Economy

Highlights Even though our baseline scenario calls for four rate hikes out of the Fed this year - more than markets have priced in - gold will be supported by increasing inflation and inflation expectations, heightened geopolitical risks, and greater volatility in equity markets. Further out, we expect gold will provide a good hedge against a likely equity downturn, as the bull market turns into a bear market in 2H19. For now, keep gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. Energy: Overweight. After popping above $70 and $66/bbl last week, Brent and WTI prices retreated ~ $2.00/bbl on the back of a stronger USD and increased rig counts in the U.S. shales, particularly in the prolific Permian Basin, where 18 rigs were added. We continue to expect Brent and WTI prices to average $67 and $63/bbl this year. Base Metals: Neutral. Spot copper continues to trade on either side of $3.20/lb on the COMEX. We remain neutral, given our view upside risk - chiefly supply-side disruptions at the mine and refined levels - will be balanced on the downside by a stronger USD and a slowdown in China. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold will draw support from rising inflation and inflation expectations this year and next (see below). Ags/Softs: Underweight. NAFTA negotiations ended this week in Montreal with the U.S. rejecting proposals from Canada to advance the talks. However, the U.S. side stated it would seek "major breakthroughs" at the next round of negotiations in Mexico City beginning February 26, according to agriculture.com. Feature Gold Price Risks Skewed To The Upside Price risk in gold will remain skewed to the upside this year, even as our base case scenario calls for limited gains from here. Higher inflation and inflation expectations, which normally would be bullish for gold, will be countered by Fed policy-rate hikes, which will boost the USD and lift real rates in our base case (Chart of the Week). Inflation's Revival Would Support Gold ... Despite above-trend global growth last year, subdued inflation limited the Fed's willingness to proceed with interest rate normalization in earnest. However, we do not put this down to structural forces, and instead expect core inflation to be near its bottom.1 In fact, inflation's soft readings are typical of the expected 18-month lag between U.S. economic growth and a pick-up in inflation, and as our Global Investment Strategists point out, several key indicators including the ISM manufacturing index, the New York Fed's Inflation Gauge, as well as BCA's proprietary pipeline inflation index are already moving in this direction (Chart 2).2 Chart of the WeekInflation And U.S. Financial Variables Matter Chart 2Signs Of Life In U.S. Inflation Inflation tends to pick up once the unemployment rate falls below the 5% mark. With the latest unemployment reading coming in at 4.1%, the U.S. economy has reached the steep end of the Phillips Curve - a workhorse model used by the Fed, which depicts the trade-off between unemployment and inflation. Indeed, BCA's Global Investment Strategists expect the U.S. unemployment rate to continue falling to a 49-year low of 3.5% by year-end. These further declines in the unemployment rate will push up wages, pressuring service inflation (Chart 3). At the same time, we expect the lagged impact of the weak USD will begin to show up in goods price inflation, along with higher energy prices. While some components of the Fed's preferred inflation gauge may face a slowdown in price pressure - most notably rent - this will likely be mitigated by accelerating prices in other components, such as health care, which we expect will return to its historic trend. In fact, U.S. inflation expectations - supported by higher energy prices and a strong December core CPI reading - have already started to increase (Chart 4). As our U.S. Bond Strategists point out, by the time core inflation returns to the Fed's target, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will be between 2.4% and 2.5%.3 Chart 3At The Steep End Of The Philips Curve Chart 4A Breakout In Inflation Expectations Thus the 2018 inflation outlook is showing signs that it is in the process of bottoming, and will soon begin its ascent. We expect core PCE inflation, the Fed's preferred gauge, to reach the central bank's 2% target by year-end. This pick-up in inflation and inflation expectations is positive for gold, which we've shown to be an attractive hedge against rising prices. However, inflation's comeback will likely embolden the Fed to proceed more aggressively with its hiking cycle. ... But A Hawkish Fed Counters Inflation ... While our modelling showcases an inverse relationship between real rates and gold prices, what is crucial to our outlook is our expectation of how the Fed will proceed with its interest rate normalization process this year. Given that gold's correlation with inflation is strengthened during periods of low real rates, the ideal condition for gold would be for the Fed to stay behind the inflation curve. But we are not expecting that just yet.4 Rather than waiting to see the "whites of inflation's eyes," our expectation is the Fed will tighten ahead of inflation. This has in fact already materialized with three hikes in 2017 amid muted inflation. Upward surprises in U.S. growth, coupled with an upward trend in inflation will keep the Fed on its normalization path with greater confidence. We expect four rate hikes in 2018 - above both market expectations and what is implied by the "dot plot". Net, the pre-emptive Fed rate hikes we expect will lead to higher real rates, and will limit gold's upside this year. ... As Does A Stronger Greenback An increase in U.S. real rates vis-à-vis other economies, as well as a shift in the composition of global growth to favor the U.S., will support the USD. In addition to higher real rates, this would also limit gold's upside in 2018. Stronger growth ex-U.S. last year weakened the USD. This year, we expect the U.S. economy to outperform. Financial conditions have eased in the U.S. relative to the rest of the world, while fiscal policy is expected to be comparatively more favorable in the U.S. The U.S. surprise index has reflected this shift in comparative growth, outperforming most regions (Chart 5).5 While the Euro has been exceptionally resilient, the fallout from a stronger currency will eventually begin to show up in slower growth. The EUR/USD cross has diverged from the spread in expected policy rates, leaving the euro looking expensive (Chart 6). Since the beginning of the year, spreads have widened in favor of the dollar, while the USD has weakened. Although we do not expect the ECB to hike until mid-2019, our expectation of four Fed rate hikes this year will support the greenback. This will push spreads back in line. Such decoupling is not the norm, and we expect a 5% appreciation in the dollar in broad trade weighted terms.6 Chart 5Economic Surprises Favor The U.S. Chart 6EUR Looks Expensive Still, The Fed Could Surprise, And Tilt Dovish Chart 7A Policy Change Would##BR##Tolerate Higher Inflation A risk to our base case outlook is a change in the Fed's monetary policy framework. Here we note an increasing number of statements advocating the exploration of an alternative policy framework have been emerging from the Fed. This line of attack observes the Fed's current 2% inflation target is unsatisfactory, as it is too close to the zero-lower bound on interest rates, thus constraining the Fed's ability to exercise expansionary monetary policy when rates are low.7 Alternative policy proposals include price-level targeting, as well as an increase in the inflation target. Additionally, former Fed Chair Bernanke recently proposed a temporary price level target be implemented during low-rate periods.8 The net effect of these alternatives would be a higher inflation rate - above the current 2% target (Chart 7). If the Fed were to adopt a new monetary policy framework, it will likely occur before the next recession - in order to allow it to better respond to economic weakness. While we do not expect a regime change this year, these discussions and an eventual shift, may make the Fed more dovish this year, and more likely to tolerate higher inflation in the future. This would be an upside risk to gold, as it would assume its role as a store-of-value against higher inflation. The net effect of such a policy change - were it to occur - would be higher inflation expectations, lower real rates, and a weaker USD, all of which would bid up the gold market. Bottom Line: The revival of U.S. inflation and inflation expectations will bolster gold. However, our expectation that the Fed will continue hiking ahead of a realized uptick in inflation, and more aggressively than is currently priced in the market, will increase real rates and limit gold's upside potential. A stronger USD on the back of higher real rates, as well as a shift in global growth in favor of the U.S., will work against gold this year. Geopolitical Risks: Understated In 2018 We expect geopolitical risks to support gold prices this year. Gold's safe-haven attributes will be highlighted by a combination of events spread across the calendar year, which we believe will put a floor under the metal's price (Chart 8).9 Political and economic policy uncertainty will remain elevated this year (Chart 9). Our Geopolitical Strategists see this year's gold-relevant risks stemming from two main factors: (1) U.S. political risks, and (2) Exogenous tail risks. The former is likely to be a more significant source of upside pressure. Chart 8Gold Outperforms During##BR##Geopolitical Crises Chart 9Elevated Policy Uncertainty##BR##Supports Gold U.S. Foreign Strategy Risks Will Keep Gold Bid U.S. political risks are rooted in President Trump's strategic decisions, and boil down to two mutually exclusive schemes ahead of the midterm elections: Domestic Strategy or Foreign Strategy (Table 1). Our Geopolitical strategists note: "... policymakers often play "two-level games," with the domestic arena influencing what is possible in the international one. As Donald Trump loses political capital on the domestic front, his options for affecting policy will become constrained. However, the U.S. constitution places almost no constraints on the president when it comes to foreign policy."10 Trump's propensity to take on a more aggressive stance in foreign policy - which would be boosted by an unfavorable outcome in the immigration bill - will set the stage for a volatile year, supporting gold via its ability to hedge against geopolitical risks (Chart 10). Table 1Trump's Two-Level Game Chart 10Trump Will Look To Revive His Political Capital In addition to the U.S. political risks, many low-probability high-impact risks will keep volatility elevated this year and could support gold as a strategic portfolio hedge in 2018. Most notable are the following: A meaningful slowdown in China would have a negative impact on the global economy, as well as increase the risk of a monetary policy mistake in the U.S. The Fed's monetary policy decision is important for EM growth, while EM growth contributes to U.S. inflation, this feedback system makes the expected slowdown in Chinese growth relevant to the U.S. monetary stance. If China slows more than expected, this would reduce the global demand for commodities and goods, diminishing U.S. inflation expectations, potentially forcing the Fed to reassess its rate hike pace. If no adjustments are made, the Fed risks overshooting the equilibrium interest rate, increasing the risk of an equity correction. A downward rate hike adjustment, would keep the USD and real rates at low levels. A global oil-supply disruption caused by a collapse of the Venezuelan economy would lead to a short-lived spike in oil prices (Chart 11). In low-spare-capacity environments - as we are in today - oil prices become more responsive to supply shocks. Based on our simulations, a 600k b/d drop in Venezuelan oil supply in 2018 could spike oil prices by ~$10/bbl, leading to higher cost-push inflation. Our modelling shows U.S. CPI is highly responsive to oil price variation. This spike in headline inflation would push gold prices higher. Chart 11Cost-Push Inflation Risk From Venezuela Collapse In addition to U.S.-Iran tensions, we see other potential catalysts to instability in the Middle East - mainly regarding a severe deterioration of the U.S.-Turkish relationship, and Iraqi-Kurdish clashes ahead of Iraqi elections. Lastly, Europe: Italian elections and Euro-skepticism are a longer-term risk; however, news around the Italian elections in March has the potential to fuel talk of a potential breakup, which could lift gold.11 Bottom Line: Increased tensions due to Trump's controversial foreign strategy (China and Iran), as well as exogenous tail risks throughout the year will keep risks elevated in 2018, supporting gold prices. In fact our geopolitical strategists believe risks are understated this year, increasing the utility of gold's ability to hedge against political turmoil. Gold Outperforms In Equity Bear Markets In addition to its ability to hedge against rising inflation and increased geopolitical risks, gold outperforms during equity downturns and amid market volatility.12 Specifically, during periods of negative equity returns, gold outperformed the S&P500 79% of the time, with an average excess return of 3.7%. Furthermore, gold outperforms equities 60% of the time in periods of rising VIX with an average excess monthly return of 1.6% in these periods, and only 30% of the time in decreasing VIX periods with an average monthly excess return of -1.8% (Chart 12).13 We expect the equity bull market to remain intact throughout 2018. An equity downturn is not expected before 2H19. Nevertheless, we expect volatility to increase this year as investors fret about the sustainability of the bull market, and amid heightened geopolitical tensions. Moreover, domestic U.S. developments - e.g., the evolution of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation; a larger-than-expected Democrat win in the midterm elections or a Fed policy mistake - could affect investor sentiment and trigger a rise in volatility and a temporary sell-off in S&P 500. In our view, consumer confidence is a key contributor to the current equity bull market and currently stands at very elevated levels (Chart 13). Thus, any meaningful disappointment could derail this high-confidence environment. Chart 12Gold Outperforms Amid##BR##Volatility & Equity Downturns Chart 13High Confidence##BR##Environment At Risk Therefore, we believe the larger-than-expected tail risks and the monetary and political risks in the U.S. are not fully reflected in the gold market (Chart 14). The above risks assessment would suggest a fatter right tail in out-of-the-money gold options. Chart 14Rising Volatility Will Support Gold Chart 15Understated Geopolitical Risks This Year Bottom Line: While geopolitical risks were overstated in 2017, they are understated this year (Chart 15). Thus we do not expect a repeat of last year's low-VIX high-confidence environment. Rather gold will gain support from increased equity volatility this year. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report titled "The Impact of Robots on Inflation," dated January 25, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Three Tantalizing Trades - Four Months On," dated January 19, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report titled "It's Still All About Inflation," dated January 16, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Go Long Gold As A Strategic Portfolio Hedge," dated May 4, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Four Key Questions On The 2018 Global Growth Outlook," dated January 5, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "The Indefatigable Euro," dated January 26, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see "Fed Officials See Benefits In Letting Inflation Run Above Target," dated January 19, 2018, available at Bloomberg.com. 8 Please see https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2017/10/12/temporary-price-level-targeting-an-alternative-framework-for-monetary-policy/ 9 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Balance Of Risks Favors Holding Gold," dated October 12, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report titled "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 For a comprehensive analysis of this issue, please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Go Long Gold As A Strategic Portfolio Hedge," dated May 4, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 13 Excess returns = (Gold - S&P 500) monthly returns. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights The U.S.'s twin deficits do not explain the drop in the USD; Global growth is the biggest factor for the USD, and growth depends on China's economic reforms; The U.S. is turning more hawkish on China trade despite Beijing's reform-induced vulnerability; U.S. and Chinese political dynamics suggest upside risks in the former and downside in the latter; Go long DXY. Feature American policymakers scrambled to walk back Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin's "weak dollar" comments last week. Investors were left to wonder why Mnuchin broke with the long-held official position of favoring a strong dollar. Was it a "shot across the bow" of China, warning Beijing that the U.S. would engage in currency manipulation if it was not given concessions on trade? Or was it an admission that the U.S. would run large "twin deficits" - a budget deficit and a current account deficit - going forward? We don't have a good explanation for what Mnuchin said in Davos.1 But we can say with some conviction that the "twin deficit" explanation, which has been brought up in almost every client conversation so far this year, is wrong. Chart 1Twin Deficits: Why The Panic? Chart 2Because The Narrative Is Scary First, who says that the U.S. is about to widen its twin deficit (Chart 1)? The concern arises periodically in the marketplace but is often grossly off the mark in predicting the path of deficits or the dollar (Chart 2). We expect the budget deficit to hold steady in 2018, if not contract. Why? Because the fiscal deficit almost always contracts in the eight quarters before a recession, barring, in some cases, one or two quarters just before the recession hits (Chart 3). Unless investors have a high-conviction view that a recession is afoot in the next two quarters, they should ignore the dire predictions about the U.S. budget deficit. Chart 3The Deficit Is Not A Problem... Yet Chart 4Bond Market Not Sniffing Out Any Twin Deficit Crisis If the risk to the U.S. economy is to the upside, as we believe due to the tax cuts and unleashing of animal spirits, then deficits will come down regardless of additional tax or spending policy.2 In the long term, yes, the budget deficit will almost certainly expand due to entitlement spending, the impact of automatic stabilizers during a recession, and the loss of revenue from tax cuts. But long-term deficit concerns are the purview of the bond market, not currency traders. So what is the bond market telling us? Chart 4 shows that the yield curve tends to steepen as the twin deficit widens; both tend to occur during and after recessions. Today, however, the curve continues to flatten. Another fixed-income market indicator that tends to track budget deficits is the 30-year swap spread, which falls during recessions as budget deficits expand. But today the swap spread is not falling, it is increasing and doing so at the fastest pace since the 2008 recession (Chart 5). This may be a sign of resurgent animal spirits as banks throw caution - and concerns over Obama-era overregulation - to the wind. Credit demand is rising in the economy, which should increase both the velocity of money and growth. Concerns over the widening fiscal deficit are not being reflected in this indicator. Finally, our currency strategist, Mathieu Savary, has pointed out that a widening twin deficit only impacts developed economies' currencies about 50% of the time over 12 month periods. In other words, expansion of the twin deficit predicts currency moves about as well as flipping a coin. What really matters is how central banks respond to the causes and economic effects of the twin deficits. Protectionism, on the other hand, ought to be bullish for the dollar.3 As such, a potential trade war between China and the U.S. should not be the reason for the dollar's deepening doldrums. And while we are generally open to alarmism on trade protectionism - due to the fact that President Trump has few constitutional or political constraints holding him back on this issue - there is still not enough evidence to say whether the Trump administration will impose across-the-board tariffs on China. (See next section.) Could dollar weakness, conversely, be the result of a Plaza Accord 2.0 orchestrated between Chinese and American policymakers to depreciate the greenback in order to avert the need for protectionist policies? We doubt it. First, the U.S. and China economic dialogue has faltered. Second, the dollar would not have declined following the Plaza Accord had the Fed not aggressively cut rates from 1984 to 1985 by 423 basis points (Chart 6). And the Fed is obviously not cutting rates today, it is hiking them. Chart 5No Sign Of Deficit Here Chart 6The Fed Is More Important Than Politics... So, what matters for the U.S. dollar? Higher domestic inflation would matter as it would incentivize the Fed to tighten more than the market expects. Even here, however, recent history warrants caution on this view. Between 2004 and 2006, the Fed tightened 440 basis points and yet the dollar declined 11% from the start of the tightening cycle to its end (Chart 7). This is because the rest of the world's growth outpaced U.S. growth, particularly that of emerging markets, which grew at an annual 19%. We therefore come full circle to the single biggest issue on our forecasting horizon: Chinese policy. China is the most important variable for the U.S. dollar at the moment as it can single-handedly tip the global growth balance back towards the U.S., given its expected contribution to global growth (Chart 8). Chart 7...But Not More Important Than Global Growth Chart 8China Really Matters For Global Growth Our view is that Chinese policymakers are acting as an accelerant to BCA's House View that the Chinese economy will experience a benign slowdown. Risks are skewed towards the downside. We recently dedicated our monthly Crow's Nest Webcast solely to this issue and we highly encourage our clients to listen to it on replay.4 In today's weekly, we briefly assess where our Chinese view stands and then turn to U.S. politics. News Flash: Chimerica Has Been Dead Since 2012 Two critical aspects of our China view are coming together. The first is U.S. policy, which is becoming more aggressive after a year in which Trump showed restraint for the sake of North Korean negotiations.5 The second is China's renewed focus on domestic economic reforms.6 The "symbiotic" relationship between the U.S. and China is in decay, as we have argued since 2012.7 As China's economy grows, so grows its capacity for challenging the United States in the strategic sphere (Chart 9). Meanwhile the two economies have diverged markedly since U.S. households began to deleverage in 2008 (Chart 10). Chart 9China's Capabilities Are Growing Chart 10China No Longer Addicted To U.S. Demand The mainstream media is about to become more attuned to this reality now that the Trump administration has published a series of high-level reports declaring that U.S. strategy toward China is changing. Here are a few choice quotations: "China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea." (Department of Defense, National Defense Strategy, 2018) "Long-term strategic competitions with China and Russia are the principal priorities for the Department." (Department of Defense, National Defense Strategy, 2018) "[High-level bilateral dialogues] largely have been unsuccessful - not because of failures by U.S. policymakers, but because Chinese policymakers were not interested in moving toward a true market economy." (U.S. Trade Representative, 2017 Report to Congress On China's WTO Compliance, 2018) "The United States also will take all other steps necessary to rein in harmful state-led, mercantilist policies and practices pursued by China, even when they do not fall squarely within WTO disciplines." (U.S. Trade Representative, 2017 Report to Congress On China's WTO Compliance, 2018) "The United States ... is seeking fundamental changes to China's trade regime, including the overarching industrial policies that have continued to dominate China's state-led economy." (U.S. Trade Representative, 2017 Report to Congress On China's WTO Compliance, 2018) "China and Russia want to shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests. China seeks to displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region, expand the reaches of its state-driven economic model, and reorder the region in its favor." (President Trump, National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 2017) We expect to find echoes of this tough rhetoric in Trump's State of the Union Address on January 30, which will air as we go to press. Already commentators have declared that the U.S. is entering a "post-engagement" phase in the U.S.-China relationship.8 The U.S. and China will continue to engage. What is important is the Trump administration's shift toward more aggressive economic statecraft. Trump's view, made amply clear on the campaign trail, and now officially U.S. policy, holds that China is a mercantilist as well as a revisionist power and that it has initiated a trade war against the U.S. Thus the real policy change lies not in naming China a "strategic competitor" antithetical to U.S. values, but in declaring that normal "WTO consistent" remedies are no longer sufficient and the U.S. will have to resort to "all other steps necessary." The question is whether the U.S., in adopting unilateral measures, will pursue trade remedies on an item-by-item basis, as it has done so far, or break out of the mold and levy broader tariffs to try to achieve "fundamental changes" as quoted above. Trump's recent tariffs on solar panels and washing machines adhered closely to U.S. institutional procedures and penalized U.S. ally South Korea as well as China: if this is the trajectory that the U.S. intends to take, then markets can breathe a sigh of relief.9 The basic trade data show that the U.S. has continued to expand imports from China despite past incidents of presidents slapping on tariffs (Chart 11). Chart 11China And U.S.: Ships Passing In The Night However, the U.S. is likely to draw a harder line than that. The same data also show that the U.S. is not gaining much access to the Chinese market over time, while China has greatly diminished its exposure both to exports and to U.S. trade as a whole. Furthermore, the Trump administration is accusing China of trying to gain superior technology from the U.S. in a way that jeopardizes its security and sovereignty in the pursuit of a better strategic position. This is said to include coercion and corruption of U.S. firms in China, favoring the manufacturing sector by squeezing out competition, preferring domestic-sourced goods over foreign goods, and jeopardizing U.S. companies' intellectual property and network security. The key grievances are forced technology transfer, the "Made in China 2025" industrial strategy, "indigenous innovation" rules, and the new Cyber-Security Law.10 A test case for the U.S.'s harder line will be the ongoing investigation into China's intellectual property theft, which is due by August but is expected to elicit action by Trump sooner. Trump has a range of actions he can take either within or without the WTO. Going outside the WTO would give him greater flexibility, for instance, to impose a "fine," as he called it, for the cumulative "big damages" of China's intellectual property theft - but it would also enable China to claim that the U.S. itself is violating WTO trade rules.11 How will China respond to this turn in U.S. policy? It will continue to focus on rebooting its economic reforms. Reform is both necessary for its own interests, as we have outlined in the past, and expedient in that it enables China to try to deflect and delay U.S. pressure.12 This is not to say that China will not retaliate to particular U.S. moves, but simply that it will prefer to minimize conflict unless and until the Trump administration demonstrates via broad and sweeping trade measures that Beijing has no choice but to engage in open trade war. China's recent declarations that it will accelerate economic reforms aimed at trade and investment openness - particularly in financial services but also more generally - are geared toward allaying Washington. Xi Jinping's right-hand economist, Liu He, who is a key figure, made this clear at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he said that China's reform and opening up this year would "exceed international expectations." Politburo Standing Committee member Wang Yang made a similar point late last year, saying that the "Made in China 2025" program would not discriminate against foreign or private firms.13 Simultaneously, leading technocrats are calling attention to China's vulnerability as it attempts delicate financial reforms. Guo Shuqing of the China Banking Regulatory Commission has warned of "black swan" or "gray rhino" events as he continues with his financial regulatory crackdown, and he has been echoed by the vice-secretary general of the National Development and Reform Commission.14 These statements are prudent - as it is always risky for highly leveraged countries to tinker with financial tightening - and useful because Beijing wants to warn the U.S. against pushing too hard since it is both "making progress" and vulnerable to instability. We certainly expect the reforms to have a significant, adverse impact on China's economic growth this year. In the latest developments, the policy crackdown is spreading to local governments, where fiscal tightening could ensue (Chart 12). Local governments lack stable sources of revenue, have large hidden debts, face an intensifying debt repayment schedule over the next three years, and have recently begun to cancel infrastructure projects under central government scrutiny (in Inner Mongolia, Gansu, and other provinces, and reportedly even in Xi's favored province of Zhejiang). Furthermore, the reforms have involved a crackdown on shadow lending that has sent non-bank credit into a steep decline (Chart 13). While some market estimates suggest that bank loans could grow by 13%-15% in 2018, such estimates cut against the policy grain. Assuming that non-bank credit does not grow any faster in 2018 than it did in 2017 (9.7%), China can afford to let new bank loans grow at 9.7% and still keep its total social financing (TSF) at its five-year annual average growth rate of 14.5%. Policymakers will not be able to soften their line easily, as several key players are newly appointed and must establish their credibility from the outset. Chart 12Local Government Finances Under Scrutiny Chart 13Shadow Bank Crackdown To Weigh On Credit Growth Our view is that Trump will harden the line despite China's promises both of deeper internal reforms and greater opening up. But the timing is impossible to predict. The real fireworks may be reserved until closer to the U.S. midterm election, as campaigning heats up in the fall. That would be the time for Trump to try to rally his voters by means of a clash of economic nationalisms with China. Beyond the top U.S. grievances cited above, we would highlight the U.S. approach toward China's state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Preferential policies for SOEs are a structural issue that the U.S. is now criticizing. At the party congress in October, President Xi Jinping pledged not only to reform the SOEs but also to make them bigger and stronger. Hence there is a potential collision course. The precise implementation of China's reforms could determine whether the U.S. pursues the issue further. China's State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission has so far reaffirmed Xi's comments at the party congress but, in keeping with the subtlety of Xi's policies, has also suggested there may be room to intensify reforms. The combination of Trump's economic policies, and China's intensifying reforms, will result in the U.S. economy outperforming expectations relative to China while U.S. corporations will outperform their Chinese counterparts (Chart 14). China will experience higher volatility, both in general and in relation to the U.S., and Chinese companies that suffer from reforms will underperform U.S. companies that benefit most from tax cuts (Chart 15). This is ironic given the popular narrative that the U.S. is suffering from chaotic democratic politics while China's centralized authoritarian model reigns triumphant. Of course, we do think Xi has key capabilities to drive reforms further in his second term than in his first, so these U.S.-China divergences will continue for the next 6-to-12 months at least. China's slowdown and increase in equity volatility should create a policy response: more fiscal spending and credit expansion. The comparison of relative U.S. and Chinese credit impulses suggests that China extends more credit as relative volatility rises (Chart 16). Our view, however, is that China's credit impulse will continue disappointing this year as Beijing prioritizes reform over growth. The credit numbers in January are the next data set to watch, in addition to the aforementioned local government spending. Investors should brace for more uncertainty as the Lunar New Year approaches (Feb. 16). Chart 14U.S. Earnings Surprise Relative To China Chart 15Xi Adds Volatility Relative To Trump Bump Chart 16China's Credit Impulse Disappoints Bottom Line: The Trump administration has issued an ultimatum of sorts on trade. Yet China claims to be redoubling its efforts at reforming and opening up its economy - party to deflect the pressure. We are almost certain that Trump will take further punitive actions, but it is too soon to say when or if he will engage in sweeping measures that threaten to destabilize China and thus initiate a trade war. The political context heading into the U.S. midterm vote will be crucial. Is America Having A Macron Moment? It is unfortunate when one's forecast is challenged only weeks after it is conceived. But that appears to be happening to our view, articulated in late December, that investors should expect no significant legislation to come out of Congress following the passage of the tax cuts.15 Bad news for our forecast is perhaps good news for U.S. policy initiatives and the overall quality of U.S. governance. President Trump has softened his stance on immigration, stating that he would be willing to grant citizenship to roughly 1.8 million "Dreamers" - young adults who came to the U.S. as illegal immigrants.16 Clearing the immigration hurdle would mean that Congress can focus on passing a budget for FY2018 that would see both defense and discretionary spending levels significantly raised. It would also relegate the never-ending saga of the debt ceiling to the dustbin, at least for the duration of this political cycle. Trump also followed up his immigration proposal by sketching a $1.7 trillion infrastructure investment plan (albeit a vague one). Chart 17Bipartisanship = Steeper Bull Market? Could we be approaching a "Macron moment" in U.S. politics? A moment when the "silent majority" rises up and sends a message to politicians that it has had enough of polarizing extremes? Previous such moments have included President Reagan's collaboration with congressional Democrats and President Clinton's with Republicans, which underpinned that glorious stock market run between August 12, 1982 and March 24, 2000 (Chart 17). Both presidents passed significant economic and social reforms during that time. Chart 18Peak Partisanship? Chart 19Independents On The Rise Yes, polarization remains at extreme levels (Chart 18), but that could also mean that it is reaching its natural limits. Rather than dwell on the high levels of polarization, which are baked into the "expectations cake," we would point out that the percentage of Americans who identify as independents is now fast approaching the combined total who identify as either Republican or Democrat (Chart 19). Ominously for Republicans - who hold both the House and the Senate - midterm electoral sweeps have almost always occurred along with the share of independents crossing the 40% mark (Table 1). Table 1Sweep Elections Coincide With High Independent Affiliation Meanwhile, President Trump's conciliatory tone on immigration was met with howls of protest from conservative activists. This is despite the fact that his proposal essentially exchanges leniency for Dreamers for considerably tougher immigration laws in general, which would align the U.S. with its developed market peers.17 Conservative activists are, however, massively out of step with the rest of America. Polls show that immigration is not high on the list of priorities for most Americans, and that most Americans continue to believe both that immigration is a positive and that immigration intake should remain at current levels (Chart 20). Chart 20Americans Are Neither Anti-Immigrant Nor All That Concerned About Immigration Our gut call that President Trump was itching to move to the political middle appears to be correct.18 Whether this becomes investment relevant will ultimately depend on whether the Democrats reciprocate. If Democrats go by data, they will. The government shutdown imbroglio has cost them a double-digit lead in the generic congressional ballot (Chart 21). As a political strategy, the shutdown was a miserable failure. Furthermore, the 2016 election stands as clear evidence that "outrage" does not work. Clinton picked up almost a million more voters in California than President Obama yet failed to beat his performance where it mattered: the Midwest. If Democrats continue to run on a "resistance" platform in order to satisfy their activist base, they will fail to win the House. Chart 21Government Shutdown An 'Own Goal' For Dems Ironically, the best strategy for Democrats ahead of the midterm election is to cooperate with Trump. The swelling ranks of independent voters will reward them if they do so. That same strategy, however, will paradoxically boost Trump's chances in 2020. Bottom Line: The market is, of course, ideologically nihilist. But a move to the middle - which benefits everyone involved except House Republicans - would be positive for stocks and the economy. Key bellwethers going forward are how Democrats react to Trump's immigration proposal and whether Trump moves to the middle on trade deals, starting with NAFTA, whose sixth round of negotiations just ended inconclusively (although not negatively) in Montreal. Investment Implications From the perspective of global asset allocation, the most important issue today is Chinese economic and regulatory policy. Yes, U.S. inflation is important, but whether it moves the dollar - and therefore commodities and EM assets - will depend on the pace of the current Chinese slowdown. China is therefore the most "diagnostic variable" in 2018. If our House View that inflation is coming back in the U.S. is right and our Geopolitical Strategy view that risks to growth in China are to the downside is also right, then investors should go long the U.S. dollar and underweight EM and EM-leveraged assets. If, on the other hand, we are wrong, then investors should load up with EM risk assets to the hilt right now. It is that simple. For what it is worth, we are putting our moderate-conviction view to the test and opening a long DXY trade. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 But on a completely unrelated note we would like to remind our clients that, over the past 24 months, Mr. Mnuchin was the executive producer of How to Be Single, Midnight Special, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, Keanu, The Conjuring 2, Central Intelligence, The Legend of Tarzan, Lights Out, Suicide Squad, Sully, Storks, The Accountant, Rules Don't Apply, The Lego Batman Movie, Fist Fight, CHiPs, Going in Style, Unforgettable, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, Wonder Woman, The House, Annabelle: Creation, The Lego Ninjago Movie, and The Disaster Artist. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, and Weekly Reports, "Trump and Trade," December 9, 2016, and "The Elusive Gains From Globalization," dated November 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research Webcasts, Geopolitical Strategy Crow's Nest, "China: How Is Our View Working Out?" dated January 25, 2018. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card," dated December 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, and "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, and "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Daniel H. Rosen, "A Post-Engagement US-China Relationship," Rhodium Group, January 19, 2018, available at rhg.com. 9 In fact, in the case of washing machines, the U.S.-based GE Appliances stands to gain from the tariff and has been owned by China's Haier Electronics Group since 2016. 10 Several clients have asked us about China's Cyber-Security Law, which has been in the process of implementation since July 2017 and will go fully into effect by the end of 2018. The law is meant to give the Chinese government the option of exercising control over all networks in the country. State security agencies are deeply involved in its enforcement and oversight. Foreign business interests fear that the law's new obligations will be onerous and potentially damaging - including potential violations of corporate security over intellectual property, source code, supply chain details, and data storage and transmission. 11 Please see Stephen E. Becker, Nancy Fischer, and Sahar Hafeez, "Update on US Investigation of China's IP Practices," Lexology, January 8, 2018, available at www.lexology.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Wang has served as the top interlocutor with the U.S. in the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue. 14 Please see "China eyes black swans, gray rhinos as 2018 growth seen slowing to 6.5-6.8 percent: media," Reuters, January 28, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. "Gray rhinos," coined by author Michele Wucker, refer to high-probability, high-impact risks, whereas the proverbial "black swan" is a low-probability, high-impact risk. These terms have both been making the rounds more frequently in Chinese policymaking circles since last year. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 What is fascinating about Trump's statement is that he cited the 1.8 million figure. There are actually only about 800,000 people who officially participated in President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. But estimates suggest that another 1,000,000 young adults are in the U.S. illegally, yet did not register. Trump has come under criticism from conservative, anti-immigration groups for essentially moving the goalposts beyond what even the Democrats had wanted. 17 Canada, for example, has a purely merit-based immigration system that is considerably tough on family reunification. (Reunification has even been suspended because of a large backlog.) In Europe, family reunification laws are extremely strict. Even spouses are not automatically allowed residency status in several major European countries unless they fulfill various conditions. 18 Please see footnote 2 above.

Highlights A potential rise in U.S. inflation and China's growth slowdown represent formidable headwinds to EM risk assets. A manifestation of these tectonic macro shifts will be a U.S. dollar rally and weakening commodities prices. These two will dent the EM risk asset rally. Strong DM growth will not offset the impact of a slower Chinese economy on EMs and commodities. A new fixed-income trade: bet on a steeper swap curve in Mexico relative to Canada. Feature The global macro landscape in 2018 will be shaped by the two tectonic shifts: U.S. fiscal stimulus amid vigorous growth, and policy tightening in China amid lingering credit and money excesses. The former will grease the wheels of the already robust U.S. economy, generating a whiff of inflation and fueling a further selloff in the U.S. bond market. China's tightening will in turn weigh on commodities prices and curtail the emerging market (EM) economic recovery. A manifestation of these tectonic macro shifts will be a U.S. dollar rally and weakening commodities prices producing formidable headwinds to EM risk assets. As such, we are reiterating our recommendation to underweight EM risk assets versus their DM peers. As to the absolute performance, we believe EM risk assets are close to a major market top. A Whiff Of U.S. Inflation Strong U.S. growth could in fact be damaging to EM financial markets, as it will likely augment U.S. consumer price inflation. Investors are currently extremely sanguine on U.S. inflationary pressures. An upside surprise to inflation will lift U.S. interest rate expectations further, supporting the greenback and hurting EM carry trades. There is some evidence that U.S. inflation is about to pick up: The New York Federal Reserve underlying inflation gauge is rising, signaling higher inflation ahead (Chart I-1). The nascent revival in the MZM (money of zero maturity) impulse presages a trough in inflation (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Fed Price Pressure Gauge Signifies Higher Inflation Chart I-2U.S. Money Growth And CPI The weak U.S. dollar will also help augment inflation in America. U.S. import prices from emerging Asia and Mexico have been rising - even before the latest carnage in the U.S. dollar (Chart I-3). This will filter through into higher domestic price pressures. Chart I-3U.S. Import Prices Are Rising In brief, fiscal stimulus amid buoyant growth as well as overwhelming optimism among consumers and businesses is creating fertile ground for companies to raise prices. This will amplify corporate profit growth but will also lead to higher inflation. We are not making a case that U.S. inflation is about to surge. Our thesis is that market participants are very complacent on inflation. The money market is pricing in only 96 basis points in rate hikes in 2018-'19. In the meantime, the term premium in the U.S. yield curve is extremely depressed. Therefore, even modest inflation surprises will likely produce an additional meaningful selloff in U.S./DM bond markets. Will global share prices rise in response to strong corporate profit growth, or sell off in the face of higher U.S. inflation? Our hunch is that share prices will suffer as rising bond yields cause multiples to shrink. Rising bond yields will overpower the profit growth impact on share prices. The basis is that multiples are disproportionately and inversely linked to percentage change interest rates but are proportionately and positively linked to EPS.1 At still-low yields, a 50-basis-point rise in bond yields constitutes a sizable percentage change in the bond yield, likely leading to a meaningful P/E de-rating. Current sky-high bullish sentiment towards equities combined with elevated valuations and overbought conditions will mean that even a modest rise in inflation readings will likely trigger equity market jitters. EMs will underperform DMs amid such a selloff, as the former has benefited much more than the latter from low interest rates. Bottom Line: U.S. fiscal stimulus is arriving at a time when final demand is robust, the labor market is tight and business and consumer confidence is buoyant. This will encourage companies to raise prices, resulting in a whiff of U.S. inflation. The latter will rattle markets in the months ahead. China: Tightening Amid Credit/Money Excesses Inflation in China has already been steadily rising (Chart I-4). Interest rates adjusted for inflation remain low. Rising inflation along with still-lingering credit and money excesses necessitates policy tightening. We have written extensively about China's ongoing tightening trifecta - liquidity tightening, increased regulatory oversight and clampdown as well as an anti-corruption crackdown in the financial industry.2 Regulatory tightening in particular could inflict a particular bite as it outright constrains banks' ability to originate credit. This tightening has already led to record low broad money growth, and credit growth is downshifting too (Chart I-5). The cumulative impact of this tightening will play out in the months ahead, weighing further on money and credit growth and ultimately on final demand. Chart I-4China: Inflation Is In Steady Uptrend Chart I-5China: Broad Money And Credit Growth On the fiscal front, local government spending has languished in recent months (Chart I-6, top panel) and general (central plus local) government spending growth has been lackluster (Chart I-6, bottom panel). In 2017, local government annual spending amounted to RMB 19 trillion, or 22% of nominal GDP. Central government expenditures are about 6-fold smaller. Local governments rely on land sales to replenish their coffers, but timid money growth points to weaker land sales ahead (Chart I-7). In the meantime, their annual borrowing is restricted by the central government. Overall, this will constrain local government expenditures in 2018. Chart I-6China: Government Expenditures Chart I-7China: Land Sales To Slump The combined credit and fiscal spending impulse heralds a relapse in mainland imports of goods and commodities (Chart I-8). This constitutes a major threat to commodities prices, and consequently to EM. A pertinent question is whether financial markets will react to rising U.S. inflation or a slowdown in Chinese growth. Clearly, one could argue that strong U.S. growth would offset a mainland growth slump, resulting in a stable global macro environment. However, financial markets are an emotional discounting mechanism, and they do not always follow rational thinking. For example, in the first half of 2008 - just a few months ahead of the Global Financial Crisis - global financial markets were preoccupied with mounting global inflation due to strong growth in EM/China. At the time, oil and many other commodities prices were literally surging, and U.S. bond yields were climbing (Chart I-9). Global financial markets were not concerned with the ongoing U.S. recession, shrinking bank loans and deflating house prices. Chart I-8China's Impact On Rest Of The World Chart I-92008: An Inflation Scare Just ##br##Before Deflationary Bust In retrospect, financial markets traded on the theme of rising global inflation in the first half of 2008 even though the U.S. was already in a recession, and was heading into the most severe deflationary bust of the past 80 years. Similarly, the financial markets today could trade on the U.S. inflation theme for a couple months, even though China will be slowing. Bottom Line: China's policy tightening is particularly dangerous because it is occurring amid substantial and still-lingering credit, money and property market excesses. Won't Strong DM Growth Support China And Other EMs? Our investment stance on EM has been and remains negative, despite our positive view on U.S. and European growth. The key rationale for this stance is that EMs are much more leveraged to China than to the U.S. and Europe. Hence, our view assumes de-synchronization of growth between EM and DM. In our opinion, an EM slowdown will be largely due to China's deceleration and the latter's impact on commodities prices and non-commodity economies in Asia via trade. South America, Russia, South Africa, Malaysia and Indonesia are commodities producers, and as such are sensitive to fluctuations in commodities prices. The rest of Asia - Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines - are still exposed to the mainland economy as the latter is their largest export destination. Thus out of the EM sphere, China's dynamics will have a limited impact on only Mexico, India, and Turkey. However, Mexico is at risk of a NAFTA abrogation, while Turkey is at risk of runaway inflation and monetary profligacy. India on the other hand has its own problems and its bourse is unlikely to do well, given it is overbought and expensive. Furthermore, while we are bullish on the growth outlook in central European economies, they are too small to matter from an EM benchmark perspective. It might be useful to contemplate the late 1990s macro dynamics when major decoupling occurred between DM and EM. The booming economies of the U.S. and Europe did not prevent recurring crises in EM in the second half of the 1990s. Chart I-10 illustrates that U.S. and European imports growth was surging at that time, but EM stocks and currencies collapsed. What's more, despite the economic boom in DM during that period - U.S. and euro area real GDP growth rates averaged 4.2% and 2.6%, respectively, between 1996 and 1998 - commodities prices were in a bear market (Chart I-11). Chart I-10EM Crises In 1997-98: U.S. And ##br##Europe's Imports Were Booming Chart I-11Booming DM GDP And ##br##Falling Commodities Prices One might suspect that EM crises in the second half of the 1990s occurred because booming DM growth led to rising U.S. bond yields. However, Chart I-12 portrays that U.S. bond yields actually fell in 1997 and 1998 due to the deflationary shock stemming from the EM turmoil. Chart I-12EM Crises Occurred Amid ##br##Falling U.S. Bond Yields By and large, the 1997-98 EM crises occurred despite buoyant DM growth and falling DM bond yields. Nowadays, advanced economies carry much smaller weight in global trade and GDP than they did 20 years ago. Furthermore, EMs are much less dependent on exporting to DMs than they were two decades ago. In addition, China was not an economic powerhouse 20 years ago like it is today, and it did not buy as much from the rest of EMs as it does today. Presently, China holds the key to the EM outlook, and the link is through Chinese imports of goods and commodities. As China's credit and fiscal spending impulse suggests, mainland imports are likely to slow, weighing on commodities prices (refer to Chart I-8 on page 6). To be sure, we are not suggesting that EMs are facing crises similar to what transpired in 1997-98. The point of this comparison is to highlight that robust DM growth in of itself is not sufficient to head off an EM downturn if the latter faces a negative shock from China. With respect to DM growth benefiting China itself, it is critical to realize that China's exports to the U.S. and EU together account for only 6.6% of Chinese GDP (Chart I-13). By far, the largest component of the mainland economy is capital spending, constituting 42% of GDP. Construction and infrastructure are an integral part of capital expenditures, and they are very sensitive to money/credit cycles. Finally, from a global trade perspective, China and the rest of EM account for 46% of global imports, while the U.S. and EU account for 20% and 15%, respectively (Chart I-14). Hence, the total import bill of EM including China is larger than that of the U.S.'s and EU's imports combined. This entails that the pace of global trade growth is set to moderate if EM/China domestic demand decelerates. Chart I-13What Drives Chinese Economy: ##br##Capex Not Exports To DM Chart I-14Important Of EM/China In Global Trade Bottom Line: Strong DM growth will not offset the impact of a slower Chinese economy on EMs and commodities. Investment Conclusions A manifestation of the above-discussed tectonic macro shifts - a rise in U.S. inflation and China's slowdown - will be a U.S. dollar rally and weakening commodities prices. These two macro shifts will produce a perfect storm for EM risk assets. As a harbinger of a forthcoming selloff in EM exchange rates and DM commodities currencies (AUD, NZD and CAD), their implied volatility measures are already picking up (Chart I-15). As to a China/Asia slowdown, Korean, Taiwanese and Singaporean manufacturing output volume growth rates have already relapsed (Chart I-16). Their exports and corporate profits still appear robust because of rising prices. This certifies that there are inflationary pressures, even in Asia. Chart I-15Currency VOLs Are Rising Chart I-16Asian Manufacturing Output Volume All in all, we maintain a negative stance on EM risk assets in absolute terms and recommend underweighting them versus their DM peers. Within the EM universe, our equity market overweights are Taiwan, India, Korean technology, Thailand, Russia, central Europe and Chile. Our underweights are South Africa, Turkey, Brazil, Peru and Malaysia. Among currencies, our favorite shorts are the TRY, the ZAR, the MYR and the BRL. For investors who prefers relative EM currency trades, we recommend the following longs for crosses: RUB, TWD, THB, CNY and INR. For fixed-income trades, please refer to our open position table on page 18. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Mexico: Bet On A Steeper Swap Curve Relative To Canada For Mexican financial markets, the key uncertainty at the moment is the outcome of the ongoing NAFTA negotiations. Mexico's macro backdrop argues for considerable central bank easing, as inflation is about to roll over and domestic demand is extremely weak. However, if the U.S. pulls out of NAFTA - the odds of which are considerable, as our Geopolitical Strategy team has argued3 - the peso will sell off and interest rates are likely to rise. How should investors position themselves in Mexican fixed-income markets given this binominal outcome from the NAFTA negotiations and uncertainty over its timing? One way is to position for a swap curve steepening in Mexico, and hedge it by betting on a swap curve flattening in Canada by entering the following pair trades (Chart II-1): Chart II-1Mexico, Canada And Their ##br##Relative Swap Curve Receive 6-month and pay 10-year swap rates in Mexico Pay 6-month and receive 10-year swap rates in Canada In A Scenario Where The U.S. Withdraws From NAFTA: The Mexican swap curve would invert due to short-term rates going up more than long-term rates. In Canada, potential risks from NAFTA abrogation and tightening monetary policy amid frothy property markets and high household debt will cap upside in its long-term interest rates. With its long-term bond swap rates at par with those in the U.S., it seems as though the Canadian fixed income market is underpricing the risk of potential growth disappointments beyond the near run. In essence, should the U.S. withdraw from NAFTA, the loss realized on the Mexican steepener leg would partially be offset by the potential gain on the Canadian flattener leg. In A Scenario Where The U.S. Does Not Withdraw From NAFTA: The Mexican swap curve would start steepening. The rationale is that domestic dynamics suggest inflation has peaked and Banxico should begin its easing cycle soon. Monetary and fiscal policies have been extremely restrictive in Mexico, and considerable monetary easing is justified going forward: A significant part of the rise in inflation in 2017 was caused by peso depreciation in 2016. Last year's peso rally suggests that inflation should start to roll over soon (Chart II-2). Besides, one-off effects on inflation - such as the gasoline subsidy removal that took place at the end of 2016 - will subside as the base effect it has caused fades. In brief, the consumer inflation rate will rapidly decline, justifying substantial monetary easing. Banxico's 425 basis points in rate hikes since the end of 2015 are still filtering through the economy. The persistent slowdown in money and credit growth will continue to weigh on domestic demand for the time being. Notably, retail sales volume and gross fixed capital formation are both contracting while domestic vehicles sales are shrinking sharply (Chart II-3). Chart II-2Mexico: Inflation Is Set To Drop Chart II-3Mexico: Consumer And Business ##br##Spending Are Extremely Weak Due to currently high inflation, real wage growth remains weak. This will continue to weigh on consumer spending (Chart II-4). Fiscal policy has been tightening. Fiscal expenditures, excluding interest payments, are contracting in nominal terms (Chart II-5). Chart II-4Mexico: Real Wage Growth Is Very Timid Chart II-5Mexico: Fiscal Policy Is Super Tight Canada is currently on the opposite side of the business cycle spectrum relative to Mexico. The Canadian economy is very strong, being led by domestic demand. Real consumer spending is growing at its fastest pace in nearly 10 years, while the unemployment rate is at 40-year lows. Moreover, a record proportion of Canadian firms are having difficulty meeting demand because of capacity constraints and a tight labor market (Chart II-6, top and middle panel). Chart II-6Canadian Economy Is ##br##Above Full-Employment As such, the output gap is positive and growing, which has historically led to rising inflation (Chart II-6, bottom panel). Robust growth and rising inflation will force the Bank of Canada to hike rates further. In the meantime, real estate and consumer credit in Canada are overextended, leaving the Canadian consumer at risk from much higher interest rates. The threat that monetary tightening will hurt domestic demand in the future will cap the swap curve in Canada relative to Mexico. On the whole, in the scenario where the U.S. remains in NAFTA, the potential for swap curve steepening in Canada is less than in Mexico. Investment Recommendations We have been recommending that investors maintain a neutral stance across all asset classes in Mexico and wait for clarity on NAFTA negotiations before going overweight the country's currency, fixed-income markets and possibly equities relative to their EM peers. In the face of lingering NAFTA uncertainty, fixed-income investors should contemplate the following relative trade: Receive 6-month and pay 10-year swap rates in Mexico / pay 6-month and receive 10-year swap rates in Canada. Overall, this trade is exposed to minimal losses in the scenario where the U.S. withdraws from NAFTA but is exposed to considerable gains where the U.S. remains in NAFTA, making the overall risk/reward attractive. Provided the NAFTA negotiations could drag till year-end, this trade offers a reasonable risk-reward for traders. It offers a profitable opportunity to profit from Mexico's swap curve steepening, while limiting downside in case NAFTA is terminated before year-end. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 This is due to the fact that interest rates are in the denominator of the Gordon Growth model while EPS/dividends are in the numerator. 2 Please refer to Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Questions For Emerging Markets," dated November 29, 2017, the link is available on page 19. 3 Please refer to the Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, titled "Nafta - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, the link is available at gps.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Portfolio Strategy A stable China, a depreciating U.S. dollar, rising commodity prices and sustained synchronized global growth signal that the industrials complex, especially the most cyclical part, remains on a solid footing. Deteriorating profit prospects warn that investors should refrain from paying a premium valuation for industrial machinery; take profits and move to the sidelines. Recent Changes S&P Industrial Machinery - Book profits of 4% and downgrade to neutral today. S&P Construction Machinery & Heavy Truck - Stop triggered last week, remove from the high-conviction list for a 10% gain. Small Caps / Large Caps - Downgrade alert in a recent Insight. Table 1 Feature The S&P 500 smashed through the 2,800 mark last week, as corporate profits continued to deliver, the U.S. dollar took a dive and global economic data releases held their own. Stars could not be more aligned for a euphoric blow off phase, with equity bourses the world over already registering annual-like returns in but a few short weeks. While stocks have more room to run, especially versus bonds, on a cyclical time frame, tactically the likelihood of a short-term healthy pullback is increasing. Last week we identified five indicators we are closely monitoring that are signaling an overstretched market.1 This week we update our Complacency-Anxiety Indicator that also catapulted to all-time highs and breached the one standard deviation above the historical mean mark (Chart 1). This confirms that a Q1 setback remains likely, and our strategy since December 18 has been to monetize gains in tactical trades and institute stops to the high flyers in our high-conviction call list. Were a 5-10% correction to materialize, we would "buy the dip" as we do not foresee a recession in the coming 9-12 months. While consumer price inflation is nowhere to be found, corporate selling prices are climbing at a brisk pace. The U.S. dollar debasement and related commodity reflex rebound, especially in oil prices, are the culprits, and the latter will likely assist even the CPI basket and morph into an inflationary impulse as we posited in late-November (please see the bottom two panels of Chart 1B). Already, inflation expectations are headed higher. Chart 2 updates our corporate sector pricing power proxy and our diffusion index. It also updates the business sector's overall wage inflation and associated diffusion index from the latest BLS employment report. The middle panel of Chart 2 shows the Atlanta Fed Wage Growth Tracker and that measure of wage inflation has converged down to the AHE reading, suffering a 100bps drop in the past year. Chart 1Complacency Reigns Chart 2Margin Expansion Phase Is Intact Corporate pricing power is upbeat at a time when wages are decelerating. Taken together, our margin proxy indicator suggests that the ongoing profit margin expansion phase has more upside (bottom panel, Chart 2). Table 2 shows our updated industry group pricing power gauges, which we calculate from the relevant CPI, PPI, PCE and commodity growth rates for each of the 60 industry groups we track. Table 2 also highlights shorter-term pricing power trends and each industry's spread to overall inflation. Table 2Industry Group Pricing Power 78% of the industries we cover are lifting selling prices, and 45% are doing so at a faster clip than overall inflation. Importantly, inflation rates have increased since our late-September update. The outright deflating sectors dropped by two to 13 since our last update. Encouragingly, only 7 industries are experiencing a downtrend in selling price inflation, or 5 fewer than our most recent report. Impressively, deep cyclicals/commodity-related industries dominate the top ranks, occupying 8 out of the top 10 slots (top panel, Chart 3). A softening greenback and rising global end demand explain the commodity complex's sustained ability to increase prices. In contrast, tech, telecom and consumer discretionary sectors populate the bottom ranks of Table 2. Netting it out, accelerating corporate sector pricing power will continue to bolster top line growth in 2018. Tack on high operating leverage kicking into higher gear at this stage of the cycle and still muted wage inflation and profit margins and EPS growth will remain upbeat. With regard to cyclicals versus defensives, diverging pricing power (Chart 3) and wage growth trends (Chart 4) suggest that cyclicals continue to have the upper hand compared with defensives (Chart 5). Chart 3Deep Cyclicals... Chart 4...Have The Upper Hand... Chart 5...Vs. Defensives This week we update our view on a deep cyclical sector and modestly tweak our intra-sector positioning. Industrials And China We lifted the S&P industrials sector to an above benchmark allocation in early October via boosting the S&P construction machinery & heavy truck sub index to overweight.2 Synchronized global growth, a capex upcycle, firming capital goods final demand, and the U.S. dollar's fall coupled with the commodity price rebound all pointed to a bright outlook for U.S. capital goods producers. Currently, all these forces remain in play and continue to bolster industrials stocks' profit prospects. However, the emerging market (EM)/Chinese economic backdrop deserves closer scrutiny. Why? Because the most cyclical parts of the industrials complex are levered to the EM in general and China in particular. These high operating leverage businesses also drive relative profit and stock performance, signaling that China's economic growth might or ails determine the overall fortunes of U.S. capital goods producers. While Chinese economic data are currently a mixed bag and we take them with a big grain of salt, global high-frequency financial market data are emitting an unambiguously positive signal. First, BCA's FX strategist, Mathieu Savary, brought to our attention that the extremely economic-sensitive Canadian TSX Venture Exchange Index is in a V-shaped recovery.3 Highly speculative basic resources issues dominate this Index and help explain the tight positive correlation with Chinese output (top panel, Chart 6). Second, the ultimate economic-sensitive indicator, Dr. Copper, is also in a violent upswing, heralding that China will be, at least, stable in 2018 (middle panel, Chart 6). Third, high-beta Australian materials stocks have been in an upward trajectory since the early 2016 trough both versus the MSCI All-Country World Index and the broad Australian market, sniffing out improving Chinese-related commodity demand (bottom panel, Chart 6). Similarly, upbeat non-Chinese economic data suggest that China's economic prospects are far from faltering. Australia's close economic ties with China signal that taking a pulse of the Australian economic juggernaut reveals the state of China's economic affairs. Down Under employment growth has been brisk of late, with annual job creation running at a 3.3% clip, a rate last hit in the mid-2000s when China's economy was roaring and the commodity super-cycle was in full swing (second panel, Chart 7). Australian CEO confidence as well as consumer confidence are pushing decade highs, and the manufacturing PMI survey recently shot to a 16 year high (third panel, Chart 7). Chart 6China Is##BR##Alright Chart 7Australian Indicators Confirm:##BR## China Is Stable All of this suggests that China will likely remain stable in 2018, barring a policy mistake a la the August 11, 2015 currency devaluation. The upshot is that industrials EPS and equities have more room to run. On that front, both our Cyclical Macro Indicator and our profit growth model corroborate that the path of least resistance for relative share prices is higher (Chart 8). U.S. dollar debasing is synonymous with capital goods producers' top line growth acceleration, as a large part of total revenues are sourced from abroad. The near 20 percentage point fall in the trade-weighted U.S. dollar since 2015 suggests that more global market share gains are in store for U.S. industrials (Chart 9). Global growth is also joined at the hip with the greenback's depreciation. Synchronized global growth along with our derivative coordinated global capex growth 2018 theme, will likely serve as catalysts for a sustained breakout in relative share prices (Chart 10). Chart 8EPS Model And CMI Flash Green Chart 9Industrials Love A Cheap Greenback Chart 10Levered To Global Growth Adding it up, a stable China is music to the ears of industrials executives. Tack on a depreciating U.S. dollar, rising commodity prices and sustained synchronized global growth and the most cyclical parts of the industrials complex will continue to lead the pack. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P industrials index, but selectivity is warranted. Take Profits In Industrial Machinery We outlined above that the most cyclical parts of the S&P industrials index with high foreign sales content would benefit disproportionately from our stable-to-mildly sanguine EM/China view. While the broad machinery index fits the bill, the industrial machinery sub index less so, and we recommend monetizing gains of 4% since inception and moving to the sidelines. Chart 11 shows the relative performance of the two key drivers of the S&P machinery index: industrial machinery and construction machinery & heavy truck sub-indexes. While these indexes moved hand-in-hand since the mid-1990s, early this decade this tight positive correlation fell apart. One key determinant of the relative move of these indexes is the U.S. dollar. The greenback troughed in 2011 and since then the more "defensive", less globally-exposed S&P industrials machinery index left their brethren in the dust (bottom panel, Chart 11). Now that the U.S. dollar has peaked, the catch up phase in the S&P construction machinery & heavy truck index that is already underway will likely gain momentum (top panel, Chart 11). Beyond the depreciating currency, at the margin, softening S&P industrial machinery operating metrics argue for pruning exposure in this index. Both the Empire and Philly Fed new orders surveys have petered out, suggesting that industry new order growth will likely continue to lose steam (middle panel, Chart 12). In fact, a weak industrial machinery new orders-to-inventories ratio is also warning that sell-side analysts' relative profits forecasts are too optimistic (bottom panel, Chart 12). Chart 11Catch Up Phase Chart 12Waning End-Demand Drilling deeper into industry operating metrics is revealing. While shipments have held their own and moved mostly sideways similar to new orders, inventory accumulation is worrying. Industry inventories have risen by over 30% during the past three years (Chart 13). Simultaneously, industrial machinery backlogs have drifted steadily lower. Given the supply build up, any hiccup in demand, even a minor one, could prove very deflationary and heavily weigh on industry profitability. With regard to valuations, Chart 14 shows that both on a relative trailing price-to-sales and relative forward price-to-earnings ratio basis, the index is trading one standard deviation above the historical mean. The moderating industry demand backdrop suggests that relative valuations are expensive. Chart 13Inventory Liquidation Risk Chart 14Why Pay A Premium? Adding it all up, deteriorating profit prospects warn that investors should refrain from paying a premium valuation for the S&P industrial machinery index. Bottom Line: Book profits of 4% in the S&P industrial machinery index and downgrade to a benchmark allocation. We also recommend redeploying profits from our downgrade in the S&P industrial machinery index to their more cyclical machinery siblings the S&P construction machinery & heavy truck index, thus sustaining the overall overweight exposure in the broad S&P industrials sector. Housekeeping Last week we instituted a risk management tool for our 2018 high-conviction list: setting a stop once a call has cleared the 10% return mark.4 This past week, the S&P construction machinery & heavy truck index hit the trailing stop at the 10% mark, and thus we are booking gains and removing this index from the high-conviction list. While our confidence is not as high as in late-November given the parabolic move in this index and rising chance of a tactical overall equity market pullback, from a cyclical perspective we continue to recommend a core overweight in this industrials sector powerhouse. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Too Good To Be True?" dated January 22, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Earnings Take Center Stage," dated October 2, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Health Care Or Not, Risks Remain," dated March 24, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Too Good To Be True?" dated January 22, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth. Stay neutral small over large caps (downgrade alert).

Highlights Q4 earnings are beating raised expectations, and the bar for 2018 EPS is even higher. Housing, capex and a nudge from government spending are set to boost GDP in 2018. BCA's consumer spending model shows that economic factors, not sentiment or political affiliation, are the main drivers of household consumption. Feature Risk assets continued their early 2018 surge last week, supported by better than expected Q4 corporate earnings results, solid economic growth and a weaker dollar. The headline 2.6% gain in Q4 GDP understated the strength in the U.S. economy as 2017 ended (Chart 1). Real final sales to domestic purchasers rose 4.3% in Q4, the fastest clip in nearly four years. Moreover, the economy is poised to grow well above its long term potential in the first half of 2018, aided by surging capex, the lagged effect of easy financial conditions and the tax bill. Faster growth will push down the unemployment rate and lead to higher inflation by year end. Q4 corporate earnings are beating raised expectations. However, managements have raised the bar for 2018 results, which may lead to disappointment later this year. Investors have correctly ignored the elevated level of political polarization in Washington and focused on the fundamentals. The final section of this week's bulletin suggests that despite a widening gap in consumer sentiment between political parties, economic fundamentals, not political affiliation, drives consumer behavior. Chart 1GDP Growth Remains Below Average, But Above Fed's Long Run Target Raising The Bar The Q4 earnings reporting season is off to a strong start, with both EPS and revenue growth ahead of consensus expectations at the start of January. Moreover, the counter-trend rally in margins remains in place. We previewed the Q4 2017 S&P 500 earnings season earlier this month.1 Table 1S&P 500: Q4 2017 Results* Just under 30% of companies have reported results thus far, with 80% beating consensus EPS projections, well above the long term average of 69%. Furthermore, 82% have posted Q4 revenues that topped expectations, which exceeded the long-term average of 56%. The surprise factor for Q4 stands at 5% for EPS and 1% for sales. Both readings are right at the average surprise in the past five years. The surprise figures are even more impressive given that analysts' views of Q4 results increased between the start of Q4 2017 and the start of Q4 reporting season. Analysts' estimates typically move lower as the quarter unfolds, in effect lowering the bar for results. We anticipate the secular mean-reversion of margins to re-assert itself in the S&P data, perhaps beginning in mid-2018. Nonetheless, initial results imply that Q4 will be another quarter of margin expansion. Average earnings growth (Q4 2017 versus Q4 2016) is solid at 13% with revenue growth at 7%. However, on a four quarter basis, U.S. margins fell slightly in the fourth quarter, but remain at a high level on the back of decent corporate pricing power. A pick-up in productivity growth into year-end helped as well. Strength in earnings and revenues are broadly based (Table 1). Earnings per share increased in Q4 2017 versus Q4 2016 in 9 of the 11 sectors. EPS results are particularly stout in energy (140%), materials (28%), technology (18%) and financials (15%). The energy, materials and technology sectors likewise experienced significant sales gains (21%, 11%, and 11% respectively). The 5% year-over-year increase in financial sector earnings follows the 7% drop in Q3, owing to the impact of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma on the insurance and reinsurance industries. Excluding energy, S&P 500 profits in Q4 2017 versus Q4 2016 are a still-robust 11%. Upbeat managements have raised the bar significantly for 2018 results in the past few months (Chart 2). On October 1, 2017, before the GOP introduced the bill, the bottom-up estimate for 2018 S&P 500 EPS growth stood at 11%. As of January 26, 2018, the estimate is 17%. Moreover, the upward revisions are widespread. 2018 EPS growth rate estimates in 9 of 11 sectors are higher today than at the start of October (Table 2). 2018 consensus projections increased the most for Telecom, Financials, Energy, and Consumer Discretionary. Analysts have cut their view of 2018 results for the Utilities and Real Estate sectors since the bill was introduced. Our U.S. Equity Strategy service introduced profit models for all 11 S&P 500 sectors earlier this month.2 Chart 2Buybacks, Surging Capex Raising The Bar For 2018 EPS Growth Table 2Estimated Earnings Growth For 2018 The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 is behind most of this ebullience, but improving 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. As we noted in last week's report,3 companies are likely to return almost all of that cash to shareholders via increased buybacks. Moreover, a few firms are marking up 2018 estimates in anticipation of a surge in capital spending, as managements pull ahead new investment into 2018 from later years to benefit from the bill. Chart 3Profit Growth Will Peak In 2018 Analysts expect EPS growth to slow significantly in 2019 from the anticipated 2018 clip, which matches BCA's view. 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 late 2019.4 Bottom Line: The BCA earnings model shows that S&P 500 EPS growth is peaking on a four-quarter moving total basis, and should begin to decelerate in 2H 2018 to a level commensurate with 3 ½-4% nominal GDP growth (Chart 3). After-tax earnings growth will be higher than this, however, due to the recently passed tax cuts. Margins will crest in mid-2018, but 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 it remains to be seen whether managements can match the lofty projections, especially in the second half of the year. BCA expects growth outside the U.S. to remain robust, an additional support for EPS growth in the coming quarters. Further weakness in the dollar, counter to our call for a 5% gain in the DXY, would also provide a modest boost to S&P 500 results in 2018. Strong domestic economic activity will also boost profits this year. Setting The Stage For 2018 Q4 GDP posted a 2.6% gain, failing to match (raised) expectations of a 2.9% increase (Chart 1 again). At 2.5%, the year-over-year change in GDP exceeded the FOMC's forecast for 2017 GDP (2.1%) at the start of 2017. Moreover, the 2.5% year-over-year reading in Q4 is well above the Fed's estimate of potential GDP (1.8%). The implication for investors is that because U.S. economic growth is faster than its long-term potential, the labor market is tightening and inflation is poised to move higher. Accordingly, market odds for a Fed hike in March are over 90%, and investors expect almost three additional hikes in the next 12 months (Chart 4). The FOMC expects to raise rates three times this year. BCA's stance is that the Fed will raise rates 4 times. Chart 4The FOMC And The Market Are Closely Aligned On Rate Hikes In 2018 BCA's view is that U.S. economic growth is set to accelerate in the first half of 2018 aided by the tax cut, strong global growth and the lagged effect of easier financial conditions. The direct effect of the tax cuts will likely boost U.S. real GDP growth in 2018 by 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points. It could be more, depending on the impact on animal spirits in the business sector and any fresh infrastructure spending. Full expensing of capital goods and changes to the budget sequesters would add another 0.2 percentage points. Global growth estimates are still on the upswing, which will provide U.S. capex a boost (Charts 5 and 6). Moreover, financial conditions have eased since the Fed's initial hike of the cycle (Chart 7). Financial lead GDP growth by 6 to 9 months, suggesting that real GDP growth in the U.S. will remain at or above 3% for at least the first half of 2018 (Chart 8). The New York Fed's Nowcast for Q1 2018 stands at 3.1%, while the Atlanta Fed's GDP Now reading for Q1 is 3.4% (Chart 9). Chart 5Global Growth Expectations##BR##Are Accelerating Chart 6Capex Poised##BR##For Liftoff Chart 7Financial Conditions Have Eased Since##BR##The Fed's First Rate Hike Of The Cycle Chart 8Easier Financial Conditions##BR##Will Boost U.S. Growth Chart 9Solid GDP Growth##BR##Expected In Q1 Residential investment, which surged in Q4 as communities in Texas and Florida began to rebuild after the storms, will add to growth in 2018. Inventories of new and existing homes are close to all-time lows (Chart 10). Housing affordability remains well above average, and will remain supportive of housing investment even if rates rise by 100 bps (Chart 11). Bank managements are upbeat about credit quality and loan growth,5 although the recent soundings from the Fed's Senior Loan Officers survey shows that mortgage demand has ebbed in recent quarters. However, banks' lending standards for home loans remain relatively loose (Chart 12). Moreover, household formation recovered in the past few years alongside the labor market, providing additional support for housing. Risks to housing include the impact of the limits to mortgage interest and state and local taxes imposed by the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017. Chart 10Solid Housing##BR##Fundamentals In Place Chart 11Housing Affordability Under##BR##Various Rate Assumptions Chart 12Mortgage Spigot##BR##Open For Homebuyers Bottom Line: U.S. economic growth is poised to string together the longest period of above-potential GDP growth since early in the recovery. The odds of a recession in 2018 are very low (Chart 13). Housing, capital spending and a modest lift from government spending will lift GDP, pushing the output gap further into positive territory (Chart 14). The added support to the economy from the tax bill makes it more likely that the economy will overheat, and lead to higher inflation and faster rate hikes than the market, or the Fed, expects. Stay underweight duration and overweight stocks versus bonds for now, although we plan to take some risk off the table later in the year. Despite record levels of political polarization, the U.S. consumer will provide support for the economy in 2018 as well. Chart 13Odds Of A Recession Are Low Chart 14U.S. Economy Growing Faster Than Potential Tribal Economics Chart 15Income Inequality Fosters Polarization Many of our clients have been asking: "Why is consumer confidence so high if Americans are so angry?" BCA's view is that Americans' anger is based to some extent on "economic discontent",6 driven largely by political orientation. However, economy-wide, the negative attitude based on party affinity is more than offset by a higher level of optimism based on economic fundamentals. Moreover, the dissatisfaction among households may be about structural issues that have long-term implications, like income inequality, which fosters or nurtures polarization and where the latter continues to grow. The polarization in the cultural realm has been mirrored in the political arena. According to political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, polarization in Congress is currently at its highest level since World War II (Chart 15). Furthermore, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service stance is that the long-term implications of polarization are here to stay as income inequality remains the most significant driver, among five main factors, that explain the polarization in the U.S. today.7 & 8 The election of President Trump in November 2016 ushered in a period of significant polarization and partisan conflict. Compared with other administrations, Trump effected the most change in economic expectations9 (Table 3). Moreover, even a year later, the partisan gap (Republicans minus Democrats) has widened further; Republicans are most optimistic and Democrats are most pessimistic (Chart 16). Table 3Change In Economic Assessments##BR##Pre And Post Elections Chart 16Partisan Gap Is Widest##BR##And Persistent, For Now To further understand the divergence between the elevated consumer sentiment readings and households' high level of anger, it is useful to look through the lens of the stages of "economic discontent".10 The framework pioneered by the University of Michigan identifies five typical stages of a collapse in economic confidence (Table 4). The study acknowledges that consumers are rational individuals. As such, households tend to shape their economic expectations on cyclical fundamental drivers of the economy, rather than political affiliation (Chart 17). The implication is that as long as consumers remain satisfied with the performance of the three cyclical drivers, readings on consumer sentiment will hold up, as the positive views on fundamentals outweigh any resentment they may have about long-term issues like income inequality. Finally, it is clear that households have not lost all hope (stage four), where economic discontent turns into political discontent. Consumers are very far away from total despair, not seen since the 1930s! Nonetheless, BCA's view is that with recession likely by late 2019/early 2020, the U.S. will see a revolt of some kind by the 2020 election.11 Table 4Five Stages Of##BR##Economic Discontent Chart 17Expectations For Cyclical##BR##Fundamental Drivers Are Solid Consumers have hope that their economic expectations will be met by the Trump administration's policies as the economy continues to deliver strong job growth/job security and tame inflation, preserving households' purchasing power. BCA's consumer spending model shows that economic factors, not sentiment, are the main drivers of household consumption (Chart 18). Several academic studies support this view. Researchers at Princeton University and the National Bureau of Economic Research find that political polarization's impact on consumer spending is trivial.12 Furthermore, a recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,13 also finds that the election of President Trump had negligible partisan impact on consumer spending patterns. Economists at the NY Fed show that consumers' expectations in surveys may include "true beliefs" based on economic factors and "some noise". They conclude that if the partisan gap does not cause economic decisions to vary significantly, then macroeconomists and policymakers should downplay the impact of consumers' political views on spending patterns. Chart 18Consumption Has##BR##Room To Grow Chart 19Lower-Lows In The Personal##BR##Savings Rate Unlikely Bottom Line: BCA expects consumer spending to grow by at least 2% in 2018. Consumption is well supported by record high household net worth, and accelerating wages. On the other hand, employment growth will slow later this year and we should not assume that the personal saving rate will keep falling given that it has hit a recovery low of 3.1% (Chart 19). John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Jizel Georges, Senior Analyst jizelg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Smooth Transition" published January 15, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "White Paper: Introducing Our U.S. Equity Sector Earnings Models" published January 16, 2018. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Variations On A Theme" published January 22, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Strategy Outlook Fourth Quarter 2017: Goldilocks And The Recession Bear," October 4, 2017. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Variations On A Theme", published January 22,2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 6 "Economic Discontent: Causes and Consequences", Richard Curtin, Director, Survey of Consumers, University of Michigan, November 12, 2008. 7 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Future Of Western Democracy: Back To Blood", dated November 18, 2016. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications", dated November 9, 2016. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 "Consumer Expectations: Politics Trumps Economics", Richard Curtin, University of Michigan, June 1, 2017. 10 "Economic Discontent: Causes and Consequences", Richard Curtin, Director, Survey of Consumers, University of Michigan, November 12, 2008. 11 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America" June 9, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 "Partisan Bias, Economic Expectations, and Household Spending", Atif Mian, Amir Sufi and Nasim Koshkhou, Stanford University, University of Chicago Booth of Business, NBER and Argus Information and Advisory Services, July 2017. 13 "Political Polarization In Consumer Expectations", Olivier Armantier, John J. Conlon and Wilbert van der Klaauw, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, December 15, 2017.

Special Report

Dear Client, In addition to this Special Report written by my colleagues Mark McClellan and Brian Piccioni, we are sending you an abbreviated weekly report. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. Technological advance in the past has not prevented improving living standards or led to ever rising joblessness over the decades, but pessimists argue that recent advances are different. The issue is important for financial markets. If structural factors such as automation are holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. We see no compelling evidence that the displacement effect of emerging technologies is any stronger than in the past. Robot usage has had a modest positive impact on overall productivity. Despite this contribution, overall productivity growth has been dismal over the past decade. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale as some claim, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Periods of strong growth in automation have historically been associated with robust, not lackluster, wage gains, contrary to the consensus view. The Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. This and other evidence suggest that it is difficult to make the case that robots will make it tougher for central banks to reach their inflation goals than did previous technological breakthroughs. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. Feature Recent breakthroughs in technology are awe-inspiring and unsettling. These advances are viewed with great trepidation by many because of the potential to replace humans in the production process. Hype over robots is particularly shrill. Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. In the first in our series of Special Reports focusing on the structural factors that might be preventing central banks from reaching their inflation targets, we demonstrated that the impact of Amazon is overstated in the press. We estimated that E-commerce is depressing inflation in the U.S. by a mere 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points. This Special Report tackles the impact of automation. We are optimistic that robot technology and artificial intelligence will significantly boost future productivity, and thus reduce costs. But, is there any evidence at the macro level that robot usage has been more deflationary than technological breakthroughs in the past and is, thus, a major driver of the low inflation rates we observe today across the major countries? The question matters, especially for the outlook for central bank policy and the bond market. If structural factors are indeed holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. However, if low inflation simply reflects long lags between wages and the tightening labor market, then inflation may suddenly lurch to life as it has at the end of past cycles. The bond market is not priced for that scenario. Are Robots Different? A Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service suggested that the "robot revolution" could be as transformative as previous General Purpose Technologies (GPT), including the steam engine, electricity and the microchip.1 GPTs are technologies that radically alter the economy's production process and make a major contribution to living standards over time. The term "robot" can have different meanings. The most basic definition is "a device that automatically performs complicated and often repetitive tasks," and this encompasses a broad range of machines: From the Jacquard Loom, which was invented over 200 years ago, on to Numerically Controlled (NC) mills and lathes, pick and place machines used in the manufacture of electronics, Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), and even homicidal robots from the future such as the Terminator. Our Technology Sector report made the case that there is nothing particularly sinister about robots. They are just another chapter in a long history of automation. Nor is the displacement of workers unprecedented. The industrial revolution was about replacing human craft labor with capital (machines), which did high-volume work with better quality and productivity. This freed humans for work which had not yet been automated, along with designing, producing and maintaining the machinery. Agriculture offers a good example. This sector involved over 50% of the U.S. labor force until the late 1800s. Steam and then internal combustion-powered tractors, which can be viewed as "robotic horses," contributed to a massive rise in output-per-man hour. The number of hours worked to produce a bushel of wheat fell by almost 98% from the mid-1800s to 1955. This put a lot of farm hands out of work, but these laborers were absorbed over time in other growing areas of the economy. It is the same story for all other historical technological breakthroughs. Change is stressful for those directly affected, but rising productivity ultimately lifts average living standards. Robots will be no different. As we discuss below, however, the increasing use of robots and AI may have a deeper and longer-lasting impact on inequality. Strong Tailwinds Chart 1Robots Are Getting Cheaper Factory robots have improved immensely due to cheaper and more capable control and vision systems. As these systems evolve, the abilities of robots to move around their environment while avoiding obstacles will improve, as will their ability to perform increasingly complex tasks. Most importantly, robots are already able to do more than just routine tasks, thus enabling them to replace or aid humans in higher-skilled processes. Robot prices are also falling fast, especially after quality-adjusting the data (Chart 1). Units are becoming easier to install, program and operate. These trends will help to reduce the barriers-to-entry for the large, untapped, market of small and medium sized enterprises. Robots also offer the ability to do low-volume "customized" production and still keep unit costs low. In the future, self-learning robots will be able to optimize their own performance by analyzing the production of other robots around the world. Robot usage is growing quickly according to data collected by the International Federation of Robotics (IFR) that covers 23 countries. Industrial robot sales worldwide increased to almost 300,000 units in 2016, up 16% from the year before (Chart 2). The stock of industrial robots globally has grown at an annual average pace of 10% since 2010, reaching slightly more than 1.8 million units in 2016.2 Robot usage is far from evenly distributed across industries. The automotive industry is the major consumer of industrial robots, holding 45% of the total stock in 2016 (Chart 3). The computer & electronics industry is a distant second at 17%. Metals, chemicals and electrical/electronic appliances comprise the bulk of the remaining stock. Chart 2Global Robot Usage Chart 3Global Robot Usage By Industry (2016) As far as countries go, Japan has traditionally been the largest market for robots in the world. However, sales have been in a long-term downtrend and the stock of robots has recently been surpassed by China, which has ramped up robot purchases in recent years (Chart 4). Robot density, which is the stock of robots per 10 thousand employed in manufacturing, makes it easier to compare robot usage across countries (Chart 5, panel 2). By this measure, China is not a heavy user of robots compared to other countries. South Korea stands at the top, well above the second-place finishers (Germany and Japan). Large automobile sectors in these three countries explain their high relative robot densities. Chart 4Stock Of Robots By Country (I) Chart 5Stock Of Robots By Country (II) (2016) While the growth rate of robot usage is impressive, it is from a very low base (outside of the automotive industry). The average number of robots per 10,000 employees is only 74 for the 23 countries in the IFR database. Robot use is tiny compared to total man hours worked. In the U.S., spending on robots is only about 5% of total business spending on equipment and software (Chart 6). To put this into perspective, U.S. spending on information, communication and technology (ICT) equipment represented 35-40% of total capital equipment spending during the tech boom in the 1990s and early 2000s.3 Chart 6U.S. Investment In Robots The bottom line is that there is a lot of hype in the press, but robots are not yet widely used across countries or industries. It will be many years before business spending on robots approaches the scale of the 1990s/2000s IT boom. A Deflationary Impact? As noted above, we view robotics as another chapter in a long history of technological advancements. Pessimists suggest that the latest advances are different because they are inherently more threatening to the overall job market and wage share of total income. If the pessimists are right, what are the theoretical channels though which this would have a greater disinflationary effect relative to previous GPT technologies? Faster Productivity Gains: Enhanced productivity drives down unit labor costs, which may be passed along to other industries (as cheaper inputs) and to the end consumer. More Human Displacement: The jobs created in other areas may be insufficient to replace the jobs displaced by robots, leading to lower aggregate income and spending. The loss of income for labor will simply go to the owners of capital, but the point is that the labor share of income might decline. Deflationary pressures could build as aggregate demand falls short of supply. Even in industries that are slow to automate, just the threat of being replaced by robots may curtail wage demands. Inequality: Some have argued that rising inequality is partly because the spoils of new technologies over the past 20 years have largely gone to the owners of capital. This shift may have undermined aggregate demand because upper income households tend to have a high saving rate, thereby depressing overall aggregate demand and inflationary pressures. The human displacement effect, described above, would exacerbate the inequality effect by transferring income from labor to the owners of capital. 1. Productivity It is difficult to see the benefits of robots on productivity at the economy-wide level. Productivity growth has been abysmal across the major developed countries since the Great Recession, but the productivity slowdown was evident long before Lehman collapsed (Chart 7). The productivity slowdown continued even as automation using robots accelerated after 2010. Chart 7Productivity Collapsed Despite Automation Some analysts argue that lackluster productivity is simply a statistical mirage because of the difficulties in measuring output in today's economy. We will not get into the details of the mismeasurement debate here. We encourage interested clients to read a Special Report by the BCA Global Investment Strategy service entitled "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians." 4 Our colleague Peter Berezin makes the case that the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, radio, indoor plumbing and air conditioning. He argues that the real reason that productivity growth has slowed is that educational attainment has decelerated and businesses have plucked many of the low-hanging fruit made possible by the IT revolution. Cyclical factors stemming from the Great Recession and financial crisis are also to blame, as capital spending has been slow to recover in most of the advanced economies. Some other factors that help to explain the decline in aggregate productivity are provided in Appendix 1. Nonetheless, the poor aggregate productivity performance does not mean that there are no benefits to using robots. The benefits are evident at the industrial level, where measurement issues are presumably less vexing for statisticians (i.e., it is easier to measure the output of the auto industry, for example, than for the economy as a whole). Chart 8 plots the level of robot density in 2016 with average annual productivity growth since 2004 for 10 U.S. manufacturing industries (robot density is presented in deciles). A loose positive relationship is apparent. Chart 8U.S.: Productivity Vs. Robot Density Academic studies estimate that robots have contributed importantly to economy-wide productivity growth. The Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) estimated that labor productivity growth rises by 0.07 to 0.08 percentage points for every 1% rise in the rate of robot density.5 This implies that robots accounted for roughly 10% of the productivity growth experienced since the early 1990s in the major economies. Another study of 14 industries across 17 countries by the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) found that robots boosted annual productivity growth by 0.36 percentage points over the 1993-2007 period.6 This is impressive because, if this estimate holds true for the U.S., robots' contribution to the 2½% average annual U.S. total productivity growth over the period was 14%. To put the importance of robotics into historical context, its contribution to productivity so far is roughly on par with that of the steam engine (Chart 9). It falls well short of the 0.6 percentage point annual productivity contribution from the IT revolution. The implication is that, while the overall productivity performance has been dismal since 2007, it would have been even worse in the absence of robots. What does this mean for inflation? According to the "cost push" model of the inflation process, an increase in productivity of 0.36% that is not accompanied by associated wage gains would reduce unit labor costs (ULC) by the same amount. This should trim inflation if the cost savings are passed on to the end consumer, although by less than 0.36% because robots can only depress variable costs, not fixed costs. There indeed appears to be a slight negative relationship between robot density and unit labor costs at the industrial level in the U.S., although the relationship is loose at best (Chart 10). Chart 9GPT Contribution To Productivity Chart 10U.S.: Unit Labor Costs Vs. Robot Density In theory, divergences in productivity across industries should only generate shifts in relative prices, and "cost push" inflation dynamics should only operate in the short term. Most economists believe that inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon in the long run, which means that central banks should be able to offset positive productivity shocks by lowering interest rates enough that aggregate demand keeps up with supply. Indeed, the Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. Also, note that inflation is currently low across the major advanced economies, irrespective of the level of robot intensity (Chart 11). From this perspective, it is hard to see that robots should take much of the credit for today's low inflation backdrop. Chart 11Inflation Vs. Robot Density 2. Human Displacement A key question is whether robots and humans are perfect substitutes. If new technologies introduced in the past were perfect substitutes, then it would have led to massive underemployment and all of the income in the economy would eventually have migrated to the owners of capital. The fact that average real household incomes have risen over time, and that there has been no secular upward trend in unemployment rates over the centuries, means that new technologies were at least partly complementary with labor (i.e., the jobs lost as a direct result of productivity gains were more than replaced in other areas of the economy over time). Rather than replacing workers, in many cases tech made humans more productive in their jobs. Rising productivity lifted income and thereby led to the creation of new jobs in other areas. The capital that workers bring to the production process - the skills, know-how and special talents - became more valuable as interaction with technology increased. Like today, there were concerns in the 1950s and 1960s that computerization would displace many types of jobs and lead to widespread idleness and falling household income. With hindsight, there was little to worry about. Some argue that this time is different. Futurists frequently assert that the pace of innovation is not just accelerating, it is accelerating 'exponentially'. Robots can now, or will soon be able to, replace humans in tasks that require cognitive skills. This means that they will be far less complementary to humans than in the past. The displacement effect could thus be much larger, especially given the impressive advances in artificial intelligence. However, Box 1 discusses why the threat to workers posed by AI is also heavily overblown in the media. The CEP multi-country study cited above did not find a large displacement effect; robot usage did not affect the overall number of hours worked in the 23 countries studied (although it found distributional effects - see below). In other words, rather than suppressing overall labor input, robot usage has led to more output, higher productivity, more jobs and stronger wage and income growth. A report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI)7 takes a broader look at automation, using productivity growth and capital spending as proxies. Automation is what occurs as the implementation of new technologies is incorporated along with new capital equipment or software to replace human labor in the workplace. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending, and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Indeed, the report demonstrates that occupational employment shifts were far slower in the 2000-2015 period than in any decade in the 1900s (Chart 12). Box 1 The Threat From AI Is Overblown Media coverage of AI/Deep Learning has established a consensus view that we believe is well off the mark. A recent Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service dispels the myths surrounding AI.8 We believe the consensus, in conjunction with warnings from a variety of sources, is leading to predictions, policy discussions, and even career choices based on a flawed premise. It is worth noting that the most vocal proponents of AI as a threat to jobs and even humanity are not AI experts. At the root of this consensus is the false view that emerging AI technology is anything like true intelligence. Modern AI is not remotely comparable in function to a biological brain. Scientists have a limited understanding of how brains work, and it is unlikely that a poorly understood system can be modeled on a computer. The misconception of intelligence is amplified by headlines claiming an AI "taught itself" a particular task. No AI has ever "taught itself" anything: All AI results have come about after careful programming by often PhD-level experts, who then supplied the system with vast amounts of high quality data to train it. Often these systems have been iterated a number of times and we only hear of successes, not the failures. The need for careful preparation of the AI system and the requirement for high quality data limits the applicability of AI to specific classes of problems where the application justifies the investment in development and where sufficient high-quality data exists. There may be numerous such applications but doubtless many more where AI would not be suitable. Similarly, an AI system is highly adapted to a single problem, or type of problem, and becomes less useful when its application set is expanded. In other words, unlike a human whose abilities improve as they learn more things, an AI's performance on a particular task declines as it does more things. There is a popular misconception that increased computing power will somehow lead to ever improving AI. It is the algorithm which determines the outcome, not the computer performance: Increased computing power leads to faster results, not different results. Advanced computers might lead to more advanced algorithms, but it is pointless to speculate where that may lead: A spreadsheet from 2001 may work faster today but it still gives the same answer. In any event, it is worth noting that a tool ceases to be a tool when it starts having an opinion: there is little reason to develop a machine capable of cognition even if that were possible. Chart 12U.S. Job Rotation Has Slowed The EPI report also notes that these indicators of automation increased rapidly in the late 1990s and early 2000s, a period that saw solid wage growth for American workers. These indicators weakened in the two periods of stagnant wage growth: from 1973 to 1995 and from 2002 to the present. Thus, there is no historical correlation between increases in automation and wage stagnation. Rather than automation, the report argues that it was China's entry into the global trading system that was largely responsible for the hollowing out of the U.S. manufacturing sector. We have also made this argument in previous research. The fact that the major advanced economies are all at, or close to, full employment supports the view that automation has not been an overwhelming headwind for job creation. Chart 13 demonstrates that there has been no relationship between the change in robot density and the loss of manufacturing jobs since 1993. Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. Interestingly, despite a worsening labor shortage, robot density among Japanese firms is falling. Moreover, the Japanese data show that the industries that have a high robot usage tend to be more, not less, generous with wages than the robot laggard industries. Please see Appendix 2 for more details. Chart 13Global Manufacturing Jobs Vs. Robot Density The bottom line is that it does not appear that labor displacement related to automation has been responsible in any meaningful way for the lackluster average real income growth in the advanced economies since 2007. 3. Inequality That said, there is evidence suggesting that robots are having important distributional effects. The CEP study found that robot use has reduced hours for low-skilled and (to a lesser extent) middle-skilled workers relative to the highly skilled. This finding makes sense conceptually. Technological change can exacerbate inequality by either increasing the relative demand for skilled over unskilled workers (so-called "skill-biased" technological change), or by inducing companies to substitute machinery and other forms of physical capital for workers (so-called "capital-biased" technological change). The former affects the distribution of labor income, while the latter affects the share of income in GDP that labor receives. A Special Report appearing in this publication in 2014 focused on the relationship between technology and inequality.9 The report highlighted that much of the recent technological change has been skill-biased, which heavily favors workers with the talent and education to perform cognitively-demanding tasks, even as it reduces demand for workers with only rudimentary skills. Moreover, technological innovations and globalization increasingly allow the most talented individuals to market their skills to a much larger audience, thus bidding up their wages. The evidence suggests that faster productivity growth leads to higher average real wages and improved living standards, at least over reasonably long horizons. Nonetheless, technological change can, and in the future almost certainly will, increase income inequality. The poor will gain, but not as much as the rich. The fact that higher-income households tend to maintain a higher savings rate than low-income households means that the shift in the distribution of income toward the higher-income households will continue to modestly weigh on aggregate demand. Can the distribution effect be large enough to have a meaningful depressing impact on inflation? We believe that it has played some role in the lackluster recovery since the Great Recession, with the result that an extended period of underemployment has delivered a persistent deflationary impulse in the major developed economies. However, as discussed above, stimulative monetary policy has managed to overcome the impact of inequality and other headwinds on aggregate demand, and has returned the major countries roughly to full employment. Indeed, this year will be the first since 2007 that the G20 economies as a group will be operating slightly above a full employment level. Inflation should respond to excess demand conditions, irrespective of any ongoing demand headwind stemming from inequality. Conclusions Technological change has led to rising living standards over the decades. It did not lead to widespread joblessness and did not prevent central banks from meeting their inflation targets over time. The pessimists argue that this time is different because robots/AI have a much larger displacement effect. Perhaps it will be 20 years before we will know the answer. But our main point is that we have found no evidence that recent advances in robotics and AI, while very impressive, will be any different in their macro impact. There is little evidence that the modern economy is less capable in replacing the jobs lost to automation, although the nature of new technologies may be affecting the distribution of income more than in the past. Real incomes for the middle- and lower-income classes have been stagnant for some time, but this is partly due to productivity growth that is too low, not too high. Moreover, it is not at all clear that positive productivity shocks are disinflationary beyond the near term. The link between robot usage and unit labor costs over the past couple of decades is loose at best at the industry level, and is non-existent when looking across the major countries. The Fed was able to roughly meet its 2% inflation target in the 1990s and the first half of the 2000s, despite IT's impressive contribution to productivity growth during that period. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. The global output gap will shift into positive territory this year for the first time since the Great Recession. Any resulting rise in inflation will come as a shock since the bond market has discounted continued low inflation for as far as the eye can see. We expect bond yields and implied volatility to rise this year, which may undermine risk assets in the second half. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Brian Piccioni Vice President Technology Sector Strategy Appendix 1 Why Is Productivity So Low? A recent study by the OECD10 reveals that, while frontier firms are charging ahead, there is a widening gap between these firms and the laggards. The study analyzed firm-level data on labor productivity and total factor productivity for 24 countries. "Frontier" firms are defined to be those with productivity in the top 5%. These firms are 3-4 times as productive as the remaining 95%. The authors argue that the underlying cause of this yawning gap is that the diffusion rate of new technologies from the frontier firms to the laggards has slowed within industries. This could be due to rising barriers to entry, which has reduced contestability in markets. Curtailing the creative-destruction process means that there is less pressure to innovate. Barriers to entry may have increased because "...the importance of tacit knowledge as a source of competitive advantage for frontier firms may have risen if increasingly complex technologies were to increase the amount and sophistication of complementary investments required for technological adoption." 11 The bottom line is that aggregate productivity is low because the robust productivity gains for the tech-savvy frontier companies are offset by the long tail of firms that have been slow to adopt the latest technology. Indeed, business spending has been especially weak in this expansion. Chart 14 highlights that the slowdown in U.S. productivity growth has mirrored that of the capital stock. Chart 14U.S. Capex Shortfall Partly To Blame For Poor Productivity Appendix 2 Japan - The Leading Edge Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. The popular press is full of stories of how robots are taking over. If the stories are to be believed, robots are the answer to the country's shrinking workforce. Robots now serve as helpers for the elderly, priests for weddings and funerals, concierges for hotels and even sexual partners (don't ask). Prime Minister Abe's government has launched a 5-year push to deepen the use of intelligent machines in manufacturing, supply chains, construction and health care. Indeed, Japan was the leader in robotics use for decades. Nonetheless, despite all the hype, Japan's stock of industrial robots has actually been eroding since the late 1990s (Chart 4). Numerous surveys show that firms plan to use robots more in the future because of the difficulty in hiring humans. And there is huge potential: 90% of Japanese firms are small- and medium-sized (SME) and most are not currently using robots. Yet, there has been no wave of robot purchases as of 2016. One problem is the cost; most sophisticated robots are simply too expensive for SMEs to consider. This suggests that one cannot blame robots for Japan's lack of wage growth. The labor shortage has become so acute that there are examples of companies that have turned down sales due to insufficient manpower. Possible reasons why these companies do not offer higher wages to entice workers are beyond the scope of this report. But the fact that the stock of robots has been in decline since the late 1990s does not support the view that Japanese firms are using automation on a broad scale to avoid handing out pay hikes. Indeed, Chart 15 highlights that wage deflation has been the greatest in industries that use almost no robots. Highly automated industries, such as Transportation Equipment and Electronics, have been among the most generous. This supports the view that the productivity afforded by increased robot usage encourages firms to pay their workers more. Looking ahead, it seems implausible that robots can replace all the retiring Japanese workers in the years to come. The workforce will shrink at an annual average pace of 0.33% between 2020 and 2030, according to the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training. Productivity growth would have to rise by the same amount to fully offset the dwindling number of workers. But that would require a surge in robot density of 4.1, assuming that each rise in robot density of one adds 0.08% to the level of productivity (Chart 16). The level of robot sales would have to jump by a whopping 2½ times in the first year and continue to rise at the same pace each year thereafter to make this happen. Of course, the productivity afforded by new robots may accelerate in the coming years, but the point is that robot usage would likely have to rise astronomically to offset the impact of the shrinking population. Chart 15Japan: Earnings Vs. Robot Density Chart 16Japan: Where Is The Flood Of Robots? The implication is that, as long as the Japanese economy continues to grow above roughly 1%, the labor market will continue to tighten and wage rates will eventually begin to rise. 1 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "The Coming Robotics Revolution," dated May 16, 2017, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 2 Note that this includes only robots used in manufacturing industry, and thus excludes robots used in the service sector and households. However, robot usage in services is quite limited and those used in households do not add to GDP. 3 Note that ICT investment and capital stock data includes robots. 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 Centre for Economic and Business Research (January 2017) "The Impact of Automation." A Report for Redwood. In this report, robot density is defined to be the number of robots per million hours worked. 6 Graetz, G., and Michaels, G. (2015): "Robots At Work." CEP Discussion Paper No 1335. 7 Mishel, L., and Bivens, J. (2017): "The Zombie Robot Argument Lurches On," Economic Policy Institute. 8 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Bad Information - Why Misreporting Deep Learning Advances Is A Problem," dated January 9, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Rage Against the Machines: Is Technology Exacerbating Inequality?" dated June 2014, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 10 OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 05 (2016) "The Best Versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence Across Firms and the Role of Public Policy." 11 Please refer to page 8.

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights U.S. equities 'melted up' in January as tax cuts made the robust growth/low inflation sweet spot even sweeter. Ominously, recent market action is beginning to resemble a classic late cycle blow-off phase. The fundamentals supporting the market will persist through most of the year, before an economic downturn in the U.S. takes hold in 2019. The repatriation of overseas corporate cash will also flatter EPS growth this year via buyback and M&A activity. The S&P 500 could return 14% or more this year. Unfortunately, the consensus now shares our upbeat view for 2018. Valuation is stretched and many indicators suggest that investors have become downright giddy. This month we compare valuation across the major asset classes. U.S. equities are the most overvalued, followed by gold, raw industrials and EM assets. Oil is still close to fair value. Long-term investors should already be scaling back on risk assets. Investors with a 6-12 month horizon should stay overweight equities versus bonds for now, but a risk management approach means that they should not try to squeeze out the last few percentage points of return. In terms of the sequencing of the exit from risk, the most consistent lead/lag relationship relative to previous tops in the equity market is provided by U.S. corporate bonds. For this reason, we are likely to take profits on corporates before equities. EM assets are already at underweight. We still see a window for the U.S. dollar to appreciate, although by only about 5%. A lot of good news is discounted in the euro, peripheral core inflation is slowing and ECB policymakers are getting nervous. Monetary policy remains the main risk to a pro-cyclical investment stance, although not because of the coming change in the makeup of the FOMC. The economy and inflation should justify four Fed rate hikes in 2018 no matter the makeup. The bond bear phase will continue. Feature Chart I-1Investors Are Giddy U.S. equities 'melted up' in January as tax cuts made the robust growth/low inflation sweet spot even sweeter. Ominously, though, recent market action is beginning to resemble the classic late cycle blow-off phase. Such blow-offs can be highly profitable, but also make it more difficult to properly time the market top. Our base case is that the fundamentals supporting the market will persist through most of the year, before an economic downturn in the U.S. takes hold in 2019. Unfortunately, the consensus now shares our upbeat view for 2018 and many indicators suggest that investors have become downright giddy (Chart I-1). These indicators include investor sentiment, our speculation index, and the bull-to-bear ratio. Net S&P earnings revisions and the U.S. economic surprise index are also extremely elevated, while equity and bond implied volatility are near all-time lows. From a contrarian perspective, these observations suggest that a lot of good news is discounted and that the market is vulnerable to even slight disappointments. It is also a bad sign that our Revealed Preference Indicator moved off of its bullish equity signal in January (see Section III for more details). Meanwhile, central banks are beginning to take away the punchbowl as global economic slack dissipates. This is all late-cycle stuff. Equity valuation does not help investors time the peak in markets, but it does tell us something about downside risk and medium-term expected returns. The Shiller P/E ratio has surged above 30 (Chart I-2). Chart I-3 highlights that, historically, average total returns were negligible over the subsequent 10-year period when the Shiller P/E was in the 30-40 range. Granted, the Shiller P/E will likely fall mechanically later this year as the collapse of earnings in 2008 begins to drop out of the 10-year EPS calculation. Nonetheless, even the BCA Composite Valuation indicator, which includes some metrics that account for extremely low bond yields, surpassed +1 standard deviations in January (our threshold for overvaluation; Chart I-2, bottom panel). An overvaluation signal means that investors should be biased to take profits early. Chart I-2BCA Valuation Indicator Surpasses One Sigma Chart I-3Expected Returns Given Starting Point Shiller P/E As we highlighted in our 2018 Outlook Report, long-term investors should already be scaling back on risk assets. We recommend that investors with a 6-12 month horizon should stay overweight equities versus bonds for now, but we need to be vigilant in terms of scouring for signals to take profits. A risk management approach means that investors should not try to get the last few percentage points of return before the peak. U.S. Earnings And Repatriation Before we turn to the timing and sequence of our exit from risk assets, we will first update our thoughts on the earnings cycle. Fourth quarter U.S. earnings season is still in its early innings, but the banking sector has set an upbeat tone. S&P 500 profits are slated to register a 12% growth rate for both Q4/2017 and calendar 2017. Current year EPS growth estimates have been aggressively ratcheted higher (from 12% growth to 16%) in a mere three weeks on the back of Congress' cut to the corporate tax rate.1 U.S. margins fell slightly in the fourth quarter, but remain at a high level on the back of decent corporate pricing power. A pick-up in productivity growth into year-end helped as well. Our short-term profit model remains extremely upbeat (Chart I-4). The positive profit outlook for the first half of the year is broadly based across sectors as well, according to the recently updated EPS forecast models from BCA's U.S. Equity Sector Strategy service.2 The repatriation of overseas corporate cash will also flatter EPS growth this year via buyback and M&A activity. Studies of the 2004 repatriation legislation show that most of the funds "brought home" were paid out to shareholders, mostly in the form of buybacks. A NBER report estimated that for every dollar repatriated, 92 cents was subsequently paid out to shareholders in one form or another. The surge in buybacks occurred in 2005, according to the U.S. Flow of Funds accounts and a proxy using EPS growth less total dollar earnings growth for the S&P 500 (Chart I-5). The contribution to EPS growth from buybacks rose to more than 3 percentage points at the peak in 2005. Chart I-4Profit Growth Still Accelerating Chart I-5U.S. Buybacks To Lift EPS We expect that most of the repatriated funds will again flow through to shareholders, rather than be used to pay down debt or spent on capital goods. Cash has not been a constraint to capital spending in recent years outside of perhaps the small business sector, which has much less to gain from the tax holiday. A revival in animal spirits and capital spending is underway, but this has more to do with the overall tax package and global growth than the ability of U.S. companies to repatriate overseas earnings. Estimates of how much the repatriation could boost EPS vary widely. Most of it will occur in the Tech and Health Care sectors. Buybacks appear to have lifted EPS growth by roughly one percentage point over the past year. We would not be surprised to see this accelerate by 1-2 percentage points, although the timing could be delayed by a year if the 2004 tax holiday provides the correct timeline. This is certainly positive for the equity market, but much of the impact could already be discounted in prices. Organic earnings growth, and the economic and policy outlook will be the main drivers of equity market returns over the next year. We expect some profit margin contraction later this year, but our 5% EPS growth forecast is beginning to look too conservative. This is especially the case because it does not include the corporate tax cuts. The amount by which the tax cuts will boost earnings on an after-tax basis is difficult to estimate, but we are using 5% as a conservative estimate. Adding 2% for buybacks and 2% for dividends, the S&P 500 could provide an attractive 14% total return this year (assuming no multiple expansion). Timing The Exit Chart I-6Timing The Exit (I) That said, we noted in last month's Report and in BCA's 2018 Outlook that this will be a transition year. We expect a recession in the U.S. sometime in 2019 as the Fed lifts rates into restrictive territory. Equities and other risk assets will sniff out the recession about six months in advance, which means that investors should be preparing to take profits sometime during the next 12 months. Last month we discussed some of the indicators we will watch to help us time the exit. The 2/10 Treasury yield curve has been a reliable recession indicator in the past. However, the lead time on the peak in stocks was quite extended at times (Chart I-6). A shift in the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate above 2.4% would be consistent with the Fed's 2% target for the PCE measure of inflation. This would be a signal that the FOMC will have to step-up the pace of rate hikes and aggressively slow economic growth. We expect the Fed to tighten four times in 2018. We are likely to take some money off the table if core inflation is rising, even if it is still below 2%, at the time that the TIPS breakeven reaches 2.4%. We will also be watching seven indicators that we have found to be useful in heralding market tops, which are summarized in our Scorecard Indicator (Chart I-7). At the moment, four out of the seven indicators are positive (Chart I-8): State of the Business Cycle: As early signals that the economy is softening, watch for the ISM new orders minus inventories indicator to slip below zero, or the 3-month growth rate of unemployment claims to rise above zero. Monetary and Financial Conditions: Using interest rates to judge the stance of monetary policy has been complicated by central banks' use of their balance sheet as a policy tool. Thus, it is better to use two of our proprietary indicators: the BCA Monetary Indicator (MI) and the Financial Conditions Indictor. The S&P 500 index has historically rallied strongly when the MI is above its long-term average. Similarly, equities tend to perform well when the FCI is above its 250-day moving average. The MI is sending a negative signal because interest rates have increased and credit growth has slowed. However, the broader FCI remains well in 'bullish' territory. Price Momentum: We simply use the S&P 500 relative to its 200-day moving average to measure momentum. Currently, the index is well above that level, providing a bullish signal for the Scorecard. Sentiment: Our research shows that stock returns have tended to be highest following periods when sentiment is bearish but improving. In contrast, returns have tended to be lowest following periods when sentiment is bullish but deteriorating. The Scorecard includes the BCA Speculation Indicator to capture sentiment, but virtually all measures of sentiment are very high. The next major move has to be down by definition. Thus, sentiment is assigned a negative value in the Scorecard. Value: As discussed above, value is poor based on the Shiller P/E and the BCA Composite Valuation indicator. Valuation may not help with timing, but we include it in our Scorecard because an overvalued signal means investors should err on the side of getting out early. Chart I-7Equity ScoreCard: Watch For A Dip Below 3 Chart I-8Timing The Exit (II) We demonstrated in previous research that a Scorecard reading of three or above was historically associated with positive equity total returns in subsequent months. A drop below three this year would signal the time to de-risk. Table I-1Exit Checklist To our Checklist we add the U.S. Leading Economic index, which has a good track record of calling recessions. However, we will use the LEI excluding the equity market, since we are using it as an indicator for the stock market. It is bullish at the moment. Our Global LEI is also flashing green. Table I-1 provides a summary checklist for trimming equity exposure. At the moment, 2 out of 9 indicators are bearish. Cross Asset Valuation Comparison Clients have asked our view on the appropriate order in which to scale out of risk assets. One way to approach the question is to compare valuation across asset classes. Presumably, the ones that are most overvalued are at greatest risk, and thus profits should be taken the earliest. It is difficult to compare valuation across asset classes. Should one use fitted values from models or simple deviations from moving averages? Over what time period? Since there is no widely accepted approach, we include multiple measures. More than one time period was used in some cases to capture regime changes. Table I-2 provides out 'best guestimate' for nine asset classes. The approaches range from sophisticated methods developed over many years (i.e. our equity valuation indicators), to regression analysis on the fundamentals (oil), to simple deviations from a time trend (real raw industrial commodity prices and gold). Table I-2Valuation Levels For Major Asset Classes We averaged the valuation readings in cases where there are multiple estimates for a single asset class. The results are shown in Chart I-9. Chart I-9Valuation Levels For Major Asset Classes U.S. equities stand out as the most expensive by far, at 1.8 standard deviations above fair value. Gold, raw industrials and EM equities are next at one standard deviation overvalued. EM sovereign bond spreads come next at 0.7, followed closely by U.S. Treasurys (real yield levels) and investment-grade corporate (IG) bonds (expressed as a spread). High-yield (HY) is only about 0.3 sigma expensive, based on default-adjusted spreads over the Treasury curve. That said, both IG and HY are quite expensive in absolute terms based on the fact that government bonds are expensive. Oil is sitting very close to fair value, despite the rapid price run up over the past couple of months. This makes oil exposure doubly attractive at the moment because the fundamentals point to higher prices at a time when the underlying asset is not expensive. Sequencing Around Past S&P 500 Peaks Historical analysis around equity market peaks provides an alternative approach to the sequencing question. Table I-3 presents the number of days that various asset classes peaked before or after the past major five tops in the S&P 500. A negative number indicates that the asset class peaked before U.S. equities, and a positive number means that it peaked after. Table I-3Asset Class Leads & Lags Vs. Peak In S&P 500 Unfortunately, there is no consistent pattern observed for EM equities, raw industrials, U.S. cyclical stocks, Tech stocks, or small-cap versus large-cap relative returns. Sometimes they peaked before the S&P 500, and sometime after. The EM sovereign bond excess return index peaked about 130 days in advance of the 1998 and 2007 U.S. equity market tops, although we only have three episodes to analyse due to data limitations. Oil is a mixed bag. A peak in the price of gold led the equity market in four out of five episodes, but the lead time is long and variable. The most consistent lead/lag relationship is given by the U.S. corporate bond market. Both investment- and speculative-grade excess returns relative to government bonds peaked in advance of U.S. stocks in four of the five episodes. High-yield excess returns provided the most lead time, peaking on average 154 days in advance. Excess returns to high-yield were a better signal than total returns. This leading relationship is one reason why we plan to trim exposure to corporate bonds within our bond portfolio in advance of scaling back on equities. But the 'return of vol' that we expect to occur later this year will take a toll on carry trades more generally. We are already underweight EM equities and bonds. This EM recommendation has not gone in our favor, but it would make little sense to upgrade them now given our positive views on volatility and the dollar. An unwinding of carry trades will also hit the high-yielding currencies outside of the EM space, such as the Kiwi and Aussie dollar. Base metal prices will be hit particularly hard if the 2019 U.S. recession spills over to the EM economies as we expect. We may downgrade base metals from neutral to underweight around the time that we downgrade equities, but much depends on the evolution of the Chinese economy in the coming months. Oil is a different story. OPEC 2.0 is likely to cut back on supply in the face of an economic downturn, helping to keep prices elevated. We therefore may not trim energy exposure this year. As for equity sectors, our recommended portfolio is still overweight cyclicals for now. Our synchronized global capex boom, rising bond yield, and firm oil price themes keep us overweight the Industrials, Energy and Financial sectors. Utilities and Homebuilders are underweight. Tech is part of the cyclical sector, but poor valuation keeps us underweight. That said, our sector specialists are already beginning a gradual shift away from cyclicals toward defensives for risk management purposes. This transition will continue in the coming months as we de-risk. We are also shifting small caps to neutral on earnings disappointments and elevated debt levels. The Dollar Pain Trade Market shifts since our last publication have largely gone in our favor; stocks have surged, corporate bonds spreads have tightened, oil prices have spiked, bonds have sold off and cyclical stocks have outperformed defensives. One area that has gone against us is the U.S. dollar. Relative interest rate expectations have moved in favor of the dollar as we expected at both the short- and long-ends of the curve. Nonetheless, the dollar has not tracked its historical relationship versus both the yen and euro. The Greenback did not even get a short-term boost from the passage of the tax plan and holiday on overseas earnings. Perhaps this is because the lion's share of "overseas" earnings are already held in U.S. dollars. Reportedly, a large fraction is even held in U.S. banks on U.S. territory. Currency conversion is thus not a major bullish factor for the U.S. dollar. The recent bout of dollar weakness began around the time of the release of the ECB Minutes in January which were interpreted as hawkish because they appeared to be preparing markets for changes in monetary policy. The European debt crisis and economic recession were the reasons for the ECB's asset purchases and negative interest rate policy. Neither of these conditions are in place now. The ECB is meeting as we go to press, and we expect some small adjustments in the Statement that remove references to the need for "crisis" level accommodations. Subsequent steps will be to prepare markets for a complete end to QE, perhaps in September, and then for rates hikes likely in 2019. The key point is that European monetary policy has moved beyond 'peak stimulus' and the normalization process will continue. Perhaps this is partly to blame for euro strength although, as mentioned above, interest rate differentials have moved in favor of the dollar. Does this mean that the dollar has peaked and has entered a cyclical bear phase that will persist over the next 6-12 months? The answer is 'no', although we are less bullish than in the past. We believe there is still a window for the dollar to appreciate against the euro and in broader trade-weighted terms by about 5%. First, a lot of euro-bullish news has been discounted (Chart I-10). Positive economic surprises heavily outstripped that in the U.S. last year, but that phase is now over. The euro appears expensive based on interest rate differentials, and euro sentiment is close to a bullish extreme. This all suggests that market positioning has become a negative factor for the currency. Chart I-10Euro: A Lot Of Bullish News Is Discounted Second, the chorus of complaints against the euro's strength is growing among European central bankers, including Ewald Nowotny, the rather hawkish Austrian central banker. Policymakers' concerns may partly reflect the fact that peripheral inflation excluding food and energy has already weakened to 0.6% from a high of 1.3% in April last year (Chart I-10, fourth panel). Third, U.S. consumer price and wage inflation have yet to pick up meaningfully. The dollar should receive a lift if core U.S. inflation clearly moves toward the Fed's 2% target, as we expect. The FOMC would suddenly appear to have fallen behind the curve and U.S. rate expectations would ratchet higher. Chart I-10, bottom panel, highlights that the euro will weaken if U.S. core inflation rises versus that in the Eurozone. The implication is that the Euro's appreciation has progressed too far and is due for a pullback. As for the yen, the currency surged in January when the Bank of Japan (BoJ) announced a reduction in long-dated JGB purchases. This simply acknowledged what has already occurred. It was always going to be impossible to target both the quantity of bond purchases and the level of 10-year yield simultaneously. Keeping yields near the target required less purchases than they thought. The market interpreted the BoJ's move as a possible prelude to lifting the 10-year yield target. It is perhaps not surprising that the market took the news this way. The economy is performing extremely well; our model that incorporates high-frequency economic data suggests that real GDP growth will move above 3% in the coming quarters. The Japanese economy is benefiting from the end of a fiscal drag and from a rebound in EM growth. Nonetheless, following January's BoJ policy meeting, Kuroda poured cold water on speculation that the BoJ may soon end or adjust the YCC. Recent speeches by BoJ officials reinforce the view that the MPC wants to see an overshoot of actual inflation that will lower real interest rates and thereby reinforce the strong economic activity that is driving higher inflation. Only then will officials be convinced that their job is done. Given that inflation excluding food and energy only stands at 0.3%, the BoJ is still a long way from the overshoot it desires. On the positive side, Japan's large current account surplus and yen undervaluation provide underlying support for the currency. Balancing the offsetting positive and negative forces, our foreign exchange strategists have shifted to neutral on the yen. The Euro remains underweight while the dollar is overweight. Similar to our dollar view, we still see a window for U.S. Treasurys to underperform the global hedged fixed-income benchmark as world bond yields shift higher this year. European government bonds will also sell off, but should outperform Treasurys. JGBs will provide the best refuge for bondholders during the global bond bear phase, since the BoJ will prevent a rise in yields inside of the 10-year maturity. Our global bond strategists upgraded U.K. gilts to overweight in January. Momentum in the U.K. economy is slowing, as a weaker consumer, slower housing activity, and softer capital spending are offsetting a pickup in exports. With the inflationary impulse from the 2016 plunge in the Pound now fading, and with Brexit uncertainty weighing on business confidence, the Bank of England will struggle to raise rates in 2018. FOMC Transition Monetary policy remains the main risk to a pro-cyclical investment stance, although not because of the coming change in the makeup of the FOMC. An abrupt shift in policy is unlikely. There was some support at the December 2017 FOMC meeting to study the use of nominal GDP or price level targeting as a policy framework, but this has been an ongoing debate that will likely continue for years to come. The Fed will remain committed to its current monetary policy framework once Powell takes over. Table I-4 provides a summary of who will be on the FOMC next year, including their policy bias. Chart I-11 compares the recent FOMC makeup with the coming Powell FOMC (voting members only). The hawk/dove ratio will not change much under Powell, unless Trump stacks the vacant spots with hawks. Table I-4Composition Of The FOMC Chart I-11Composition Of Voting FOMC Members 2017 Vs. 2018 In any event, history shows that the FOMC strives to avoid major shifts in policy around changeovers in the Fed Chair. In previous transitions, the previous path for rates was maintained by an average of 13 months. Moreover, Powell has shown that he is not one to rock the boat during his time on the FOMC. It will be the evolution of the economy and inflation, not the composition of the FOMC, that will have the biggest impact on markets at the end of the day. Recent speeches reveal that policymakers across the hawk/dove spectrum are moving modesty toward the hawkish side because growth has accelerated at a time when unemployment is already considered to be below full-employment by many policymakers. The melt-up in equity indexes in January did little to calm worries about financial excesses either. The Fed is struggling to understand the strength of the structural factors that could be holding down inflation. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 21, focusses on the impact of robot automation. While advances on this front are impressive, we conclude that it is difficult to find evidence that robots are more deflationary than previous technological breakthroughs. Thus, increased robot usage should not prevent inflation from rising as the labor market continues to tighten. The macro backdrop will likely justify the FOMC hiking at least as fast as the dots currently forecast. The risks are skewed to the upside. The median Fed dot calls for an unemployment rate of 3.9% by end-2018, only marginally lower than today's rate of 4.1%. This is inconsistent with real GDP growth well in excess of its supply-side potential. The unemployment rate is more likely to reach a 49-year low of 3.5% by the end of this year. As highlighted in last month's Report, a key risk to the bull market in risk assets is the end of the 'low vol/low rate' world. The selloff in the bond market in January may mark the start of this process. Conclusions We covered a lot of ground in this month's Overview of the markets, so we will keep the conclusions brief and focused on the risks. Our key point is that the fundamentals remain positive for risk assets, but that a lot of good news is discounted and it appears that we have entered a classic blow-off phase. This will be a transition year to a recession in the U.S. in 2019. Given that valuation for most risk assets is quite stretched, and given that the monetary taps are starting to close, investors must plan for the exit and keep an eye on our timing checklist. The main risk to our pro-cyclical portfolio is a rise in U.S. inflation and the Fed's response, which we believe will end the sweet spot for risk assets. Apart from this, our geopolitical strategists point to several other items that could upset the applecart this year:3 1. Trade China has cooperated with the U.S. in trying to tame North Korea. Nonetheless, President Trump is committed to an "America First" trade policy and he may need to show some muscle against China ahead of the midterm elections in November in order to rally his base. It is politically embarrassing to the Administration that China racked up its largest trade surplus ever with the U.S. in Trump's first year in office. A key question is whether the President goes after China via a series of administrative rulings - such as the recently announced tariffs on solar panels and white goods - or whether he applies an across-the-board tariff and/or fine. The latter would have larger negative macroeconomic implications. 2. Iran On January 12, President Trump threatened not to waive sanctions against Iran the next time they come due (May 12), unless some new demands are met. Pressure from the U.S. President comes at a delicate time for Iran. Domestic unrest has been ongoing since December 28. Although protests have largely fizzled out, they have reopened the rift between the clerical regime, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and moderate President Hassan Rouhani. Iranian hardliners, who control part of the armed forces, could lash out in the Persian Gulf, either by threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz or by boarding foreign vessels in international waters. The domestic political calculus in both Iran and the U.S. make further Tehran-Washington tensions likely. For the time being, however, we expect only a minor geopolitical risk premium to seep into the energy markets, supporting our bullish House View on oil prices. 3. China Last month's Special Report highlighted that significant structural reforms are on the way in China, now that President Xi has amassed significant political support for his reform agenda. The reforms should be growth-positive in the long term, but could be a net negative for growth in the near term depending on how deftly the authorities handle the monetary and fiscal policy dials. The risk is that the authorities make a policy mistake by staying too tight, as occurred in 2015. We are monitoring a number of indicators that should warn if a policy mistake is unfolding. On this front, January brought some worrying economic data. The latest figures for both nominal imports and money growth slowed. Given that M2 and M3 are components of BCA's Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, and that nominal imports directly impact China's contribution to global growth, this raises the question of whether December's economic data suggest that China is slowing at a more aggressive pace than we expect. For now, our answer is no. First, China's trade numbers are highly volatile; nominal import growth remains elevated after smoothing the data. Second, China's export growth remains buoyant, consistent with a solid December PMI reading. The bottom line is that we are sticking with our view that China will experience a benign deceleration in terms of its impact on DM risk assets, but we will continue to monitor the situation closely. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst January 25, 2018 Next Report: February 22, 2018 1 According to Thomson Reuters/IBES. 2 Please see U.S. Equity Sector Strategy Special Report "White Paper: Introducing Our U.S. Equity Sector Earnings Models," dated January 16, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3 For more information, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Also see "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018. II. The Impact Of Robots On Inflation Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. Technological advance in the past has not prevented improving living standards or led to ever rising joblessness over the decades, but pessimists argue that recent advances are different. The issue is important for financial markets. If structural factors such as automation are holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. We see no compelling evidence that the displacement effect of emerging technologies is any stronger than in the past. Robot usage has had a modest positive impact on overall productivity. Despite this contribution, overall productivity growth has been dismal over the past decade. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale as some claim, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Periods of strong growth in automation have historically been associated with robust, not lackluster, wage gains, contrary to the consensus view. The Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. This and other evidence suggest that it is difficult to make the case that robots will make it tougher for central banks to reach their inflation goals than did previous technological breakthroughs. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. Recent breakthroughs in technology are awe-inspiring and unsettling. These advances are viewed with great trepidation by many because of the potential to replace humans in the production process. Hype over robots is particularly shrill. Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. In the first in our series of Special Reports focusing on the structural factors that might be preventing central banks from reaching their inflation targets, we demonstrated that the impact of Amazon is overstated in the press. We estimated that E-commerce is depressing inflation in the U.S. by a mere 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points. This Special Report tackles the impact of automation. We are optimistic that robot technology and artificial intelligence will significantly boost future productivity, and thus reduce costs. But, is there any evidence at the macro level that robot usage has been more deflationary than technological breakthroughs in the past and is, thus, a major driver of the low inflation rates we observe today across the major countries? The question matters, especially for the outlook for central bank policy and the bond market. If structural factors are indeed holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. However, if low inflation simply reflects long lags between wages and the tightening labor market, then inflation may suddenly lurch to life as it has at the end of past cycles. The bond market is not priced for that scenario. Are Robots Different? A Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service suggested that the "robot revolution" could be as transformative as previous General Purpose Technologies (GPT), including the steam engine, electricity and the microchip.1 GPTs are technologies that radically alter the economy's production process and make a major contribution to living standards over time. The term "robot" can have different meanings. The most basic definition is "a device that automatically performs complicated and often repetitive tasks," and this encompasses a broad range of machines: From the Jacquard Loom, which was invented over 200 years ago, on to Numerically Controlled (NC) mills and lathes, pick and place machines used in the manufacture of electronics, Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), and even homicidal robots from the future such as the Terminator. Our Technology Sector report made the case that there is nothing particularly sinister about robots. They are just another chapter in a long history of automation. Nor is the displacement of workers unprecedented. The industrial revolution was about replacing human craft labor with capital (machines), which did high-volume work with better quality and productivity. This freed humans for work which had not yet been automated, along with designing, producing and maintaining the machinery. Agriculture offers a good example. This sector involved over 50% of the U.S. labor force until the late 1800s. Steam and then internal combustion-powered tractors, which can be viewed as "robotic horses," contributed to a massive rise in output-per-man hour. The number of hours worked to produce a bushel of wheat fell by almost 98% from the mid-1800s to 1955. This put a lot of farm hands out of work, but these laborers were absorbed over time in other growing areas of the economy. It is the same story for all other historical technological breakthroughs. Change is stressful for those directly affected, but rising productivity ultimately lifts average living standards. Robots will be no different. As we discuss below, however, the increasing use of robots and AI may have a deeper and longer-lasting impact on inequality. Strong Tailwinds Chart II-1Robots Are Getting Cheaper Factory robots have improved immensely due to cheaper and more capable control and vision systems. As these systems evolve, the abilities of robots to move around their environment while avoiding obstacles will improve, as will their ability to perform increasingly complex tasks. Most importantly, robots are already able to do more than just routine tasks, thus enabling them to replace or aid humans in higher-skilled processes. Robot prices are also falling fast, especially after quality-adjusting the data (Chart II-1). Units are becoming easier to install, program and operate. These trends will help to reduce the barriers-to-entry for the large, untapped, market of small and medium sized enterprises. Robots also offer the ability to do low-volume "customized" production and still keep unit costs low. In the future, self-learning robots will be able to optimize their own performance by analyzing the production of other robots around the world. Robot usage is growing quickly according to data collected by the International Federation of Robotics (IFR) that covers 23 countries. Industrial robot sales worldwide increased to almost 300,000 units in 2016, up 16% from the year before (Chart II-2). The stock of industrial robots globally has grown at an annual average pace of 10% since 2010, reaching slightly more than 1.8 million units in 2016.2 Robot usage is far from evenly distributed across industries. The automotive industry is the major consumer of industrial robots, holding 45% of the total stock in 2016 (Chart II-3). The computer & electronics industry is a distant second at 17%. Metals, chemicals and electrical/electronic appliances comprise the bulk of the remaining stock. Chart II-2Global Robot Usage Chart II-3Global Robot Usage By Industry (2016) As far as countries go, Japan has traditionally been the largest market for robots in the world. However, sales have been in a long-term downtrend and the stock of robots has recently been surpassed by China, which has ramped up robot purchases in recent years (Chart II-4). Robot density, which is the stock of robots per 10 thousand employed in manufacturing, makes it easier to compare robot usage across countries (Chart II-5, panel 2). By this measure, China is not a heavy user of robots compared to other countries. South Korea stands at the top, well above the second-place finishers (Germany and Japan). Large automobile sectors in these three countries explain their high relative robot densities. Chart II-4Stock Of Robots By Country (I) Chart II-5Stock Of Robots By Country (II) (2016) While the growth rate of robot usage is impressive, it is from a very low base (outside of the automotive industry). The average number of robots per 10,000 employees is only 74 for the 23 countries in the IFR database. Robot use is tiny compared to total man hours worked. Chart II-6U.S. Investment In Robots In the U.S., spending on robots is only about 5% of total business spending on equipment and software (Chart II-6). To put this into perspective, U.S. spending on information, communication and technology (ICT) equipment represented 35-40% of total capital equipment spending during the tech boom in the 1990s and early 2000s.3 The bottom line is that there is a lot of hype in the press, but robots are not yet widely used across countries or industries. It will be many years before business spending on robots approaches the scale of the 1990s/2000s IT boom. A Deflationary Impact? As noted above, we view robotics as another chapter in a long history of technological advancements. Pessimists suggest that the latest advances are different because they are inherently more threatening to the overall job market and wage share of total income. If the pessimists are right, what are the theoretical channels though which this would have a greater disinflationary effect relative to previous GPT technologies? Faster Productivity Gains: Enhanced productivity drives down unit labor costs, which may be passed along to other industries (as cheaper inputs) and to the end consumer. More Human Displacement: The jobs created in other areas may be insufficient to replace the jobs displaced by robots, leading to lower aggregate income and spending. The loss of income for labor will simply go to the owners of capital, but the point is that the labor share of income might decline. Deflationary pressures could build as aggregate demand falls short of supply. Even in industries that are slow to automate, just the threat of being replaced by robots may curtail wage demands. Inequality: Some have argued that rising inequality is partly because the spoils of new technologies over the past 20 years have largely gone to the owners of capital. This shift may have undermined aggregate demand because upper income households tend to have a high saving rate, thereby depressing overall aggregate demand and inflationary pressures. The human displacement effect, described above, would exacerbate the inequality effect by transferring income from labor to the owners of capital. 1. Productivity It is difficult to see the benefits of robots on productivity at the economy-wide level. Productivity growth has been abysmal across the major developed countries since the Great Recession, but the productivity slowdown was evident long before Lehman collapsed (Chart II-7). The productivity slowdown continued even as automation using robots accelerated after 2010. Chart II-7Productivity Collapsed Despite Automation Some analysts argue that lackluster productivity is simply a statistical mirage because of the difficulties in measuring output in today's economy. We will not get into the details of the mismeasurement debate here. We encourage interested clients to read a Special Report by the BCA Global Investment Strategy service entitled "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians." 4 Our colleague Peter Berezin makes the case that the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, radio, indoor plumbing and air conditioning. He argues that the real reason that productivity growth has slowed is that educational attainment has decelerated and businesses have plucked many of the low-hanging fruit made possible by the IT revolution. Cyclical factors stemming from the Great Recession and financial crisis are also to blame, as capital spending has been slow to recover in most of the advanced economies. Some other factors that help to explain the decline in aggregate productivity are provided in Appendix II-1. Nonetheless, the poor aggregate productivity performance does not mean that there are no benefits to using robots. The benefits are evident at the industrial level, where measurement issues are presumably less vexing for statisticians (i.e., it is easier to measure the output of the auto industry, for example, than for the economy as a whole). Chart II-8 plots the level of robot density in 2016 with average annual productivity growth since 2004 for 10 U.S. manufacturing industries (robot density is presented in deciles). A loose positive relationship is apparent. Chart II-8U.S.: Productivity Vs. Robot Density Academic studies estimate that robots have contributed importantly to economy-wide productivity growth. The Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) estimated that labor productivity growth rises by 0.07 to 0.08 percentage points for every 1% rise in the rate of robot density.5 This implies that robots accounted for roughly 10% of the productivity growth experienced since the early 1990s in the major economies. Another study of 14 industries across 17 countries by the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) found that robots boosted annual productivity growth by 0.36 percentage points over the 1993-2007 period.6 This is impressive because, if this estimate holds true for the U.S., robots' contribution to the 2½% average annual U.S. total productivity growth over the period was 14%. To put the importance of robotics into historical context, its contribution to productivity so far is roughly on par with that of the steam engine (Chart II-9). It falls well short of the 0.6 percentage point annual productivity contribution from the IT revolution. The implication is that, while the overall productivity performance has been dismal since 2007, it would have been even worse in the absence of robots. What does this mean for inflation? According to the "cost push" model of the inflation process, an increase in productivity of 0.36% that is not accompanied by associated wage gains would reduce unit labor costs (ULC) by the same amount. This should trim inflation if the cost savings are passed on to the end consumer, although by less than 0.36% because robots can only depress variable costs, not fixed costs. There indeed appears to be a slight negative relationship between robot density and unit labor costs at the industrial level in the U.S., although the relationship is loose at best (Chart II-10). Chart II-9GPT Contribution To Productivity Chart II-10U.S.: Unit Labor Costs Vs. Robot Density In theory, divergences in productivity across industries should only generate shifts in relative prices, and "cost push" inflation dynamics should only operate in the short term. Most economists believe that inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon in the long run, which means that central banks should be able to offset positive productivity shocks by lowering interest rates enough that aggregate demand keeps up with supply. Indeed, the Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. Also, note that inflation is currently low across the major advanced economies, irrespective of the level of robot intensity (Chart II-11). From this perspective, it is hard to see that robots should take much of the credit for today's low inflation backdrop. Chart II-11Inflation Vs. Robot Density 2. Human Displacement A key question is whether robots and humans are perfect substitutes. If new technologies introduced in the past were perfect substitutes, then it would have led to massive underemployment and all of the income in the economy would eventually have migrated to the owners of capital. The fact that average real household incomes have risen over time, and that there has been no secular upward trend in unemployment rates over the centuries, means that new technologies were at least partly complementary with labor (i.e., the jobs lost as a direct result of productivity gains were more than replaced in other areas of the economy over time). Rather than replacing workers, in many cases tech made humans more productive in their jobs. Rising productivity lifted income and thereby led to the creation of new jobs in other areas. The capital that workers bring to the production process - the skills, know-how and special talents - became more valuable as interaction with technology increased. Like today, there were concerns in the 1950s and 1960s that computerization would displace many types of jobs and lead to widespread idleness and falling household income. With hindsight, there was little to worry about. Some argue that this time is different. Futurists frequently assert that the pace of innovation is not just accelerating, it is accelerating 'exponentially'. Robots can now, or will soon be able to, replace humans in tasks that require cognitive skills. This means that they will be far less complementary to humans than in the past. The displacement effect could thus be much larger, especially given the impressive advances in artificial intelligence. However, Box II-1 discusses why the threat to workers posed by AI is also heavily overblown in the media. The CEP multi-country study cited above did not find a large displacement effect; robot usage did not affect the overall number of hours worked in the 23 countries studied (although it found distributional effects - see below). In other words, rather than suppressing overall labor input, robot usage has led to more output, higher productivity, more jobs and stronger wage and income growth. A report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI)7 takes a broader look at automation, using productivity growth and capital spending as proxies. Automation is what occurs as the implementation of new technologies is incorporated along with new capital equipment or software to replace human labor in the workplace. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending, and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Indeed, the report demonstrates that occupational employment shifts were far slower in the 2000-2015 period than in any decade in the 1900s (Chart II-12). Box II-1 The Threat From AI Is Overblown Media coverage of AI/Deep Learning has established a consensus view that we believe is well off the mark. A recent Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service dispels the myths surrounding AI.8 We believe the consensus, in conjunction with warnings from a variety of sources, is leading to predictions, policy discussions, and even career choices based on a flawed premise. It is worth noting that the most vocal proponents of AI as a threat to jobs and even humanity are not AI experts. At the root of this consensus is the false view that emerging AI technology is anything like true intelligence. Modern AI is not remotely comparable in function to a biological brain. Scientists have a limited understanding of how brains work, and it is unlikely that a poorly understood system can be modeled on a computer. The misconception of intelligence is amplified by headlines claiming an AI "taught itself" a particular task. No AI has ever "taught itself" anything: All AI results have come about after careful programming by often PhD-level experts, who then supplied the system with vast amounts of high quality data to train it. Often these systems have been iterated a number of times and we only hear of successes, not the failures. The need for careful preparation of the AI system and the requirement for high quality data limits the applicability of AI to specific classes of problems where the application justifies the investment in development and where sufficient high-quality data exists. There may be numerous such applications but doubtless many more where AI would not be suitable. Similarly, an AI system is highly adapted to a single problem, or type of problem, and becomes less useful when its application set is expanded. In other words, unlike a human whose abilities improve as they learn more things, an AI's performance on a particular task declines as it does more things. There is a popular misconception that increased computing power will somehow lead to ever improving AI. It is the algorithm which determines the outcome, not the computer performance: Increased computing power leads to faster results, not different results. Advanced computers might lead to more advanced algorithms, but it is pointless to speculate where that may lead: A spreadsheet from 2001 may work faster today but it still gives the same answer. In any event, it is worth noting that a tool ceases to be a tool when it starts having an opinion: there is little reason to develop a machine capable of cognition even if that were possible. Chart II-12U.S. Job Rotation Has Slowed The EPI report also notes that these indicators of automation increased rapidly in the late 1990s and early 2000s, a period that saw solid wage growth for American workers. These indicators weakened in the two periods of stagnant wage growth: from 1973 to 1995 and from 2002 to the present. Thus, there is no historical correlation between increases in automation and wage stagnation. Rather than automation, the report argues that it was China's entry into the global trading system that was largely responsible for the hollowing out of the U.S. manufacturing sector. We have also made this argument in previous research. The fact that the major advanced economies are all at, or close to, full employment supports the view that automation has not been an overwhelming headwind for job creation. Chart II-13 demonstrates that there has been no relationship between the change in robot density and the loss of manufacturing jobs since 1993. Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. Interestingly, despite a worsening labor shortage, robot density among Japanese firms is falling. Moreover, the Japanese data show that the industries that have a high robot usage tend to be more, not less, generous with wages than the robot laggard industries. Please see Appendix II-2 for more details. Chart II-13Global Manufacturing Jobs Vs. Robot Density The bottom line is that it does not appear that labor displacement related to automation has been responsible in any meaningful way for the lackluster average real income growth in the advanced economies since 2007. 3. Inequality That said, there is evidence suggesting that robots are having important distributional effects. The CEP study found that robot use has reduced hours for low-skilled and (to a lesser extent) middle-skilled workers relative to the highly skilled. This finding makes sense conceptually. Technological change can exacerbate inequality by either increasing the relative demand for skilled over unskilled workers (so-called "skill-biased" technological change), or by inducing companies to substitute machinery and other forms of physical capital for workers (so-called "capital-biased" technological change). The former affects the distribution of labor income, while the latter affects the share of income in GDP that labor receives. A Special Report appearing in this publication in 2014 focused on the relationship between technology and inequality.9 The report highlighted that much of the recent technological change has been skill-biased, which heavily favors workers with the talent and education to perform cognitively-demanding tasks, even as it reduces demand for workers with only rudimentary skills. Moreover, technological innovations and globalization increasingly allow the most talented individuals to market their skills to a much larger audience, thus bidding up their wages. The evidence suggests that faster productivity growth leads to higher average real wages and improved living standards, at least over reasonably long horizons. Nonetheless, technological change can, and in the future almost certainly will, increase income inequality. The poor will gain, but not as much as the rich. The fact that higher-income households tend to maintain a higher savings rate than low-income households means that the shift in the distribution of income toward the higher-income households will continue to modestly weigh on aggregate demand. Can the distribution effect be large enough to have a meaningful depressing impact on inflation? We believe that it has played some role in the lackluster recovery since the Great Recession, with the result that an extended period of underemployment has delivered a persistent deflationary impulse in the major developed economies. However, as discussed above, stimulative monetary policy has managed to overcome the impact of inequality and other headwinds on aggregate demand, and has returned the major countries roughly to full employment. Indeed, this year will be the first since 2007 that the G20 economies as a group will be operating slightly above a full employment level. Inflation should respond to excess demand conditions, irrespective of any ongoing demand headwind stemming from inequality. Conclusions Technological change has led to rising living standards over the decades. It did not lead to widespread joblessness and did not prevent central banks from meeting their inflation targets over time. The pessimists argue that this time is different because robots/AI have a much larger displacement effect. Perhaps it will be 20 years before we will know the answer. But our main point is that we have found no evidence that recent advances in robotics and AI, while very impressive, will be any different in their macro impact. There is little evidence that the modern economy is less capable in replacing the jobs lost to automation, although the nature of new technologies may be affecting the distribution of income more than in the past. Real incomes for the middle- and lower-income classes have been stagnant for some time, but this is partly due to productivity growth that is too low, not too high. Moreover, it is not at all clear that positive productivity shocks are disinflationary beyond the near term. The link between robot usage and unit labor costs over the past couple of decades is loose at best at the industry level, and is non-existent when looking across the major countries. The Fed was able to roughly meet its 2% inflation target in the 1990s and the first half of the 2000s, despite IT's impressive contribution to productivity growth during that period. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. The global output gap will shift into positive territory this year for the first time since the Great Recession. Any resulting rise in inflation will come as a shock since the bond market has discounted continued low inflation for as far as the eye can see. We expect bond yields and implied volatility to rise this year, which may undermine risk assets in the second half. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Brian Piccioni Vice President Technology Sector Strategy Appendix II-1 Why Is Productivity So Low? A recent study by the OECD10 reveals that, while frontier firms are charging ahead, there is a widening gap between these firms and the laggards. The study analyzed firm-level data on labor productivity and total factor productivity for 24 countries. "Frontier" firms are defined to be those with productivity in the top 5%. These firms are 3-4 times as productive as the remaining 95%. The authors argue that the underlying cause of this yawning gap is that the diffusion rate of new technologies from the frontier firms to the laggards has slowed within industries. This could be due to rising barriers to entry, which has reduced contestability in markets. Curtailing the creative-destruction process means that there is less pressure to innovate. Barriers to entry may have increased because "...the importance of tacit knowledge as a source of competitive advantage for frontier firms may have risen if increasingly complex technologies were to increase the amount and sophistication of complementary investments required for technological adoption." 11 The bottom line is that aggregate productivity is low because the robust productivity gains for the tech-savvy frontier companies are offset by the long tail of firms that have been slow to adopt the latest technology. Indeed, business spending has been especially weak in this expansion. Chart II-14 highlights that the slowdown in U.S. productivity growth has mirrored that of the capital stock. Chart II-14U.S. Capex Shortfall Partly To Blame For Poor Productivity Appendix II-2 Japan - The Leading Edge Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. The popular press is full of stories of how robots are taking over. If the stories are to be believed, robots are the answer to the country's shrinking workforce. Robots now serve as helpers for the elderly, priests for weddings and funerals, concierges for hotels and even sexual partners (don't ask). Prime Minister Abe's government has launched a 5-year push to deepen the use of intelligent machines in manufacturing, supply chains, construction and health care. Indeed, Japan was the leader in robotics use for decades. Nonetheless, despite all the hype, Japan's stock of industrial robots has actually been eroding since the late 1990s (Chart II-4). Numerous surveys show that firms plan to use robots more in the future because of the difficulty in hiring humans. And there is huge potential: 90% of Japanese firms are small- and medium-sized (SME) and most are not currently using robots. Yet, there has been no wave of robot purchases as of 2016. One problem is the cost; most sophisticated robots are simply too expensive for SMEs to consider. This suggests that one cannot blame robots for Japan's lack of wage growth. The labor shortage has become so acute that there are examples of companies that have turned down sales due to insufficient manpower. Possible reasons why these companies do not offer higher wages to entice workers are beyond the scope of this report. But the fact that the stock of robots has been in decline since the late 1990s does not support the view that Japanese firms are using automation on a broad scale to avoid handing out pay hikes. Indeed, Chart II-15 highlights that wage deflation has been the greatest in industries that use almost no robots. Highly automated industries, such as Transportation Equipment and Electronics, have been among the most generous. This supports the view that the productivity afforded by increased robot usage encourages firms to pay their workers more. Looking ahead, it seems implausible that robots can replace all the retiring Japanese workers in the years to come. The workforce will shrink at an annual average pace of 0.33% between 2020 and 2030, according to the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training. Productivity growth would have to rise by the same amount to fully offset the dwindling number of workers. But that would require a surge in robot density of 4.1, assuming that each rise in robot density of one adds 0.08% to the level of productivity (Chart II-16). The level of robot sales would have to jump by a whopping 2½ times in the first year and continue to rise at the same pace each year thereafter to make this happen. Of course, the productivity afforded by new robots may accelerate in the coming years, but the point is that robot usage would likely have to rise astronomically to offset the impact of the shrinking population. Chart II-15Japan: Earnings Vs. Robot Density Chart II-16Japan: Where Is The Flood Of Robots? The implication is that, as long as the Japanese economy continues to grow above roughly 1%, the labor market will continue to tighten and wage rates will eventually begin to rise. 1 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "The Coming Robotics Revolution," dated May 16, 2017, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 2 Note that this includes only robots used in manufacturing industry, and thus excludes robots used in the service sector and households. However, robot usage in services is quite limited and those used in households do not add to GDP. 3 Note that ICT investment and capital stock data includes robots. 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 Centre for Economic and Business Research (January 2017): "The Impact of Automation." A Report for Redwood. In this report, robot density is defined to be the number of robots per million hours worked. 6 Graetz, G., and Michaels, G. (2015): "Robots At Work." CEP Discussion Paper No 1335. 7 Mishel, L., and Bivens, J. (2017): "The Zombie Robot Argument Lurches On," Economic Policy Institute. 8 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Bad Information - Why Misreporting Deep Learning Advances Is A Problem," dated January 9, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Rage Against The Machines: Is Technology Exacerbating Inequality?" dated June 2014, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 10 OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 05 (2016): "The Best Versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence Across Firms and the Role of Public Policy." 11 Please refer to page 27. III. Indicators And Reference Charts As we highlight in the Overview section, the earnings backdrop for the U.S. equity market remains very upbeat, as highlighted by the rise in the net earnings revisions and net earnings surprises indexes. Bottom-up analysts will likely continue to boost after-tax earnings estimates for the year as they adjust to the U.S. tax cut news. Our main concern is that a lot of good news is now discounted. Our Technical Indicator remains bullish, but our composite valuation indicator surpassed one sigma in January, which is our threshold of overvaluation. From these levels of overvaluation, the medium-term outlook for equity total returns is negligible. Our speculation index is at all-time highs and implied volatility is low, underscoring that investors are extremely bullish. From a contrary perspective, this is a warning sign for the equity market. Our Monetary Indicator has also moved further into 'bearish' territory for equities, although overall financial conditions remain positive for growth. It is also disconcerting that our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) shifted to a 'sell' signal for stocks, following five straight months on a 'buy' signal. This occurred because investors may be buying based on speculation rather than on a firm belief in the staying power of the underlying fundamentals. For now, though, our Willingness-to-Pay indicator for the U.S. rose sharply in January, highlighting that investor equity inflows are very strong and are favoring U.S. equities relative to Japan and the Eurozone. This is perhaps not surprising given the U.S. tax cuts just passed by Congress. The RPI indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Our U.S. bond technical indicator shows that Treasurys are close to oversold territory, suggesting that we may be in store for a consolidation period following January's surge in yields. Treasurys are slightly cheap on our valuation metric, although not by enough to justify closing short duration positions. The U.S. dollar is oversold and due for a bounce. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Bank Credit Analyst

Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. Technological advance in the past has not prevented improving living standards or led to ever rising joblessness over the decades, but pessimists argue that recent advances are different. The issue is important for financial markets. If structural factors such as automation are holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. We see no compelling evidence that the displacement effect of emerging technologies is any stronger than in the past. Robot usage has had a modest positive impact on overall productivity. Despite this contribution, overall productivity growth has been dismal over the past decade. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale as some claim, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Periods of strong growth in automation have historically been associated with robust, not lackluster, wage gains, contrary to the consensus view. The Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. This and other evidence suggest that it is difficult to make the case that robots will make it tougher for central banks to reach their inflation goals than did previous technological breakthroughs. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. Recent breakthroughs in technology are awe-inspiring and unsettling. These advances are viewed with great trepidation by many because of the potential to replace humans in the production process. Hype over robots is particularly shrill. Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. In the first in our series of Special Reports focusing on the structural factors that might be preventing central banks from reaching their inflation targets, we demonstrated that the impact of Amazon is overstated in the press. We estimated that E-commerce is depressing inflation in the U.S. by a mere 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points. This Special Report tackles the impact of automation. We are optimistic that robot technology and artificial intelligence will significantly boost future productivity, and thus reduce costs. But, is there any evidence at the macro level that robot usage has been more deflationary than technological breakthroughs in the past and is, thus, a major driver of the low inflation rates we observe today across the major countries? The question matters, especially for the outlook for central bank policy and the bond market. If structural factors are indeed holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. However, if low inflation simply reflects long lags between wages and the tightening labor market, then inflation may suddenly lurch to life as it has at the end of past cycles. The bond market is not priced for that scenario. Are Robots Different? A Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service suggested that the "robot revolution" could be as transformative as previous General Purpose Technologies (GPT), including the steam engine, electricity and the microchip.1 GPTs are technologies that radically alter the economy's production process and make a major contribution to living standards over time. The term "robot" can have different meanings. The most basic definition is "a device that automatically performs complicated and often repetitive tasks," and this encompasses a broad range of machines: From the Jacquard Loom, which was invented over 200 years ago, on to Numerically Controlled (NC) mills and lathes, pick and place machines used in the manufacture of electronics, Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), and even homicidal robots from the future such as the Terminator. Our Technology Sector report made the case that there is nothing particularly sinister about robots. They are just another chapter in a long history of automation. Nor is the displacement of workers unprecedented. The industrial revolution was about replacing human craft labor with capital (machines), which did high-volume work with better quality and productivity. This freed humans for work which had not yet been automated, along with designing, producing and maintaining the machinery. Agriculture offers a good example. This sector involved over 50% of the U.S. labor force until the late 1800s. Steam and then internal combustion-powered tractors, which can be viewed as "robotic horses," contributed to a massive rise in output-per-man hour. The number of hours worked to produce a bushel of wheat fell by almost 98% from the mid-1800s to 1955. This put a lot of farm hands out of work, but these laborers were absorbed over time in other growing areas of the economy. It is the same story for all other historical technological breakthroughs. Change is stressful for those directly affected, but rising productivity ultimately lifts average living standards. Robots will be no different. As we discuss below, however, the increasing use of robots and AI may have a deeper and longer-lasting impact on inequality. Strong Tailwinds Chart II-1Robots Are Getting Cheaper Factory robots have improved immensely due to cheaper and more capable control and vision systems. As these systems evolve, the abilities of robots to move around their environment while avoiding obstacles will improve, as will their ability to perform increasingly complex tasks. Most importantly, robots are already able to do more than just routine tasks, thus enabling them to replace or aid humans in higher-skilled processes. Robot prices are also falling fast, especially after quality-adjusting the data (Chart II-1). Units are becoming easier to install, program and operate. These trends will help to reduce the barriers-to-entry for the large, untapped, market of small and medium sized enterprises. Robots also offer the ability to do low-volume "customized" production and still keep unit costs low. In the future, self-learning robots will be able to optimize their own performance by analyzing the production of other robots around the world. Robot usage is growing quickly according to data collected by the International Federation of Robotics (IFR) that covers 23 countries. Industrial robot sales worldwide increased to almost 300,000 units in 2016, up 16% from the year before (Chart II-2). The stock of industrial robots globally has grown at an annual average pace of 10% since 2010, reaching slightly more than 1.8 million units in 2016.2 Robot usage is far from evenly distributed across industries. The automotive industry is the major consumer of industrial robots, holding 45% of the total stock in 2016 (Chart II-3). The computer & electronics industry is a distant second at 17%. Metals, chemicals and electrical/electronic appliances comprise the bulk of the remaining stock. Chart II-2Global Robot Usage Chart II-3Global Robot Usage By Industry (2016) As far as countries go, Japan has traditionally been the largest market for robots in the world. However, sales have been in a long-term downtrend and the stock of robots has recently been surpassed by China, which has ramped up robot purchases in recent years (Chart II-4). Robot density, which is the stock of robots per 10 thousand employed in manufacturing, makes it easier to compare robot usage across countries (Chart II-5, panel 2). By this measure, China is not a heavy user of robots compared to other countries. South Korea stands at the top, well above the second-place finishers (Germany and Japan). Large automobile sectors in these three countries explain their high relative robot densities. Chart II-4Stock Of Robots By Country (I) Chart II-5Stock Of Robots By Country (II) (2016) While the growth rate of robot usage is impressive, it is from a very low base (outside of the automotive industry). The average number of robots per 10,000 employees is only 74 for the 23 countries in the IFR database. Robot use is tiny compared to total man hours worked. Chart II-6U.S. Investment In Robots In the U.S., spending on robots is only about 5% of total business spending on equipment and software (Chart II-6). To put this into perspective, U.S. spending on information, communication and technology (ICT) equipment represented 35-40% of total capital equipment spending during the tech boom in the 1990s and early 2000s.3 The bottom line is that there is a lot of hype in the press, but robots are not yet widely used across countries or industries. It will be many years before business spending on robots approaches the scale of the 1990s/2000s IT boom. A Deflationary Impact? As noted above, we view robotics as another chapter in a long history of technological advancements. Pessimists suggest that the latest advances are different because they are inherently more threatening to the overall job market and wage share of total income. If the pessimists are right, what are the theoretical channels though which this would have a greater disinflationary effect relative to previous GPT technologies? Faster Productivity Gains: Enhanced productivity drives down unit labor costs, which may be passed along to other industries (as cheaper inputs) and to the end consumer. More Human Displacement: The jobs created in other areas may be insufficient to replace the jobs displaced by robots, leading to lower aggregate income and spending. The loss of income for labor will simply go to the owners of capital, but the point is that the labor share of income might decline. Deflationary pressures could build as aggregate demand falls short of supply. Even in industries that are slow to automate, just the threat of being replaced by robots may curtail wage demands. Inequality: Some have argued that rising inequality is partly because the spoils of new technologies over the past 20 years have largely gone to the owners of capital. This shift may have undermined aggregate demand because upper income households tend to have a high saving rate, thereby depressing overall aggregate demand and inflationary pressures. The human displacement effect, described above, would exacerbate the inequality effect by transferring income from labor to the owners of capital. 1. Productivity It is difficult to see the benefits of robots on productivity at the economy-wide level. Productivity growth has been abysmal across the major developed countries since the Great Recession, but the productivity slowdown was evident long before Lehman collapsed (Chart II-7). The productivity slowdown continued even as automation using robots accelerated after 2010. Chart II-7Productivity Collapsed Despite Automation Some analysts argue that lackluster productivity is simply a statistical mirage because of the difficulties in measuring output in today's economy. We will not get into the details of the mismeasurement debate here. We encourage interested clients to read a Special Report by the BCA Global Investment Strategy service entitled "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians." 4 Our colleague Peter Berezin makes the case that the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, radio, indoor plumbing and air conditioning. He argues that the real reason that productivity growth has slowed is that educational attainment has decelerated and businesses have plucked many of the low-hanging fruit made possible by the IT revolution. Cyclical factors stemming from the Great Recession and financial crisis are also to blame, as capital spending has been slow to recover in most of the advanced economies. Some other factors that help to explain the decline in aggregate productivity are provided in Appendix II-1. Nonetheless, the poor aggregate productivity performance does not mean that there are no benefits to using robots. The benefits are evident at the industrial level, where measurement issues are presumably less vexing for statisticians (i.e., it is easier to measure the output of the auto industry, for example, than for the economy as a whole). Chart II-8 plots the level of robot density in 2016 with average annual productivity growth since 2004 for 10 U.S. manufacturing industries (robot density is presented in deciles). A loose positive relationship is apparent. Chart II-8U.S.: Productivity Vs. Robot Density Academic studies estimate that robots have contributed importantly to economy-wide productivity growth. The Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) estimated that labor productivity growth rises by 0.07 to 0.08 percentage points for every 1% rise in the rate of robot density.5 This implies that robots accounted for roughly 10% of the productivity growth experienced since the early 1990s in the major economies. Another study of 14 industries across 17 countries by the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) found that robots boosted annual productivity growth by 0.36 percentage points over the 1993-2007 period.6 This is impressive because, if this estimate holds true for the U.S., robots' contribution to the 2½% average annual U.S. total productivity growth over the period was 14%. To put the importance of robotics into historical context, its contribution to productivity so far is roughly on par with that of the steam engine (Chart II-9). It falls well short of the 0.6 percentage point annual productivity contribution from the IT revolution. The implication is that, while the overall productivity performance has been dismal since 2007, it would have been even worse in the absence of robots. What does this mean for inflation? According to the "cost push" model of the inflation process, an increase in productivity of 0.36% that is not accompanied by associated wage gains would reduce unit labor costs (ULC) by the same amount. This should trim inflation if the cost savings are passed on to the end consumer, although by less than 0.36% because robots can only depress variable costs, not fixed costs. There indeed appears to be a slight negative relationship between robot density and unit labor costs at the industrial level in the U.S., although the relationship is loose at best (Chart II-10). Chart II-9GPT Contribution To Productivity Chart II-10U.S.: Unit Labor Costs Vs. Robot Density In theory, divergences in productivity across industries should only generate shifts in relative prices, and "cost push" inflation dynamics should only operate in the short term. Most economists believe that inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon in the long run, which means that central banks should be able to offset positive productivity shocks by lowering interest rates enough that aggregate demand keeps up with supply. Indeed, the Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. Also, note that inflation is currently low across the major advanced economies, irrespective of the level of robot intensity (Chart II-11). From this perspective, it is hard to see that robots should take much of the credit for today's low inflation backdrop. Chart II-11Inflation Vs. Robot Density 2. Human Displacement A key question is whether robots and humans are perfect substitutes. If new technologies introduced in the past were perfect substitutes, then it would have led to massive underemployment and all of the income in the economy would eventually have migrated to the owners of capital. The fact that average real household incomes have risen over time, and that there has been no secular upward trend in unemployment rates over the centuries, means that new technologies were at least partly complementary with labor (i.e., the jobs lost as a direct result of productivity gains were more than replaced in other areas of the economy over time). Rather than replacing workers, in many cases tech made humans more productive in their jobs. Rising productivity lifted income and thereby led to the creation of new jobs in other areas. The capital that workers bring to the production process - the skills, know-how and special talents - became more valuable as interaction with technology increased. Like today, there were concerns in the 1950s and 1960s that computerization would displace many types of jobs and lead to widespread idleness and falling household income. With hindsight, there was little to worry about. Some argue that this time is different. Futurists frequently assert that the pace of innovation is not just accelerating, it is accelerating 'exponentially'. Robots can now, or will soon be able to, replace humans in tasks that require cognitive skills. This means that they will be far less complementary to humans than in the past. The displacement effect could thus be much larger, especially given the impressive advances in artificial intelligence. However, Box II-1 discusses why the threat to workers posed by AI is also heavily overblown in the media. The CEP multi-country study cited above did not find a large displacement effect; robot usage did not affect the overall number of hours worked in the 23 countries studied (although it found distributional effects - see below). In other words, rather than suppressing overall labor input, robot usage has led to more output, higher productivity, more jobs and stronger wage and income growth. A report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI)7 takes a broader look at automation, using productivity growth and capital spending as proxies. Automation is what occurs as the implementation of new technologies is incorporated along with new capital equipment or software to replace human labor in the workplace. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending, and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Indeed, the report demonstrates that occupational employment shifts were far slower in the 2000-2015 period than in any decade in the 1900s (Chart II-12). Box II-1 The Threat From AI Is Overblown Media coverage of AI/Deep Learning has established a consensus view that we believe is well off the mark. A recent Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service dispels the myths surrounding AI.8 We believe the consensus, in conjunction with warnings from a variety of sources, is leading to predictions, policy discussions, and even career choices based on a flawed premise. It is worth noting that the most vocal proponents of AI as a threat to jobs and even humanity are not AI experts. At the root of this consensus is the false view that emerging AI technology is anything like true intelligence. Modern AI is not remotely comparable in function to a biological brain. Scientists have a limited understanding of how brains work, and it is unlikely that a poorly understood system can be modeled on a computer. The misconception of intelligence is amplified by headlines claiming an AI "taught itself" a particular task. No AI has ever "taught itself" anything: All AI results have come about after careful programming by often PhD-level experts, who then supplied the system with vast amounts of high quality data to train it. Often these systems have been iterated a number of times and we only hear of successes, not the failures. The need for careful preparation of the AI system and the requirement for high quality data limits the applicability of AI to specific classes of problems where the application justifies the investment in development and where sufficient high-quality data exists. There may be numerous such applications but doubtless many more where AI would not be suitable. Similarly, an AI system is highly adapted to a single problem, or type of problem, and becomes less useful when its application set is expanded. In other words, unlike a human whose abilities improve as they learn more things, an AI's performance on a particular task declines as it does more things. There is a popular misconception that increased computing power will somehow lead to ever improving AI. It is the algorithm which determines the outcome, not the computer performance: Increased computing power leads to faster results, not different results. Advanced computers might lead to more advanced algorithms, but it is pointless to speculate where that may lead: A spreadsheet from 2001 may work faster today but it still gives the same answer. In any event, it is worth noting that a tool ceases to be a tool when it starts having an opinion: there is little reason to develop a machine capable of cognition even if that were possible. Chart II-12U.S. Job Rotation Has Slowed The EPI report also notes that these indicators of automation increased rapidly in the late 1990s and early 2000s, a period that saw solid wage growth for American workers. These indicators weakened in the two periods of stagnant wage growth: from 1973 to 1995 and from 2002 to the present. Thus, there is no historical correlation between increases in automation and wage stagnation. Rather than automation, the report argues that it was China's entry into the global trading system that was largely responsible for the hollowing out of the U.S. manufacturing sector. We have also made this argument in previous research. The fact that the major advanced economies are all at, or close to, full employment supports the view that automation has not been an overwhelming headwind for job creation. Chart II-13 demonstrates that there has been no relationship between the change in robot density and the loss of manufacturing jobs since 1993. Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. Interestingly, despite a worsening labor shortage, robot density among Japanese firms is falling. Moreover, the Japanese data show that the industries that have a high robot usage tend to be more, not less, generous with wages than the robot laggard industries. Please see Appendix II-2 for more details. Chart II-13Global Manufacturing Jobs Vs. Robot Density The bottom line is that it does not appear that labor displacement related to automation has been responsible in any meaningful way for the lackluster average real income growth in the advanced economies since 2007. 3. Inequality That said, there is evidence suggesting that robots are having important distributional effects. The CEP study found that robot use has reduced hours for low-skilled and (to a lesser extent) middle-skilled workers relative to the highly skilled. This finding makes sense conceptually. Technological change can exacerbate inequality by either increasing the relative demand for skilled over unskilled workers (so-called "skill-biased" technological change), or by inducing companies to substitute machinery and other forms of physical capital for workers (so-called "capital-biased" technological change). The former affects the distribution of labor income, while the latter affects the share of income in GDP that labor receives. A Special Report appearing in this publication in 2014 focused on the relationship between technology and inequality.9 The report highlighted that much of the recent technological change has been skill-biased, which heavily favors workers with the talent and education to perform cognitively-demanding tasks, even as it reduces demand for workers with only rudimentary skills. Moreover, technological innovations and globalization increasingly allow the most talented individuals to market their skills to a much larger audience, thus bidding up their wages. The evidence suggests that faster productivity growth leads to higher average real wages and improved living standards, at least over reasonably long horizons. Nonetheless, technological change can, and in the future almost certainly will, increase income inequality. The poor will gain, but not as much as the rich. The fact that higher-income households tend to maintain a higher savings rate than low-income households means that the shift in the distribution of income toward the higher-income households will continue to modestly weigh on aggregate demand. Can the distribution effect be large enough to have a meaningful depressing impact on inflation? We believe that it has played some role in the lackluster recovery since the Great Recession, with the result that an extended period of underemployment has delivered a persistent deflationary impulse in the major developed economies. However, as discussed above, stimulative monetary policy has managed to overcome the impact of inequality and other headwinds on aggregate demand, and has returned the major countries roughly to full employment. Indeed, this year will be the first since 2007 that the G20 economies as a group will be operating slightly above a full employment level. Inflation should respond to excess demand conditions, irrespective of any ongoing demand headwind stemming from inequality. Conclusions Technological change has led to rising living standards over the decades. It did not lead to widespread joblessness and did not prevent central banks from meeting their inflation targets over time. The pessimists argue that this time is different because robots/AI have a much larger displacement effect. Perhaps it will be 20 years before we will know the answer. But our main point is that we have found no evidence that recent advances in robotics and AI, while very impressive, will be any different in their macro impact. There is little evidence that the modern economy is less capable in replacing the jobs lost to automation, although the nature of new technologies may be affecting the distribution of income more than in the past. Real incomes for the middle- and lower-income classes have been stagnant for some time, but this is partly due to productivity growth that is too low, not too high. Moreover, it is not at all clear that positive productivity shocks are disinflationary beyond the near term. The link between robot usage and unit labor costs over the past couple of decades is loose at best at the industry level, and is non-existent when looking across the major countries. The Fed was able to roughly meet its 2% inflation target in the 1990s and the first half of the 2000s, despite IT's impressive contribution to productivity growth during that period. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. The global output gap will shift into positive territory this year for the first time since the Great Recession. Any resulting rise in inflation will come as a shock since the bond market has discounted continued low inflation for as far as the eye can see. We expect bond yields and implied volatility to rise this year, which may undermine risk assets in the second half. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Brian Piccioni Vice President Technology Sector Strategy Appendix II-1 Why Is Productivity So Low? A recent study by the OECD10 reveals that, while frontier firms are charging ahead, there is a widening gap between these firms and the laggards. The study analyzed firm-level data on labor productivity and total factor productivity for 24 countries. "Frontier" firms are defined to be those with productivity in the top 5%. These firms are 3-4 times as productive as the remaining 95%. The authors argue that the underlying cause of this yawning gap is that the diffusion rate of new technologies from the frontier firms to the laggards has slowed within industries. This could be due to rising barriers to entry, which has reduced contestability in markets. Curtailing the creative-destruction process means that there is less pressure to innovate. Barriers to entry may have increased because "...the importance of tacit knowledge as a source of competitive advantage for frontier firms may have risen if increasingly complex technologies were to increase the amount and sophistication of complementary investments required for technological adoption." 11 The bottom line is that aggregate productivity is low because the robust productivity gains for the tech-savvy frontier companies are offset by the long tail of firms that have been slow to adopt the latest technology. Indeed, business spending has been especially weak in this expansion. Chart II-14 highlights that the slowdown in U.S. productivity growth has mirrored that of the capital stock. Chart II-14U.S. Capex Shortfall Partly To Blame For Poor Productivity Appendix II-2 Japan - The Leading Edge Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. The popular press is full of stories of how robots are taking over. If the stories are to be believed, robots are the answer to the country's shrinking workforce. Robots now serve as helpers for the elderly, priests for weddings and funerals, concierges for hotels and even sexual partners (don't ask). Prime Minister Abe's government has launched a 5-year push to deepen the use of intelligent machines in manufacturing, supply chains, construction and health care. Indeed, Japan was the leader in robotics use for decades. Nonetheless, despite all the hype, Japan's stock of industrial robots has actually been eroding since the late 1990s (Chart II-4). Numerous surveys show that firms plan to use robots more in the future because of the difficulty in hiring humans. And there is huge potential: 90% of Japanese firms are small- and medium-sized (SME) and most are not currently using robots. Yet, there has been no wave of robot purchases as of 2016. One problem is the cost; most sophisticated robots are simply too expensive for SMEs to consider. This suggests that one cannot blame robots for Japan's lack of wage growth. The labor shortage has become so acute that there are examples of companies that have turned down sales due to insufficient manpower. Possible reasons why these companies do not offer higher wages to entice workers are beyond the scope of this report. But the fact that the stock of robots has been in decline since the late 1990s does not support the view that Japanese firms are using automation on a broad scale to avoid handing out pay hikes. Indeed, Chart II-15 highlights that wage deflation has been the greatest in industries that use almost no robots. Highly automated industries, such as Transportation Equipment and Electronics, have been among the most generous. This supports the view that the productivity afforded by increased robot usage encourages firms to pay their workers more. Looking ahead, it seems implausible that robots can replace all the retiring Japanese workers in the years to come. The workforce will shrink at an annual average pace of 0.33% between 2020 and 2030, according to the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training. Productivity growth would have to rise by the same amount to fully offset the dwindling number of workers. But that would require a surge in robot density of 4.1, assuming that each rise in robot density of one adds 0.08% to the level of productivity (Chart II-16). The level of robot sales would have to jump by a whopping 2½ times in the first year and continue to rise at the same pace each year thereafter to make this happen. Of course, the productivity afforded by new robots may accelerate in the coming years, but the point is that robot usage would likely have to rise astronomically to offset the impact of the shrinking population. Chart II-15Japan: Earnings Vs. Robot Density Chart II-16Japan: Where Is The Flood Of Robots? The implication is that, as long as the Japanese economy continues to grow above roughly 1%, the labor market will continue to tighten and wage rates will eventually begin to rise. 1 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "The Coming Robotics Revolution," dated May 16, 2017, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 2 Note that this includes only robots used in manufacturing industry, and thus excludes robots used in the service sector and households. However, robot usage in services is quite limited and those used in households do not add to GDP. 3 Note that ICT investment and capital stock data includes robots. 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 Centre for Economic and Business Research (January 2017): "The Impact of Automation." A Report for Redwood. In this report, robot density is defined to be the number of robots per million hours worked. 6 Graetz, G., and Michaels, G. (2015): "Robots At Work." CEP Discussion Paper No 1335. 7 Mishel, L., and Bivens, J. (2017): "The Zombie Robot Argument Lurches On," Economic Policy Institute. 8 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Bad Information - Why Misreporting Deep Learning Advances Is A Problem," dated January 9, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Rage Against The Machines: Is Technology Exacerbating Inequality?" dated June 2014, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 10 OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 05 (2016): "The Best Versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence Across Firms and the Role of Public Policy." 11 Please refer to page 27.

Highlights Global Duration Strategy: Global bond yields continue to move higher, driven by rising inflation expectations and falling investor risk aversion. With global interest rates still not at levels that will restrict growth or draw capital away from booming equity markets, the path of least resistance for yields remains upward. Maintain a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance, with a bearish curve steepening bias in the U.S. and core Europe. U.K. Gilts: The momentum in the U.K. economy is slowing, as a weaker consumer, slower housing activity, and softer capital spending are offsetting a pickup in exports. With the inflationary impulse from the 2016 plunge in the Pound now fading, and with Brexit uncertainty weighing on business confidence, the Bank of England will struggle to raise rates in 2018. Stay overweight Gilts. Feature Revisiting Our Duration Strategy After The Rise In Yields Global government bond markets have started 2018 in a grumpy mood. The price return on the overall Barclays Global Treasury index is already down -0.6% so far in January, and yields are up for almost every country and maturity bucket within the developed market universe. Only longer-dated Peripheral European debt (Italy, Spain, Portugal, even Greece) has seen lower yields month-to-date, as the powerful growth upturn in the Euro Area has resulted in sovereign credit upgrades and narrowing spreads to core European bonds. The global sell-off has been led by the U.S., with the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield climbing all the way to 2.66% last week, already surpassing the 2016 high seen last March. Rising inflation expectations are the biggest culprit, with the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate climbing to 2.07%, the highest level since 2014. Chart of the WeekNo Good News For Bonds Right Now The relentless surge in global stock markets - driven by faster worldwide economic growth and an absence of volatility - is also helping fuel the bearishness in government bond markets. The economic growth momentum is showing no signs of abating. The IMF just raised its global growth forecast for both 2018 and 2019 to 3.9% in both years - the fastest pace since 2011 - largely because of the impact of the U.S. tax cuts but also because of much faster expected growth in Europe.1 The IMF noted that "the cyclical rebound could prove stronger in the near term as the pickup in activity and easier financial conditions reinforce each other." We could not agree more. With robust growth pushing a majority of economies to operate beyond full employment, and with financial conditions remaining highly accommodative, global bond markets are now pricing in both higher inflation expectations and less accommodative monetary policy (Chart of the Week). While we only expect actual rate increases in the U.S. and Canada in 2018, the pressures on global central banks to respond to the coordinated growth upturn with hawkish talk will keep government bond markets on the defensive - especially if global inflation rates are moving up at the same time. Diminishing demand for government bonds from recently reliable sources may also act to push up yields in the months ahead. A reduced pace of asset purchases from the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ), combined with the Fed reducing the reinvestments of its maturing Treasury holdings, means that the private sector must now absorb a greater share of bond issuance, on the margin. In the U.S. in particular, the biggest swing factor for the Treasury market could end up being the retail investor. Households have been notably risk-averse in the years since the Great Financial Crisis, keeping relatively high allocations to fixed income and relatively low allocations to equities after suffering such steep losses in the 2008 crash. Those attitudes are changing, however, with the U.S. equity market continuing to hit new all-time highs amid increased media coverage of the rally (as well as the bullish Tweets from the White House taking credit for it). The latest University of Michigan U.S. consumer confidence survey showed that the expected probability of another year of rising stock prices is now at the highest level (66%) in the fifteen years that question was asked. U.S. investment advisors are also very optimistic, with the Investors' Intelligence bull/bear ratio back to the highest level since 1987! (Chart 2) Yet actual equity returns over the past three years have lagged those seen during periods of elevated investor sentiment, like in 1987, 2005 and 2014 (Chart 2). What is missing now is a big surge of retail investor money into equities that can fuel the next leg of the equity rally, particularly through mutual funds and ETFs. Chart 2The Bond-Bearish Equity Party##BR##Is Just Getting Started This is starting to happen. The rolling 12-month total of net flows into U.S. equity mutual funds and ETFs is about to accelerate into positive territory for the first time since 2012, according to data from the Investment Company Institute (3rd panel). This could soon pose a problem for U.S. bond markets as, since 2008, there has been a reliable negative correlation between U.S. retail flows into equity funds and flows into fixed income funds, especially at major turning points (bottom panel). For example, after that 2012 bottom in net equity flows, the rolling total of net flows into bond funds collapsed from over $400bn to zero in a span of 18 months, with the vast majority of the outflow from bonds going into equities. An exodus of U.S. retail investors from fixed income would be a major problem for bond markets, especially at a time when net Treasury issuance is expected to increase due to wider fiscal deficits and the Fed will be buying fewer bonds as it begins to unwind its massive balance sheet. Other buyers like commercial banks and global reserve fund managers can pick up some of the slack if the retail bid fades from U.S. Treasuries. However, in an environment of strong global growth, rising inflation and more hawkish central banks, it may require higher yields to entice those buyers to ramp up their allocations. In the near-term, the next wave of global bond-bearish news will have to come from upside surprises in inflation, not growth. The Citi Global Economic Data Surprise index - which has historically correlated with swings in global bond yields - is now at elevated levels which should raise the odds of data disappointments as growth expectations get revised up (Chart 3). The Citi Global Inflation Data Surprise index, however, remains just below zero after last year's plunge, but is showing signs of stabilizing (bottom panel). U.S. inflation is already starting to bottom out, but Euro Area core inflation has been underwhelming of late. It will likely take a rise in the latter to trigger the next move higher in global yields, as the market will begin to more aggressively price in less accommodative monetary policy from the ECB. For now, U.S. Treasuries are driving the path of yields, with the "leadership" of the bond bear market expected to switch to Europe later on in 2018. In terms of our recommend duration strategy and country allocations, we are sticking with our current positions which are finally beginning to move in favor of our forecasts (Chart 4): Chart 3The Next Leg Higher In Global Yields##BR##Must Be Driven By Inflation Surprises Chart 4Our Recommended##BR##Country & Curve Allocations Underweights to countries where we expect central banks to hike rates (U.S., Canada) or more openly discuss a tapering of asset purchases (Germany, France). Overweights to countries where we expect no change in policy rates (U.K., Australia) or only modest changes to asset purchase programs (Japan). Positioning for steeper yield curves in countries where growth is strong, economies are at or beyond full employment, but where inflation expectations remain far enough below central bank targets to prevent policymakers from turning more hawkish faster than expected (U.S., Germany, Japan). Bottom Line: Global bond yields continue to move higher, driven by rising inflation expectations and falling investor risk aversion. With global interest rates still not at levels that will restrict growth or draw capital away from booming equity markets, the path of least resistance for yields remains upward. Maintain a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance, with a bearish curve steepening bias in the U.S. and core Europe. U.K. Gilts: The BoE's Hands Are Tied In our final report of 2017, we updated our recommended allocations in our Model Bond Portfolio based on the key views stemming from the 2018 BCA Outlook.2 We upgraded our country allocation to U.K. Gilts to overweight, primarily as a "defensive" position within a portfolio positioned for an expected rise in global bond yields. That may sound surprising given the current elevated level of inflation and low unemployment rate in the U.K. Yet our view is based on the notion that the Bank of England (BoE) will have a very difficult time trying to raise interest rates at all in 2018 when other major global central banks are likely to take a more hawkish turn. The main reason that the BoE will be unable to do much on the interest rate front is that the U.K. economy is likely to slow in the coming quarters. The OECD leading economic indicator is decelerating steadily, and is pointing to a real GDP growth rate below 2% in 2018 (Chart 5). The updated IMF forecast for the U.K. calls for growth to only reach 1.5% in both 2018 and 2019. The biggest factors that will weigh on growth will be a sluggish consumer and softer capex. Household consumption growth has already been slowing since early 2017, driven by diminishing consumer confidence (Chart 6, top panel). High realized inflation which has sapped the purchasing power of U.K. workers who have not seen matching increases in wages, is weighing on confidence (3rd panel). Consumers were able to maintain a decent pace of spending during a period of stagnant real income growth by drawing down on savings, but that looks to be tapped out now with the saving rate down to a 19-year low of 5.5% (bottom panel). Chart 5U.K. Growth Set To Slow Chart 6The U.K. Consumer Looks Tapped Out Making matters worse, U.K. consumers are not seeing much of a wealth effect from the housing market. The December 2017 readings of the year-over-year growth rate of U.K. house prices from the Halifax and Nationwide house prices came in at 1.1% and 2.5% respectively (Chart 7, top panel). In addition, the net balance of national house price expectations from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) survey has steadily declined since mid-2016 and now sits just above zero (i.e. equal number of respondents expecting higher prices and falling prices). The same indicator for London was a staggering -54% in November 2017. U.K. homeowners have had to take a lot of hits over the past couple of years. A 2016 hike in the stamp duty for second homes and buy-to-let properties prompted a plunge in more "speculative" property transactions. The squeeze on real household incomes that has damaged consumer spending has also made homes less affordable, even with very low mortgage rates. Most importantly, the 2016 Brexit vote and subsequent uncertainty over the U.K.'s future relationship with Europe has placed an enormous cloud over housing demand - both from potential reduced immigration to the U.K. and businesses and jobs potentially relocating to European Union countries. The Brexit uncertainty is also weighing on U.K. business investment spending. U.K. capital expenditure growth slowed to 4.3% year-over-year in nominal terms in Q3 2017, and is even lower in real terms (Chart 8, top panel). Capex is generally import-intensive, and the rise in import costs due to the depreciation of the Pound after the 2016 Brexit vote raised the cost of investment. Chart 7No Growth In##BR##U.K. Housing Chart 8Brexit Gloom Trumps Export##BR##Boom For U.K. Companies This explains why U.K. capital spending has lagged even with manufacturing indicators in decent shape, such as the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) survey which shows the highest readings on total industrial orders and export orders since 1988 and 1995, respectively (2nd panel). Yet non-financial credit growth stalled out in the latter half of 2017, while the CBI survey of business optimism has turned into negative territory. Brexit uncertainties are clearly trumping strong export demand, thus U.K. capital investment is likely to remain sluggish in 2018 even with robust global growth. With U.K. economic growth likely to slow in 2018, the lingering problem of high inflation should start to fade. Already, both headline and core CPI inflation have stabilized, with the latter actually drifting a touch lower in the latter half of 2017 (Chart 9). The small gap between the two can be explained by the rise in global oil prices seen over the past year. The impact of oil on U.K. inflation expectations is relatively modest compared to other countries with much lower realized inflation rates, as we discussed in last week's Weekly Report.3 What is far more relevant is the path of British pound. The 16% plunge in the trade-weighted sterling index after the 2016 Brexit vote was a major reason why U.K. realized inflation blew through the BoE's 2% target last year. The currency has since stabilized at a depressed level and traded in a relatively narrow range in 2017. The trade-weighted index is now 3% above year-ago-levels, which should help U.K. inflation rates drift lower in the next 6-12 months - especially if U.K. growth underwhelms at the same time. Already, the more stable currency has allowed the inflation rates of import prices and producer prices to fall sharply last year (bottom panel), which should soon start to feed through into overall inflation rates. Lower realized inflation would be a welcome boost for the spending power of U.K. households and businesses, but will likely be dwarfed by the impact of oil prices in the near term. More importantly, the slowing momentum of economic growth, now fueled more by Brexit uncertainty than high inflation, will limit the BoE's ability to continue normalizing the very low level of U.K. interest rates. Our 12-month U.K. discounter shows that markets are pricing in 25bps of rate hikes over the next twelve months (Chart 10). The forward path of interest rates shown in the U.K. Overnight Index Swaps curve suggests that the hike could come by October. That is unlikely to happen given the slump in leading economic indicators, and peaking in currency-fueled inflation, currently underway. Chart 9Currency-Fueled U.K. Inflation Is Peaking Out Chart 10Stay Overweight U.K. Gilts A stand-pat BoE, combined with more stable and potentially falling U.K. inflation, will limit the ability for U.K. Gilt yields to rise by as much as we are expecting in the U.S., and even core Europe, over the next 6-12 months. Gilts have become a relative safe haven within a global bond bear market in the developed markets, with a yield beta of around 0.5 to U.S. Treasuries and German government bonds. This has already allowed Gilts to outperform the Barclays Global Treasury index (in currency-hedged terms) since the most recent cyclical low in global bond yields last September (bottom panel). We continue to expect Gilts to outperform in 2018. Stay overweight. Bottom Line: The momentum in the U.K. economy is slowing, as a weaker consumer, slower housing activity, and softer capital spending are offsetting a pickup in exports. With the inflationary impulse from the 2016 plunge in the Pound now fading, and with Brexit uncertainty weighing on business confidence, the Bank of England will struggle to raise rates in 2018. Stay overweight Gilts. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst Ray@bcaresearch.com 1 http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2018/01/11/world-economic-outlook-update-january-2018 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Our Model Bond Allocation In 2018: A Tale Of Two Halves", dated December 19th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Importance Of Oil", dated January 16th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Relative sector index composition, the macro backdrop, relative operating metrics along with compelling valuations and washed out technicals suggest that a value over growth style bias is warranted. Rising interest rates and a flattening yield curve, coupled with increasing relative indebtedness and lack of relative profit growth signal that the time is right to shift the capitalization bias to a neutral setting. Recent Changes Shift the style bias and favor value over growth today. Book profits in the small over large cap size bias of 2% since the mid-August 2016 inception. Table 1 Feature Equities catapulted to new all-time highs last week as earnings season got underway. Upbeat bank reports set the tone, and SPX profits are slated to register a 12% growth rate for both Q4/2017 and calendar 2017. Current year EPS estimates have been aggressively ratcheted higher, on the back of the tax bill passage, rising from 12% to 16% in a mere three weeks, according to Thomson Reuters/IBES. Our SPX EPS growth model agrees that, cyclically, profits will continue to drift higher and a low-to-mid double-digit growth rate is likely for 2018, as we posited last week.1 While the synchronized and disinflationary global growth narrative continues to dominate, we are a bit uneasy. The eerie calm overtaking the markets, and headlines like this recent one from Bloomberg "The Stock Market Never Goes Down" give us cause for concern. As a reminder, the SPX is up 1000 points since the 1800 level registered in early-2016. Put differently, the SPX has been rising by roughly 25% per annum for the past two years. Such a breakneck pace is unsustainable. Our sense is that from a tactical perspective, equities are currently extremely stretched and warrant some caution. Therefore, this week we identify five key signposts we are closely monitoring that are sending clear warning signals (for a more comprehensive list please see the tactical section of our August 7th White Paper).2 First, our reflation gauge (RG) has taken a turn for the worse (Chart 1). At the margin, higher oil prices and interest rates may begin to bite. Historically, our RG has been an excellent leading indicator of both sentiment that has vaulted to multi-decade highs and CITI's economic surprise index. Our global reflation gauge emits a similar signal (not shown). Mean reversion is looming. Second, speculation runs rampant. Our Equity Speculation Index (ESI) is close to two standard deviations above the historical mean. Since the early-1960s, the ESI has only been higher during the dotcom bubble (Chart 2). While the ESI can rise further, it is at least waving a yellow flag. Investor sentiment has also gone parabolic with the bull/bear ratio reaching a level last seen right before the 1987 crash (third panel, Chart 2). Chart 1Yellow Flag Chart 2Extended Third, financial conditions are as good as they get. The St. Louis Fed Financial Stress Index recently hit an all-time low level. Similarly, Goldman Sachs' and the Chicago Fed's National Financial Conditions indexes are also near uncharted territory. This should be cause for some trepidation (Chart 3). Fourth, extended EPS breadth, all time highs in net earnings revisions, stretched median valuations and overbought technical conditions are near levels that have marked previous temporary broad market pullbacks (Chart 4). Finally, gold is behaving strangely. While the U.S. dollar's selloff explains part of the recent jump in the shiny metal, we think bullion may be sniffing out some trouble as it remains a true safe haven asset. Either real rates have to come down or gold has to reverse course; such a steep divergence is unsustainable (gold shown inverted, top panel, Chart 5). Chart 3As Good As It Gets Chart 4Peak Euphoria? Chart 5What's Gold Sniffing Out? Since December 18th our strategy has been to book gains in tactical trades and to refrain from altering our cyclical over defensive portfolio positioning bent,3 as we do not foresee a recession in the coming 9-12 months.4 We continue to pursue this strategy and were a 5-10% selloff to materialize, we would "buy the dip". In addition, this week we introduce/apply a risk management measure to our recently revealed high-conviction 2018 calls.5 Almost all of our calls are in the black outperforming the broad market on average by 640bps (Chart 6). While we are not compelled to change our views just yet, our confidence is not as high as two months ago, especially in the two calls that are registering double-digit relative returns. Thus, we suggest that clients institute a tight stop in these trades (please see the "Stop" column in the "Top High-Conviction Calls For 2018" table on page 15). Going forward, we will introduce such risk management trailing stops once a call clears the 10% relative return mark. This week we shift both our style and size biases. Chart 6Time To Set Stops Buy Value At The Expense Of Growth There is a once in a decade opportunity to prefer value over growth (V/G) stocks, and we recommend shifting our style bias in favor of value stocks. Typically, the V/G ratio moves in multi-year up and down cycles, and at the current juncture it is a screaming buy, if history at least rhymes. Chart 7 shows that relative share prices are not only near previous troughs, but also 1.5 standard deviations below the six-decade time trend. Chart 7Compelling Entry Point In fact we already have a flavor of this style preference in one of our market-neutral pair trades, long financials / short tech (for additional details on this trade please refer to our "Disentangling Pricing Power" early-summer report). Table 2 depicts why this is so: financials stocks dominate value indexes, while IT comprises 40% of growth indexes. Sector composition also suggests that a long energy / short health care trade would mimic this V/G preference, as energy stocks offer a lot of value, whereas health care stocks sit prominently in growth indexes (Table 2 & Chart 8). While we do not have this pair trade on per se, as a reminder we are overweight the energy sector and underweight health care stocks; we are also overweight financials and underweight tech (please see page 14 for a complete picture of our current sector recommendations). Table 2Sector Composition With regard to macro variables, these sector preferences would equate to a positive interest rate and oil price correlation. Indeed, the 10-year Treasury yield moves in lockstep with the V/G ratio and similarly oil prices are joined at the hip with relative performance (Chart 9). Chart 8Value/Growth Replicas Chart 9Rising Oil And Rates = Buy Value / Sell Growth One of BCA's themes for 2018 is higher interest rates, with our bond strategists still expecting an inflation-driven rise in the 10-year Treasury yield near 3%. Similarly, BCA' commodity strategists remain constructive on oil prices. Taken together, these BCA views warrant a value over growth preference. Importantly, since the depths of the GFC, value has underwhelmed growth by a wide margin. Likely, this growth over value preference reflected central bank interest rate suppression, which boosted the multiple investors were willing to pay for perceived growth at a time when growth was scarce. Now that the Fed has lifted rates five times since December 2015 and is on track to do so three more times this year, value should take the reins (Chart 10). Moreover, the Fed is unwinding its balance sheet and that tightening in monetary conditions, at the margin, favors value over growth (Chart 11). Chart 10Avoid Growth Stocks During Fed Tightening Cycles... Chart 11...And During Quantitative Tightening On the currency front, the V/G ratio has had a tight positive correlation with the EUR/USD foreign exchange rate (Chart 12). Once again sector composition has been underpinning this relationship. However, sector composition is constantly shifting. Currently, a larger percentage of growth stocks have international sales (especially tech) compared with more domestically-oriented value stocks. Thus, the depreciating U.S. dollar is a risk to our value over growth preference On the operating metric front, value stocks have the upper hand versus their growth siblings. Our relative composite pricing power gauge has swung by eight percentage points from trough-to-peak and heralds a deflation exit for relative top line growth (middle panel, Chart 13). Chart 12Depreciating U.S. Dollar Is ##br##Typically A Boon To The V/G Ratio Chart 13Relative Pricing Power ##br##Favors Value Over Growth Sell-side analysts have taken notice and have been aggressively bumping their net earnings revisions in favor of value versus growth indexes. As mentioned earlier, rising oil price inflation and better credit pricing power are a boon to V/G profit prospects (bottom panel, Chart 13). Valuations and technicals also suggest that investors should overweight value at the expense of growth. Our relative Valuation Indicator (VI) has recently sunk to a level last hit in the early-2000s, approaching one standard deviation below the historical mean. Similarly, the V/G ratio is oversold and our relative Technical Indicator (TI) has fallen to a level that has marked previous bull market phases (Chart 14). Finally, over the past thirty years V/G price moves have been a mirror image of both junk bond yields and vol. In other words, a value over growth preference has been synonymous with a "risk on" backdrop (junk yield and the VIX shown inverted, Chart 15). However, these close correlations appear to have broken down since the Great Recession as the Fed's unconventional monetary policies functioned well in keeping a lid on vol and suppressing bond yields across the fixed income spectrum. Chart 14Value Vs Growth Stocks Are Cheap And Oversold Chart 15Bet On Convergence As the Fed winds down its balance sheet there are good odds that volatility will make a comeback and interest rates will also shoot higher. The upshot is that these inverse correlations get reestablished in the coming quarters via a rise in the V/G ratio, an increase in vol and a selloff in the junk corporate bond market (Chart 15). Adding it up, relative sector composition, the macro backdrop, relative operating metrics along with a compelling VI reading and our washed out TI suggest that a value over growth style bias is warranted. Bottom Line: Boost value stock exposure at the expense of growth equities. The V/G ratio offers an excellent entry point with limited downside risk. Book Profits In Small Caps Vs. Large Caps And Move To The Sidelines In August 2016, we recommended a small over large cap (S/L) bias, predating the Trump election victory, on the back of five key drivers: non-inflationary growth would persist allowing central banks to stay incredibly accommodative, emerging market tail risks had eased taming equity market vol, small/large sector composition differentials, relative EPS fundamentals and restored relative valuations. Given that most of these factors have moved in favor of small versus large caps and some are starting to shift against the S/L ratio, does it still pay to have a small cap size bias? The short answer is no, and we now recommend investors book profits and move to the sidelines. While the euphoric tailwind surrounding the new administration and its promise to slash red tape and taxes tripped us up and we failed to monetize 10%+ gains, better late than never. First, from a big picture perspective, the near two decade S/L outperformance phase is running on fumes and it has likely put in a secular top in late-2016 (Chart 16). Similar to the style bias, this ratio also tends to move in long cycles. We are clearly in extended territory hovering at one standard deviation above the historical time trend. Chart 16Major Top? Second, interest rates bear close attention. Rising interest rates on the back of an inflationary impulse is BCA's view for the coming year and, coupled with the yield curve narrowing, are a harbinger of small cap trouble. Chart 17 shows the tight positive correlation between the S/L ratio and the yield curve, and the current message is to avoid small caps. Small caps are mostly domestically exposed and are ultra-sensitive to interest rate moves as small and medium businesses rely more heavily on their bankers for credit, rather than debt markets. When the yield curve flattens late in the cycle it is typically because the Fed is aggressively tightening monetary policy. While such a monetary backdrop is neither conducive to small nor to large firms, small caps suffer more, at the margin. Third, we are perplexed by the lack of profit growth in the small cap complex. It has now been over a year since Trump came into power and small cap EPS underperformance has been extremely prominent (top panel, Chart 18). The 12-month forward profit growth delta has also widened considerably over the past year to the detriment of small caps (middle panel, Chart 18). While the U.S. dollar's sizable depreciation explains part of the profit divergence, i.e. as the currency falls foreign sales exposed large caps enjoy a significant translation gain, relative indebtedness is also likely playing a key role. The bottom panel of Chart 19 shows the net debt-to-EBITDA ratio for the small cap and large cap indexes. The relative ratio has gone parabolic and is making all-time highs. Rising small cap indebtedness, at a time when cash flow growth is anemic, suggests that the S&P 600 is increasingly vulnerable. Not only are interest payments eating into income, but also refinancing risk is a threat in an era of rising interest rates. Under such a backdrop, small cap stocks should not trade at a valuation premium (bottom panel, Chart 18). Chart 17Yield Curve Blues Chart 18Small Cap Profit Trouble Chart 19Mind The Small Cap Indebtedness Bottom Line: The time is ripe to take profits of 2% and move to the sidelines in the capitalization bias. Were our indicators to further deteriorate, we would not hesitate to fully reverse course and prefer large to small caps. Stay tuned. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "White Paper: Introducing Our U.S. Equity Sector Earnings Models," dated January 16, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "White Paper: U.S. Equity Market Indicators (Part I)," dated August 7, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Top 5 Reasons To Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives," dated October 16, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "EPS And 'Nothing Else Matters'," dated December 18, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 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 and stay neutral small over large caps.