BCurrent Account Balances ##br##And Currencies: No Correlation Second, neither nominal nor real interest rate differentials over U.S. rates explain the trend in EM currencies, as shown in Chart I-10. Further, neither the level nor changes in interest rate differentials explain trends in EM exchange rates. On the contrary, it is the trend in EM currencies that drives local interest rates in EM. That is why getting the currencies right is of paramount importance to investors in various EM asset classes. So which factors do drive EM exchange rates? The key variables that define trends in EM currencies are U.S. bond yields, global trade cycles and commodities prices. The changes in U.S. bond yields and TIPS (inflation-adjusted) yields - not their difference with EM yields - have explained EM currency moves in recent years (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Interest Rate Differential Does Not ##br##Explain EM Exchange Rates Moves Chart I-11EM Currencies And U.S. Bond Yields Chart I-4 on page 3 demonstrates that China's Container Freight index leads regional exports and strongly correlates with emerging Asian currencies. Non-Asian EM currencies are mostly leveraged to commodities prices, as these countries (all nations in Latin America, Russia and South Africa) produce commodities. Not surprisingly, the EM exchange rate composed primarily of EM non-Asian currencies correlates well with commodities prices (Chart I-12). Finally, EM currencies are substantially more exposed to China than to DM economies. Chart I-13 shows that when Chinese imports are underperforming DM imports, EM currencies tend to depreciate. Chart I-12EM Currencies And Commodities Prices Chart I-13EM Currencies Are Exposed To China Not DM As such, what has caused EM currencies to riot in recent weeks? In short, it is the combination of the rise in U.S. bond yields and budding signs of slowdown in global trade. Chart I-14EM Currencies' Vol Is Still Low Commodities prices have so far been firm with oil prices skyrocketing. We expect the combination of China's slowdown and a stronger U.S. dollar to eventually suppress commodities prices in the months ahead. That will produce another down leg in EM currencies. Finally, the volatility measure for EM currencies is still very low, albeit rising (Chart I-14). This suggests that investors remain somewhat complacent on EM exchange rates. Bottom Line: Our negative view on EM currencies has been anchored on two pillars: the U.S. dollar rally driven by higher U.S. interest rate expectations and weaker Chinese growth/lower commodities prices. We are now witnessing the first down leg in EM currency bear market propelled by the first pillar. It is not over yet. The second down leg will come when China's growth slows and commodities prices relapse in the coming months. All in all, there is still material downside in EM exchange rates. EM Local Bond And Credit Markets EM local bond yields typically rise when EM currencies drop meaningfully (Chart I-15). Foreign investors hold a large share of EM local currency bonds (Table I-1). Chart I-15EM Local Bond Yields And EM Currencies Table I-1Foreign Ownership Of EM Local Bonds As EM currency depreciation erodes foreign investors' returns on EM local currency bonds, there could be a rush to exit their positions. Chart I-16 portrays that the total return on J.P. Morgan GBI EM local currency bonds in U.S. dollar terms has broken below its 200-day moving average. Fluctuations in total return on local bonds is primary driven by currency moves. If our negative EM currency view is correct, there will be more downside in this EM domestic bonds total return index. EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads often widen when EM currencies depreciate (Chart I-17). As EM currencies lose value, U.S. dollar debt becomes more expensive to service, and credit spreads should widen to reflect higher credit risks. Chart I-16EM Local Bonds Total ##br##Return Index In U.S. Dollars Chart I-17EM Credit Spreads And EM Currencies Finally, the ratios of U.S. dollar debt-to-exports and U.S. dollar debt-to-international reserves for EM ex-China are very elevated (Chart I-18). If these nations' exports stumble in the months ahead, the inflows of foreign currency will diminish, and credit spreads could widen to price this in. Chart I-18EM Ex-China: U.S. Dollar Debt ##br##Burden In Perspective To be sure, this does not mean there will be widespread defaults. Simply, credit spreads are too low and investor sentiment is too upbeat. As EM growth deteriorates, asset prices will have to re-price. Bottom Line: Asset allocators should continue to adopt a defensive allocation with respect EM local bonds. Asset allocators should underweight EM sovereign and corporate credit within a global credit portfolio. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Argentina Is Under Fire 10 May 2018 Argentine financial markets have been rioting, with the currency plunging by 11% versus the U.S. dollar since the beginning of April. What is the underlying cause of turbulence, and what should investors do? Argentina's macro vulnerability stems from the following factors: First, the country has very large twin deficits, and has relied on foreign portfolio flows to finance them (Chart II-1). Second, private credit growth has lately surged as households and companies have borrowed to buy imported consumer goods and capital goods (Chart II-2). This has created demand for U.S. dollars at a time when the greenback has begun to rebound and foreign investors' appetite for EM assets has diminished. Finally, progress on disinflation has been slow. Core inflation is still above 20% as sticky regulated prices have kept inflation high (Chart II-3). Chart II-1Argentina's Achilles Heal: Twin Deficits Chart II-2Argentina: Credit Growth Has To Be Reined In Chart II-3Argentina: Inflation Is Still A Problem Faced with a market riot, the Argentine central bank hiked its policy rate from 27.25% to 40% in the span of 8 days. Furthermore the government has requested a $30 billion IMF credit line. The aggressive rate hikes prove that the Argentine authorities, unlike many of their EM counterparts, have been adhering to orthodox macro policies. This makes Argentina stand out versus others in general, and Turkey in particular. Such orthodox macro policy responses leads us to maintain our long position in Argentine local bonds. The central bank has hiked interest rates well above both the inflation rate and nominal GDP growth (Chart II-4). Real interest rates are now at their highest level in the past 13 years (Chart II-5). We reckon that this policy tightening will likely be sufficient to stabilize macro dynamics, albeit at the cost of a growth downturn. Chart II-4Argentina: Are Interest ##br##Rates High Enough? Chart II-5Argentina: Highest Real Interest ##br##Rates In Over 13 Years! The drastic monetary tightening will crash credit growth and hence depress domestic demand and imports (Chart II-6). This will help narrow the trade deficit. The monetary squeeze with some fiscal tightening, shrinking real wages (deflated by headline consumer inflation) and a minimum wage nominal growth ceiling of 12.5% for 2018, will bring down inflation, albeit with a time lag (Chart II-7). The fixed-income market could look through the near-term spike in inflation due to the currency plunge. Chart II-6Argentina: High Borrowing Costs ##br##Will Crash Domestic Demand Chart II-7Argentina: Real Wage Growth Is Moderate Finally, the authorities have been gradually implementing their structural reform agenda. Crucially, recent tax and pension reforms were major wins for President Mauricio Macri's Cambiemos coalition, and should help ameliorate the country's fiscal balance. This stands in stark contrast to Brazil, which has so far failed to enact social security reforms despite a mushrooming public debt burden. High interest rates and a domestic demand squeeze are negative for corporate profits, including banks' earnings. However, they are positive for local bonds and ultimately for the currency. The diminishing current account deficit - due to contracting imports - and IMF financing will ultimately put a floor under the Argentine exchange rate. In turn, a cyclical growth downturn, moderating inflation, orthodox macro policies and high yields will entice investors into local currency bonds. Investment Recommendations Wait for the currency to depreciate another 5-10% versus the dollar in the next several weeks, and use that as an opportunity to double down on local currency bonds. While the peso could still depreciate by another 10% in the following 12 months, the extremely high coupon and potential for capital gains as yields ultimately decline will more than offset losses on the exchange rate. This makes the risk-reward of local bonds attractive. Maintain long Argentine sovereign credit and short Venezuelan and Brazilian sovereign credit positions. Orthodox macro policies, a continuation of structural reforms and an IMF credit line will likely cap upside in sovereign credit spreads versus Venezuela and Brazil, where public debt dynamics are worse. The difference between Argentine local currency bonds and U.S. dollar bonds is as follows: Local currency bond yields at 18% offer better value than sovereign credit spreads trading at 300 basis points over U.S. Treasurys. This is the reason why we are taking the risk of an unhedged position in domestic bonds, but remain reluctant to bet on the nation's sovereign U.S. dollar bonds in absolute terms. In addition, correlation among EM nations' sovereign spreads is much higher than correlation between their local bonds. We expect more turmoil in EM financial markets, but there is a chance that Argentine local bonds could decouple from the EM aggregates in the coming weeks or months. We are closing our long ARS/short BRL and long Argentine banks/short Brazilian banks trades. We had been expecting a riot in EM financial markets, but had not anticipated that Argentina would be affected more than Brazil. Finally, structurally we remain optimistic on Argentina's equity outperformance versus the frontier equity benchmark. Tactically (say the next 3 months), however, Argentine equities could underperform. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Indonesia: Facing Major Headwinds 10 May 2018 Indonesian stocks appear to be in freefall in absolute terms and relative to the EM benchmark (Chart III-1). Meanwhile, the currency has been selling off and local currency as well as sovereign (U.S. dollar) bonds spreads are widening versus U.S. Treasurys from low levels (Chart III-2). Chart III-1Indonesian Equities: Absolute ##br##And Relative Performance Chart III-2Indonesian Local Bonds ##br##And Sovereign Spreads These developments have been occurring due to vulnerabilities relating to Indonesia's balance of payments (BoP) dynamics. We believe Indonesia's BoP dynamics will deteriorate further and as such there is more downside for both the rupiah and its financial markets from here: Stronger U.S. growth and higher inflation prints will likely lead to higher interest rate expectations in the U.S. and lift the U.S. dollar further. This will likely lead to Indonesia's underperformance. Chart III-3 shows that Indonesia's relative equity performance versus the EM benchmark has been extremely sensitive to moves in U.S. Treasury yields. Hence, the cost of funding has been a critical variable for Indonesia. Indonesia is also a large commodities exporting nation and the latter account for around 30% of its exports. Specifically, coal, palm oil and copper make up about 9%, 8% and 2% of its exports, respectively. Coal exports are facing major headwinds. The Chinese government has moved to restrict coal imports in several Chinese ports in order to protect its domestic coal producers as we argued in our Special Report titled Revisiting China's De-Capacity Reforms.1 This development will be devastating for Indonesia's coal industry. Chart III-4 shows that the Adaro Energy's stock price - a large Indonesian coal mining company - is falling sharply. This stock price has already fallen by 40% in U.S. dollar terms since its peak on January 30. Chart III-3Indonesia Is Very Sensitive ##br##To U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-4Trouble In Indonesia's Coal Sector Further, palm oil prices have been weak while copper prices might be on edge of breaking down. Meanwhile, there are others negatives related to shipments of these commodities. Palm oil exports are at risk because India has imposed import duties on palm oil, while the European Parliament voted in favor of a ban on the use of palm oil in bio fuel by 2021. Offsetting these, however, China has just agreed to purchase more palm oil from Indonesia. In regard to copper, the ongoing dispute on environmental regulation between Freeport-McMoRan - a U.S. mining company that operates a large copper mine in Indonesia - and the Indonesian government, risks disrupting Freeport's copper production in Indonesia, hurting the country's export revenues. On the whole, export revenues are at risk of plummeting at a time when Indonesian imports are already too strong. This will worsen BoP dynamics further. Chart III-5 shows that a deteriorating trade balance in Indonesia is usually bearish for its equity market. It seems that the current account deficit will be widening when foreign funding is drying up. This requires either a major depreciation in the currency or much higher interest rates. As such, Bank Indonesia (BI) - Indonesia's central bank - might be forced to raise interest rates to cool down domestic demand and attract foreign funding to stabilize the rupiah. Even if the BI does not raise rates, it might opt to defend the rupiah by selling its international reserves. This would still bid up local interbank rates as defending the currency entails drawing down banking system liquidity, i.e., banks' reserves at the central bank. Chart III-6 shows that Indonesian interbank rates are starting to rise in response to falling international reserves. Chart III-5Indonesia: Swings In Trade ##br##Balance And Share Prices Chart III-6Indonesia: Currency Defense By Selling ##br##FX Reserves Leads To Higher Interbank Rates Higher rates will weaken domestic demand and are bearish for share prices. Importantly, foreign ownership of local bonds is still high at 39% and a weaker rupiah could cause selling by foreign investors, pushing yields even higher. Chart III-7Indonesia: Banks Profits Are At Risk Finally, a word on Indonesian banks is warranted. Financials account for 42% of Indonesia's MSCI market cap and 47% of its total earnings. Thus their performance is also very crucial for the outlook of the overall stock market. In our March 1st Weekly Report,2 we argued that Indonesian banks have been lowering their provisions to artificially boost earnings. This is not sustainable as these provisions are insufficient and will have to rise. As they ultimately rise, bank profits and share prices will hurt (Chart III-7). Bottom Line: We recommend investors to downgrade Indonesia's stocks from neutral to underweight within an EM equity portfolio. We also reiterate our short IDR / long USD trade and the short position in local bonds. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Revisiting China's De-Capacity Reforms," dated April 26, 2018, the link available on page 23. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM Equity Valuations (Part II)," dated March 1, 2018, the link available on page 23. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The big danger of higher bond yields is to the $380 trillion edifice of global risk-assets, rather than to the global economy per se. Buy a small portfolio of 30-year government bonds, given that higher bond yields are now hurting equities and 30-year yields are close to resistance levels. The ongoing drama of Italian politics is an irritation, rather than an existential risk to the euro area, as long as Italian populists correctly focus their fire on EU fiscal rules rather than the single currency. Nevertheless, we prefer France's CAC over Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX, given the latter markets' outsize exposure to banks, a sector in which we remain underweight. Feature When travellers from the U.K. find themselves in Continental Europe or the U.S. they frequently make a potentially fatal error. Trying to cross a busy street, they look right instead of left... Your author has made this error several times and lived to tell the tale, but there is an important moral to the story. However carefully you look, you won't spot the oncoming truck if you are looking in the wrong direction! Chart of the WeekEquities And Bonds Are Both Offering A Paltry 2% Look At the Markets, Not The Economy The global long bond yield is up around 60bps from the lows of last September, and it would be natural to ask if this poses a danger to the economy. Credit sensitive economic sectors are understandably feeling a headwind, and global growth has indisputably decelerated (Chart I-2). Yet there is no sense of an oncoming truck. Chart I-2Credit Sensitive Sectors Are Feeling A Headwind But are we looking in the wrong direction? While higher bond yields do not yet threaten the global economy, the big danger is to the $380 trillion edifice of global risk-assets.1 In the space of a few weeks, the correlation between bond yields and equities has suddenly and viciously reversed. When the 10-year T-bond yield was below 2.65%, the correlation was a near perfect positive, r = +0.9 (Chart I-3) but above 2.85%, it has flipped to a near perfect negative, r = -0.8 (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Below A 2.65% T-Bond Yield, Equities And##br## Bond Yields Were Positively Correlated Chart I-4Above A 2.85% T-Bond Yield, Equities And ##br##Bond Yields Have Been Negatively Correlated In 2000, 2008 and 2011, the right direction to look was at the financial markets. Recall that it was instabilities in the financial markets - the bursting of the dot com bubble, the mispricing of U.S. subprime mortgages, and the widening of euro area sovereign credit spreads - that spilled over into economic downturns. In any case, for investment strategy, whether such financial instabilities do or do not spill over into the real economy is a secondary concern. The primary concern must always be to identify financial market vulnerabilities - and opportunities. Rich Valuations Are In A Precarious Equilibrium The single most important determinant of an investment's long term return is not the investment's cash flows per se, it is the price that you pay for the cash flows. This is the fundamental lesson of investment. An investment's cash flows might be growing strongly, but if you overpay for the cash flows - for example, in a bubble - you will end up with a negative return. Conversely, cash flows might be collapsing, but if you buy them at an overly depressed price, you will end up with a positive return. It turns out that the long term prospective return from most investments is well-defined. For government bonds, it is the yield to maturity;2 for equities and other risk-assets it is empirically well-defined by the starting valuation, which tends to be an excellent predictor of the prospective long term return (Chart I-5). Chart I-5World Equities Are Priced To Generate 2% A Year For the long term prospective return from bonds, the main determinant is central bank policy, and specifically the expected path for interest rates. For the long term prospective return from equities, the main determinant is the return that the market demands relative to that on offer from bonds. What establishes this relative return? The answer is relative riskiness, specifically the potential for short term losses versus short term gains, technically known as negative skew. Investors hate negative skew - the potential to experience larger short term losses than gains. Hence, investors demand relative returns that are commensurate with the investments' relative negative skews. This brings us to the crux of the matter. At low bond yields, bonds become much more risky: their returns take on negative skew. Intuitively, this is because the lower bound to interest rates forces a very unattractive asymmetry on bond returns: prices can fall a lot, but they can no longer rise a lot. At a bond yield of 2%, theoretical and empirical evidence shows that bonds and equities possess the same negative skew (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6At A 2% Bond Yield, 10-Year Bonds Have##br## The Same Negative Skew As Equities... Chart I-7...So At A 2% Bond Yield, Equities ##br##Must Also Offer A 2% Return Right now, the negative skews on bonds and equities are roughly the same, so investors are accepting roughly the same long term return from global equities as they can get from global bonds - a paltry 2% (Chart of the Week). This justifies an equity valuation as rich as at the peak of the dot com bubble. The trouble is that the valuation justification for $380 trillion of global risk-assets would crumble if the bond yield were to rise meaningfully. But which bond yield? As asset-classes tend to move as global rather than regional assets, the yield that matters is the global long bond yield. Given the large spread in yields across major bonds, a global yield of 2% equates to around 3% in the U.S. and 1% in Europe. This may explain why these are the yield levels at which the correlation between bond yields and equities has suddenly and viciously reversed. This brings us to the investment opportunity: 30-year government bonds. In recent years, 30-year yields have failed to sustain breaks through upper bounds: 3.2% for T-bonds; 2.0% for U.K. gilts; 1.4% for German bunds; and 0.9% for JGBs. Indeed, looking at these yields since 2015 it is hard to discern a bear market in 30-year government bonds (Charts I-8- I-11). Chart I-8Resistance At 3.2% Chart I-9Resistance At 2.0% Chart I-10Resistance At 1.4% Chart I-11Resistance At 0.9% With higher bond yields now hurting equities, and 30-year yields close to resistance levels, it is a good time to buy a small portfolio of 30-year government bonds. What Unites Italy With Japan? Italy and Japan are the only two major economies in which private indebtedness is considerably less than public indebtedness (Chart I-12 and Chart I-13). In the case of Italy, the very low private indebtedness means that its total indebtedness - as a share of GDP - is actually less than that in the U.K., France, Spain and Sweden. Chart I-12Private Indebtedness Is Less Than ##br##Public Indebtedness In Italy... Chart I-13...And In ##br##Japan The other thing that unites Italy with Japan is that their banking systems were left undercapitalised and in a 'zombie' state for years. Which, to a large extent, explains why private indebtedness has been declining in both economies. When somebody in the private sector pays down debt, say €100, and the banking system does not reallocate that €100 to a new private sector borrower, aggregate demand will contract by €100. To prevent this demand recession, the government must step in to borrow and spend the €100. Moreover, because the private sector is deleveraging, what seems to be fiscal largesse does not lead to crowding out, inflation, or surging interest rates. Instead, government borrowing and spending turns out to be a very sensible economic policy. On this basis, Japan countered its aggressive private sector deleveraging with equally aggressive public sector leveraging and thereby kept its economy motoring along. By contrast, Italy had its hands tied by the EU fiscal compact - which mistakenly looks at public indebtedness in isolation rather than in combination with private indebtedness. Hence, the Italian government was prevented from recapitalizing its banking system, and the Italian economy stagnated for a decade (Chart I-14 and Chart I-15). Chart I-14The Italian Government Was Prevented ##br##From Recapitalising The Banks... Chart I-15...And The Italian Economy ##br##Stagnated For A Decade In this sense, the populist parties in Italy - The League and 5 Star Movement - have correctly identified that Italy's problem is not the euro per se, but the EU's fiscal dogma. Both parties have dropped calls for a referendum on Italy's membership of the euro area, but have doubled down on their intentions to ignore the EU's misguided fiscal rules, such as the 3 per cent limit on budget deficits. As long as Italian populists correctly focus their fire on EU rules rather than the single currency, investors should view the ongoing drama of Italian politics as an irritation, rather than an existential risk to the euro area. Nevertheless, for the time being, we prefer France's CAC over Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX. This is less a function of politics, and more a function of the latter markets' outsize exposure to banks, a sector in which we remain underweight. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Global equities and high yield and EM debt is worth around $160 trillion and global real estate is worth $220 trillion. 2 Assuming no default risk and no reinvestment risk. Fractal Trading Model* This week, we note that SEK/EUR is at a key technical turning point, and due a countertrend rally. As we already have a long SEK/GBP position open, we are not doubling up with SEK/EUR. In other trades, we are pleased to report that long USD/Chilean peso hit its 2.7% profit target, and is now closed. This leaves us with four open positions. 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-16 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

The accelerating underperformance of weak balance sheet stocks relative to strong balance sheet stocks has given us pause to reevaluate. Using the Goldman Sachs equity baskets - that utilize the 'Altman Z-score' framework to select stocks - via Bloomberg, we find that the weak balance sheet over strong balance sheet share price ratio leads the broad market at both peaks and is coincident at troughs (chart below). In our travels and conference calls one common question keeps coming up: What will end all this? The short answer is that rising interest rates will eventually deal a blow to the debt overhang and the expansion will give way to a fresh deleveraging cycle. In other words, a whiff of inflation will entice the Fed to keep on raising the fed funds rate to the point where the business cycle turns down. Falling cash flows will no longer be able to support the debt overload, igniting a jump in the default rate. In this week's Special Report, we are introducing our new insolvency risk monitor (IRM) per U.S. equity sector. While this new metric should not be used in isolation, we believe it is helpful to validate our overall sector positioning and cyclical vs. defensive portfolio bent. Please see our Special Report for more details.

Special Report

There is scant evidence that the character of the equity market advance is changing and the fact that weak balance sheet stocks are no longer outperforming strong balance sheet stocks is giving us pause (Chart 1). Chart 1Time To Pause And Reflect Using the Goldman Sachs equity baskets - that utilize the 'Altman Z-score' framework to select stocks - via Bloomberg, we find that the weak balance sheet over strong balance sheet share price ratio leads the broad market at both peaks and is coincident at troughs. The most recent peak occurred in early 2017 and it is rather surprising that a proxy for this ratio using the fixed income market, i.e. the total return high yield bond index versus the total return investment grade bond index, is moving in the opposite direction and not confirming the equity market's message (Chart 2). This begs the question: Which market signal is right, stocks or fixed income, and what are the equity sector investment implications? But before trying to answer these questions, we first zoom out and look at the broad U.S. debt picture. How Will It All End? In our travels and conference calls one common question keeps coming up: What will end all this? The short answer is that rising interest rates will eventually deal a blow to the debt overhang and the expansion will give way to a fresh deleveraging cycle. In other words, a whiff of inflation will entice the Fed to keep on raising the fed funds rate to the point where the business cycle turns down. As demand falters, a decreasing cash flow backdrop will not be able to service the debt overload, as both coupon payments and principal repayments will become a big burden. This will ignite a jump in the default rate, a message the yield curve is already sending (Chart 3). Chart 2Which Market Is Right? Chart 3Has The Junk Default Rate Troughed? Peering back to the onset of the GFC, a U.S. financial sector debt crisis engulfed the world. Subsequently, this morphed into a government sector debt problem in the Eurozone and more recently into a non-financial corporate sector debt overhang mostly in the commodity complex and the emerging markets. Debt Supercycle Lives On The investment world is obsessed with China's excess debt uptake and that is a valid concern. However, investors should also be aware that U.S. debt has not been fully purged. Rather, it has moved around between different domestic sectors. The debt supercycle lives on.1 The implication is that an interest rate-induced debt bubble pricking would be deflationary, and thus identifying the U.S. domestic sector most exposed to such risk is important. Chart 4 breaks down U.S. total debt into the four largest sectors using flow of funds data. While households and the financial sector have significantly de-levered, the government and the non-financial business sector have been picking up the slack and aggressively re-levering. While the Trump Administration has embarked on a two-year fiscal policy easing period that will add to the government debt profile, the nonfinancial corporate debt overhang is more vulnerable and thus troublesome in our view (fed funds rate shown inverted, Chart 5). Worrisomely, since the GFC, nonfinancial corporates have been issuing debt and partially using this debt to retire equity and pay handsome dividends. According to the flow of funds data, the cumulative nonfinancial net equity retirement figure stands near $4tn over the past decade (middle panel, Chart 6). Undoubtedly, this has been a large contributor to equity market returns (top panel, Chart 6), and will likely gain further momentum this year on the back of the tax repatriation holiday. Some sell side equity retirement estimates for the S&P 500 hover around $800bn for calendar 2018 or roughly twice the past decade's annual average. AAPL's recent announcement of a $100 billion share repurchase program confirms that the buyback bonanza is persevering and will continue to boost equities. Clearly, such breakneck equity retirement pace is unsustainable and will converge down to a lower trend rate in 2019 and beyond, especially given the drying liquidity as the Fed continues to pursue a tighter monetary policy. Chart 4Debt Is Moving Around Chart 5Tight Monetary Policy Pricks Bubbles, And... Chart 6...Threatens To End The Equity Retirement Binge Introducing BCA's Sector Insolvency Risk Monitor (IRM) The purpose of this Special Report is to identify debt soft spots and outliers in the U.S. GICS1 equity sectors. What follows is a financials statement-heavy analysis of sector indebtedness. We introduce the 'Altman Z-score' sector analysis that gauges sector credit strength, with a rising score indicating improving health and a declining Z-score signifying deteriorating health.2 In absolute terms, a score below 1.8 warns of a possible credit event, whereas any reading above 3 signals that bankruptcy risk is very low (see appendix below). Our analysis includes our flagship Bank Credit Analyst's Corporate Health Monitor framework that breaks down corporate health in the different sectors3 (see appendix below). We also sift through a number of different stock market reported ratios/data to gauge each sector's health, with net debt-to-EBITDA and interest coverage at the forefront of our analysis, and try to identify outliers (see appendix below). Finally, with the invaluable help of BCA's Chief Quantitative Strategist, David Boucher, we created our new insolvency risk monitor (IRM) per U.S. equity sector incorporating the respective 'Altman Z-scores', BCA's corporate health monitor readings and net debt-to-EBITDA ratios. In more detail, we ranked each sector (ex-financials and real estate) on a monthly basis on each of these three measures. Then we used a simple average of the ranked measures per sector to come up with the final sector ranking. We also selected the median sector ranking per measure and used the average of the three metrics as a proxy for the broad market.4 This way we were able to compare each sector IRM to the overall market. Note that the IRMs are designed so that a higher IRM ranking means better solvency. Charts 7 & 8 summarize the results and showcase this new all-inclusive relative ranking alongside relative share price performance. Chart 7Unsustainable... Chart 8...Divergences Sector Outliers Consumer discretionary stocks are the clearest outliers and the message from the relative IRM is to expect a significant underperformance phase in the coming quarters (top panel, Chart 7). AMZN's juggernaut is blurring the discretionary landscape given its 20% index weight, and artificially boosting relative share prices. Ex-AMZN, this early cyclical sector is behaving similar to previous episodes when the Fed embarked on a tightening interest rate cycle. We reiterate our recent downgrade to a below benchmark allocation.5 Consumer staples equities are steeply deviating from their increasing relative IRM score, underscoring that investors are unduly punishing staples stocks (second panel, Chart 8). We maintain our overweight stance and treat this sector as a small portfolio hedge to our otherwise general dislike of defensives (as a reminder we are underweight both the S&P health care and the S&P telecom services sectors). Chart 9Cyclicals Have The Upper Hand The utilities share price ratio is also deviating from the IRM relative reading (fourth panel, Chart 8). The implication is that extreme bearishness toward the sector is overdone and we reiterate our mid-February upgrade to a neutral stance.6 Energy stocks have fallen behind the energy IRM rebound reading (top panel, Chart 8). We expect a catch up phase on the back of the global capex upcycle, still improving debt profile, favorable underlying commodity supply/demand dynamics and firming oil prices. The S&P energy sector remains a high-conviction overweight. The niche materials sector is also trailing the sector's slingshot IRM recovery. Keep in mind that, as expected, the materials IRM is one of the most volatile series (second panel, Chart 8). Materials manufacturers are capital intensive and high operating leverage businesses and despite the debt dynamic betterment since the recent global manufacturing recession, this sector is still saddled with a large amount of debt that makes it extremely sensitive to the ebbs and flows of global economic growth. We continue to recommend a benchmark allocation. The remaining sectors' (tech, health care, telecom services and industrials) relative share prices are moving in tandem with their respective IRM readings (Charts 7 & 8). In addition, we have complied all the cyclical and defensive IRMs in two distinct series and the relative IRM ratio is giving the all-clear sign to continue to prefer cyclicals over defensives on a 9-12 month time horizon (Chart 9). So What? In sum, the IRM is one new additional metric we are using to gauge the validity of our sector positioning and should not be used in isolation. To answer our original question, while the weak balance sheet versus strong balance sheet stock underperformance is alarming and we will continue to closely monitor this stock price ratio, it is premature to change our constructive overall equity market view on a 9-12 month horizon. We therefore continue to recommend a cyclical over defensive portfolio bent. Finally, for completion purposes, the appendix below shows a number of debt-related indicators we track, including the absolute 'Altman Z-score' and corporate health monitor readings, in two charts per sector along with the cyclicals over defensives compilation and the overall market (ex-financials). Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 For a primer on the debt super cycle please refer to Box 1 in the BCA Special Year End Issue: "Outlook 2013: Fewer Storms, More Sunny Breaks," dated December 19, 2012, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Altman Z-Score = 1.2A + 1.4B + 3.3C + 0.6D + 1.0E. Where: A = working capital / total assets, B = retained earnings / total assets, C = earnings before interest and tax / total assets, D = market value of equity / total liabilities and E = sales / total assets. Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/altman.asp 3 Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Report, "U.S. Corporate Health Gets A Failing Grade," dated January 28, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 We refrained from using the top down computed S&P 500 'Altman Z-Score' and net debt-to-EBITDA as the financials sector really skewed the results and therefore opted to use the median sector 'Altman Z-score' and net debt-to-EBITDA as a proxy for the broad market because using the mean also skewed the results largely because of the tech sector. Staying consistent in our analysis, we also used the median sector BCA corporate health monitor to proxy the broad market. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Reflective Or Restrictive?" dated March 12, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Manic-Depressive?" dated February 12, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Appendix U.S. Non-Financial Broad Market I U.S. Non-Financial Broad Market II U.S. S&P Industrials I U.S. S&P Industrials II U.S. S&P Energy I U.S. S&P Energy II U.S. S&P Consumer Staples I U.S. S&P Consumer Staples II U.S. S&P Tech I U.S. S&P Tech I U.S. S&P Utilities I U.S. S&P Utilities II U.S. S&P Materials I U.S. S&P Materials II U.S. S&P Consumer Discretionary I U.S. S&P Consumer Discretionary II U.S. S&P Telecom Services I U.S. S&P Telecom Services II U.S. S&P Health Care I U.S. S&P Health Care II U.S. S&P Cyclicals Vs. Defensives I U.S. S&P Cyclicals Vs. Defensives II

Highlights BCA's call is that the robust labor market will boost wages and incomes, and insulate the consumer from rising energy costs and interest rates. Residential investment will add to GDP growth this year and support housing-related investments. Q1 results for S&P 500 earnings and revenues are exceeding raised expectations amid increase in tariff talk. Feature Last Friday's employment report shows a strong U.S. labor market with moderate wage pressures. The Fed can continue with a leisurely pace of rate hikes, which do not disrupt risk assets. The U.S. economy added 164,000 of net new jobs in April. Taking into account the 30,000 upward revision to the prior months, the increase in payrolls was in line with the consensus forecast of 195,000. With the 3-month moving average at 208,000 the pace of jobs growth is running comfortably above the trend growth in the labor force. This is reflected in the unemployment rate dropping from 4.1% to a new cyclical low of 3.9%. The jobless rate is nearing the 3.8% low seen during the height of the tech bubble in 2000. Even though the pace of jobs growth is strong and the unemployment rate is probing new lows, wage gains remain moderate. Average hourly earnings increased by just 0.1% m/m in April. Moreover, last month's gain was revised down to 0.2% m/m from an initially reported 0.3% m/m. As a consequence, the annual rate of wage inflation has slowed slightly to 2.6% from a recent high of 2.8% in January. The underlying trend in wage inflation is higher, but it is fairly shallow (Chart 1). The April employment report is "Goldilocks" for U.S. equities. The labor market is strong and the economy is growing about 3%. With modest wage and inflation pressures, there is no need for the Fed to turn more aggressive to cool a rapidly overheating economy. The modest trajectory of Fed rate hikes alongside modest income gains and stout consumer balance sheets will insulate the largest segment of the economy from higher interest payments and rising gasoline costs. Residential construction will also benefit from a gradual central bank, and housing-related assets are poised to outperform. Corporate profits can also continue to grow while the Fed maintains a gradual pace of rate hikes. The Q1 earnings and revenue reports for S&P 500 firms are outstanding. BCA's call is that the robust labor market will boost wages and incomes, and insulate the consumer from rising energy costs and interest rates. As we stated in our report on April 2,1 conditions that crushed the consumer ahead of the 2007-2008 recession are not in place and will not be for some time. Chart 2 shows that at 41.8%, household purchases of essentials as a percentage of disposable income are near all-time lows and have dropped by more than 1% since early 2013. In contrast, spending on necessities rose by a record 3% in the five years ending 2008. This matches levels reached at the end of the 1980s when interest rates, inflation and oil prices all soared. Wrenching consumer-driven economic downturns ensued after both episodes. Chart 1Another Goldilocks##BR##Jobs Report For U.S. Risk Assets Chart 2Consumer Is Not Stressed##BR##Despite Higher Energy Costs While investors remain concerned that rising rates and higher energy costs could derail the consumer and slow the economy, we take a different view. Energy represents 3.8% of consumers' spending on essentials while interest costs account for 15.9%. BCA expects that the Fed will continue to raise rates gradually in the next 12 months, in lockstep with the market's stance. However, we anticipate that the Fed will be more aggressive from mid-2019 through mid-2020 as inflation moves beyond the Fed's 2% target. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service notes that if we assume that the equilibrium fed funds rate is approximately 3%, then the cyclical peak for the 10-year Treasury yield will occur between 3.35% and 3.52%,2 roughly 35 to 50 bps higher than current levels. In previous research, we stated that a modest rise in rates would not be a burden on consumers.3 BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy team forecasts that West Texas Intermediate oil prices will average $70/bbl. in 2018 and $64/bbl. in 2019. However, it also notes that tight balances in global oil make it likely those numbers will make excursions to $80/bbl.4 If production in Venezuela deteriorates more than expected or the supply in Iran or Libya is compromised, then oil could move beyond $80/bbl and, depending on the supply disruptions, to $90/bbl. Chart 3 shows that the consumer can easily withstand a rise in oil prices to $90/bbl. BCA's assumption is that natural gas and electricity prices will remain at current readings. Chart 3U.S. Consumer Is Well Insulated From Rising Energy Costs Bottom Line: Tighter labor markets and rising incomes will overcome rising interest rates and higher oil prices, and allow consumers to contribute to above-trend GDP growth. We see gradual upturns ahead for both oil prices and interest rates, but nothing so significant to trigger the collapse of consumer spending. Housing and housing-related assets will also flourish in the next year. Housing-Related Assets: An Update Residential investment will add to GDP growth this year and support housing-related investments. Chart 4 shows that housing in this cycle lagged previous slow-burn recoveries5 by a wide margin. Inventories of new and existing homes are near all-time lows, and the homeownership rate has turned higher alongside incomes and household formation (Chart 5). BCA's view is that escalating mortgage rates are not an impediment to housing construction. Nonetheless, housing did not contribute to economic growth in Q1 2018, but it did add 0.46% to real GDP in Q4 2017 as construction activity surged following last summer's hurricanes in Florida and Texas. Chart 4Residential Investment's Share##BR##Of GDP Has Lagged Prior Long Cycles Chart 5Solid Housing##BR##Fundamentals In Place Chart 6 estimates the remaining pent-up demand for housing, based on the deviation from its 1990-2007 trend in the ratio of the number of households to the total population. A closing of the gap implies an extra 1.35 million housing units. The equilibrium number of housing starts that cover underlying population growth, plus the units lost to scrappage, is estimated at about 1.4 million annually. If the household formation 'catch up' fully occurs in the next two years, which would add another 675,000 units per year, then total demand could be close to 2 million in each of the next two years. This compares with March's housing starts of 1.3 million. Clearly, this is an aggressive forecast, and we doubt starts will advance at this pace in the next few years, but it does suggest that housing construction is likely to perk up. Chart 6A Catch-Up Housing Construction##BR##Will Occur If This Gap Closes The above analysis suggests that residential investment will contribute to GDP growth this year and next. There are favorable implications for housing-related financial assets. We originally examined the implications of a rebound in residential construction activity in 2012.6 Our approach was to test the historical excess return performance of several financial assets as a function of key housing market variables. We concluded that housing-related financial assets were set to outperform their respective benchmarks in a bullish housing scenario in the following year (and beyond). Our original analysis is updated in this report, with a few modifications. First, we examine the relationship between key housing market variables and excess returns of housing-related assets since the onset of the U.S. economic expansion in June 2009, given the structural change in the housing market that occurred following the Great Recession. Secondly, our analysis is based on a more focused set of housing market indicators, given the relatively poor predictive power of new home sales and the months' supply of houses for sale following the crisis period on housing-related asset returns. Table 1 presents the list of housing-related assets that we examined,7 along with the key housing market variables used to forecast excess returns (and whether they were significant predictors in the post-crisis era). The table highlights that most of the variables contain useful information, with the exception of the two noted above, sales of new homes and inventories of unsold homes. The right-most column presents the share of excess returns explained by a composite model of the factors noted as significant for each asset that varies from a low of 14% to a high of 22%. Table 1Important Predictors Of Housing-Related Asset Excess Returns* (June 2009-December 2017) Charts 7 and 8 present a set of relatively conservative assumptions for the key housing market variables shown in Table 1, based on a rise in housing starts only modestly above the scrappage rate referred to in the previous section. We assume that house price appreciation and housing affordability are moderate due to further rate hikes from the Fed and mounting inflation. We also suppose that the homebuilders' confidence index stays flat, refi applications remain low linked to the uptrend in mortgage rates, and purchase applications rise in conjunction with housing starts. Chart 7A Set Of Conservative Assumptions... Chart 8...For Key Housing Market Variables Finally, Table 2 illustrates the predicted excess returns of housing-related assets in the coming 12 months, along with the annualized excess returns in 2017 and, for reference, in the entire sample period. It is important to note that excess returns of corporate bonds are presented relative to duration-matched government bonds, not a speculative- or investment-grade corporate bond aggregate. Table 2Excess Returns Of Housing-Related Assets* (%) Investors can draw several important conclusions from our analysis: All but one of the housing-related assets are expected to outperform their respective benchmarks in the next year, even given our conservative assumptions about the pace of gains in the housing market. Our model predicts outperformance for the three corporate bond assets (shown in Tables 1 and 2) relative to their respective corporate bond benchmarks, albeit only marginally in the case of investment-grade banks. Moreover, the model projects modest outperformance for agency MBS. With the exception of S&P 500 banks, the model's predicted excess returns are lower in the coming year than they have been on an annualized basis since the onset of the recovery. This highlights that housing-related assets have moved ahead at least some of the expected normalization in the housing market over the next few years. However, a full rise to our equilibrium estimate of 2 million starts during the next two years could potentially lead to an even larger outperformance than the model forecasts. Moreover, Charts 9A and 9B suggest that valuation will not be an impediment to the outperformance of housing-related assets. Chart 9AValuation Won't Be An Impediment... Chart 9B...For Housing Related Assets Bottom Line: Investors should look to housing-related assets as a source of potential outperformance in 6-12 months. The historical relationship between key housing market variables and the excess returns of these assets implies the latter is set to outperform, even given conservative assumptions about the housing factors. Stunning Results More than 80% of S&P 500 companies have reported Q1 results, and EPS and sales growth are well ahead of consensus expectations at the start of April. Moreover, the counter-trend rally in margins remains in place. We previewed the Q1 2018 S&P 500 earnings season earlier this year.8 82% of companies have released results so far, with 79% beating consensus EPS projections, which is well above the long-term average of 69%. Moreover, 76% have posted Q1 revenues that topped expectations, exceeding the long-term average of 56%. The surprise factor for year-over-year numbers in Q1 stands at a robust 7% for EPS and 1.5% for sales. The earnings surprise reading is well above the long-term average of 5%, while the sales surprise figure is right at the long-term average. Both the earnings and sales surprise figures are even more impressive given that analysts' views of Q1 results increased between the start of Q1 2018 and the actual Q1 reporting season. Analysts' estimates typically move lower as a quarter unfolds, in effect lowering the bar for results. Table 3S&P 500: Q1 2018 Results* We anticipate the secular mean-reversion of margins to re-assert itself in the S&P data, perhaps beginning in mid-2018. Even so, the results to date suggest that Q1 will be another quarter of margin expansion. Average earnings growth (Q1 2018 versus Q1 2017) is a stunning 26% with revenue growth at 8%. However, on a four-quarter basis, U.S. margins fell slightly in the fourth quarter. Still, they remain high on the back of decent corporate pricing power. Strength in earnings and revenues is broadly based (Table 3). Earnings per share rose in Q1 2018 versus Q1 2017 in all 11 sectors. EPS results are particularly stout in energy (84%), technology (35%), financials (30%), materials (30%) and industrials (25%). The technology, materials, real estate and industrial sectors likewise all experienced substantial sales gains (16%, 13%, 14% and 11% respectively). Excluding energy, S&P 500 profits in Q1 2018 versus Q1 2017 are still vigorous at 24%. BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy service introduced profit models for all 11 S&P 500 sectors in January.9 Optimistic managements have raised the bar significantly for 2018 results in the past few months (Chart 10). On October 1, 2017, before the GOP introduced the tax bill, the bottom-up estimate for the S&P 500's 2018 EPS growth stood at 11%. The assessment grew to 20% at the start of the earnings reporting season in early April. As of May 4, 2018, the figure climbed slightly to 22%. Moreover, the upward revisions are widespread. Calendar year 2018 EPS growth rate estimates in 10 of 11 sectors are higher today than at the start of October 2017. Chart 10High Bar For 2018... But Focus Will Quickly Turn To 2019 While the ebullience is linked to the tax bill, other factors such as solid global growth, a steeper yield curve and higher energy prices are also responsible. The tax bill lowered the corporate tax rate for 2018 and the repatriation holiday provides firms with excess cash. However, U.S. trade policy is a concern in several industries. Chart 11 shows that through April 27, 45 companies cited tariffs in their Q1 earnings calls, a jump from 5 in the Q4 2017 reporting season. The Fed's business and banking contacts mentioned either tariffs or trade policy 44 times in the latest Beige Book (April 18); there were only 3 mentions in the March edition.10 Analysts expect EPS growth to slow significantly in 2019 (9%) from the anticipated 2018 clip, which matches BCA's stance (Chart 12). However, unlike estimates for 2017 and 2018, we anticipate that EPS estimates for 2019 will move lower throughout 2018 and 2019, ahead of a recession in early 2020. Chart 11Plenty Of Tariff Talk##BR##In Q1 Earnings Calls Chart 12Strong S&P 500 EPS Growth Ahead,##BR##Will Start To Slow Soon Bottom Line: EPS growth is expected to peak at over 20% later this year (4-quarter moving total basis using S&P 500 data) and subsequently decelerate because of a modest margin squeeze as U.S. wage growth picks up (Chart 11). A slowdown in global growth will also crimp profit growth later this year. Incorporating the fiscal stimulus lifted the EPS growth profile relative to our previous forecast. Nonetheless, BCA believes that the earnings backdrop will remain a tailwind for the equity market. The Tax Cut and Job Act raised expectations for 2018 in most sectors and so far, corporate managements have exceeded the lofty projections. However, it may be more difficult to maintain in the second half of 2018. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds. 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, "Has Global Growth Peaked?", published April 2, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "A Signal From Gold?", published May 1, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report from February 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Tighter Balances Make Oil Price Excursions To $80/bbl Likely", published April 19, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report from March 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report," U-3 Or U-6?," published February 13, 2012. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Note that we have excluded fixed- and floating-rate home equity loan ABS from our list of housing-related assets because of a lack of data, as well as investment-grade REITs because of a very low degree of return predictability from key indicators of the housing market. 8 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Global Growth Peaked?", published April 2, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "White Paper: Introducing Our U.S. Equity Sector Earnings Models," published January 16, 2018. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Short Term Caution Warranted", published April 23, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com.