Economy

Highlights Global "Low-flation" Vs. Oil Reflation: Investors who believe that inflation is dead will be surprised by the breakout of global oil prices in 2018 toward the mid-$60 level anticipated by our commodity strategists. This will help drag both realized and expected inflation higher across the developed world. Fed Tightening Vs. Trump Easing: The trade-off between a full-employment Trump fiscal stimulus and a slowly tightening Federal Reserve next year will first result in higher inflation expectations and a bear-steepening Treasury curve, and eventually lead to more aggressive rate hikes and a bear-flattening curve later in 2018 Strong Growth Vs. Modest Inflation In Europe: The ECB will signal a reduction in the pace of its asset purchases this week, in response to the continued strength of the Euro Area economy. Current moderate rates of inflation will not derail a "taper", but will be enough to push off any ECB interest rate hike until late 2019. Feature The bull market in global risk assets continued last week, with the S&P 500 hitting yet another all-time record and other major bourses in both Developed Markets and Emerging Markets hitting multi-year highs. This is a sensible reflection of the strength and persistence of the current coordinated global economic upturn, which is boosting corporate profit growth worldwide. At the same time, the health of the current expansion has dampened risk-aversion among investors. This is helping to keep market volatility at depressed levels with only modest changes expected for both inflation and monetary policy. Yet there are storms brewing on the horizon that have the potential to shake up this low-volatility, risk-seeking backdrop. Specifically, a potentially less stable outlook for global inflation, amidst uncertainty over the direction of fiscal policy in the U.S. and monetary policy at the Fed and European Central Bank (ECB), could pose a threat to the current Goldilocks environment for risk assets (Chart of the Week). In this Weekly Report, we discuss some macroeconomic "trade-offs" that investors will have to grapple with over the next 6-12 months, and how to position bond portfolios accordingly. Chart of the WeekMarkets Not Worried About The Fed Or ECB Trade-Off #1: "Low-flation" Vs. Rising Oil Prices Chart 2Global Inflation Pressures Are Slowly Building Realized inflation data across the major developed economies is showing no imminent threat of breaching, or even just reaching, central bank targets. This is occurring despite a robust, coordinated global economic expansion that is generating some of the fastest growth rates seen since the Great Recession. With nearly ¾ of the countries in the OECD now with unemployment rates below the estimates of the full employment NAIRU, subdued inflation readings remain a puzzle for both investors and policymakers (Chart 2). The term "low-flation" has been used to describe this backdrop of inflation rates remaining low seemingly regardless of what is happening with growth. Bond investors have reacted to this by keeping market-based inflation expectations at levels below central bank inflation targets, suggesting a potential problem with the credibility of policymakers. Yet a fresh challenge to the low-flation thesis will soon come from the global oil markets. Last week, our colleagues at BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy upgraded their oil price targets for the fourth quarter of 2017 and all of 2018.1 Their estimates for global oil demand were revised upward based on the improving economic momentum, as evidenced by the IMF recently boosting its own forecasts for world GDP growth to 3.6% for all of 2017 and 3.7% for 2018. Combined with continued discipline on output from the so-called "OPEC 2.0" coalition of Russia & Saudi Arabia - currently responsible for 22% of the world's oil production - the global oil market is expected to see demand exceeding supply until late 2018 (Chart 3). The positive demand/supply balance should lead the Brent oil price benchmark to average just over $65/bbl in 2018 (Table 1), which would be a 13% increase from current levels. This is a move that global bond markets are likely to notice, given the strong correlation that still exists between market-based inflation expectations and oil prices in the developed economies. Chart 3A Positive Fundamental Backdrop For Oil Table 1Upgrading The BCA Oil Price Forecasts In Charts 4 & 5, we show the market-based pricing on inflation expectations at the 10-year maturity for the U.S. (using TIPS breakevens), the U.K., Germany, Japan, Canada and Australia (using CPI swaps). For each country, we also show the Brent oil price denominated in local currency terms. We add one additional data point to the charts, shown as an asterisk, incorporating the 2018 average Brent oil price expectation converted at current exchange rates versus the U.S. dollar. As can be seen, the higher oil price that our commodity strategists are expecting should act to put upward pressure on the inflation expectations component of government bond yields in the major developed markets. Chart 4Upward Pressure On Inflation Expectations ... Chart 5... From Higher Oil Prices In 2018 Of course, the unchanged currency assumption made in Charts 4 & 5 is unrealistic. Yet given the significant increase in oil prices that we are expecting next year (+13%), it is also unrealistic to expect enough currency appreciation in any country to fully offset the inflationary impact from oil. In fact, given the BCA view that the U.S. dollar should enjoy one last cyclical boost next year as the Fed delivers more rate hikes than the market is currently discounting, inflation expectations may actually rise by more than we are showing in our charts in non-U.S. countries (given that oil is priced in U.S. dollars). In Table 2, we show the forecast for the local-currency Brent oil price for 2018 and the date that oil prices were last at that level in each country (all in 2015 after the cyclical peak in oil prices that began in 2014). We also present the data on 10-year government bond yields, the 2-year/10-year slope of yield curves, market-based inflation expectations, and realized headline and core inflation rates for the major developed economies. We show the current levels for all those variables, plus the levels that prevailed the last time oil was at the levels we are forecasting. The major differences that stand out are: Table 2Bond Markets Now Vs. The Last Time Oil Prices Were In The Mid-$60s Yield levels are not dramatically different than where they were in 2015 in the U.S., Canada and Australia, but are lower now in the U.K., Euro Area and Japan thanks to central bank asset purchase programs. Yield curves are much flatter now in the U.S., U.K., Canada and Japan, but are steeper in the Euro Area and Australia. Market-based inflation expectations now are very close to the levels that prevailed in 2015, except in Japan where they are much lower. Headline inflation rates are much higher now everywhere except Australia, while core inflation rates are a lot higher in the U.K., a touch higher in the U.S. and Euro Area, and lower everywhere else. The conclusion from Table 2 is that there is potential for bond yields to rise as oil prices head higher in the U.S., U.K. and Euro Area given that inflation expectations are at the same levels as 2015 but realized inflation rates are higher. This would suggest that owning inflation protection in these countries is a sensible way to play the "low-flation vs. oil reflation" trade-off - trades that we already have in place in our Tactical Trade Overlay by being long Euro Area CPI swaps and owning U.S. TIPS versus nominal U.S. Treasuries and (see table on page 16). We are reluctant to add U.K. inflation protection to this list, however, and may even look to go the other way given the likelihood that the currency-fueled surge in U.K. inflation is in the process of peaking out. In sum, bond markets will be unable to ignore a combination of strong global growth (still called for by rising global leading economic indicators), tightening labor markets and rising oil prices in 2018. As investors come to grips with oil trading with a 60-handle for the first time since 2015, inflation expectations should widen out in all developed market countries that are at, or beyond, full employment. This should put upward pressure on nominal bond yields as well, and potentially trigger bear-steepening of yield curves if central banks do not respond to higher oil-driven inflation with a faster tightening of monetary policy. Bottom Line: Investors who believe that inflation is dead will be surprised by the breakout of global oil prices in 2018 toward the mid-$60 level anticipated by our commodity strategists. This will help drag both realized and expected inflation higher across the developed world. Trade-Off #2: Fed Tightening Vs. Trump Easing Last Friday, the U.S. Senate passed President Trump's budget plan by the slimmest of margins (51 to 49), allowing for an increase in federal deficits of up to $1.5 trillion over the next decade. Trump immediately put pressure on the U.S. House of Representatives to also pass the Senate plan, and the initial comments from House Republican leadership was that they would also endorse the Senate budget proposal which included significant tax cuts for corporations and some households. This is unsurprising given that the Republicans need a major, economy-boosting legislative victory to present to voters in next year's U.S. Midterm elections. The U.S. Treasury market responded to this news on Friday in a fashion that we believe to be sensible - the curve bear-steepened, with the 2-year/30-year spread widening 4bps on the day. We have written about the interaction between budget deficits, Fed policy and the slope of the Treasury curve in past Weekly Reports this year, most recently at the beginning of this month.2 Chart 6 is taken from that most recent report, and we feel that it is important to go through our logic once again after last week's events. Chart 6UST Curve: Bear-Steepener First, Bear-Flattener Later The Treasury curve typically steepens during periods when the U.S. federal budget deficit is widening (top panel). The Treasury curve is typically negatively correlated to the real fed funds rate, steepening when the real rate is falling and vice versa. Budget deficits usually are widening during periods of soft economic growth, when tax receipts are slowing and counter-cyclical fiscal spending is increasing. This is also typically correlated to periods when spare capacity in the U.S. economy is opening up and inflation pressures are diminishing (middle panel), hence giving the Fed cover to lower interest rates and putting steepening pressure on the Treasury curve. The current backdrop is atypical, as a fiscal stimulus is being proposed at a time when the economy is already at full employment with little sign of slowing. At the same time, the Fed is in a tightening cycle - albeit a slow one because of relatively subdued inflation - which usually does not occur during periods of widening budget deficits. This represents another difficult "trade-off" for investors to process. A so-called "full employment" fiscal stimulus should be inflationary at the margin, by definition, if it boosts economic growth to an above-potential pace. That would steepen the Treasury curve as longer-term inflation expectations rise, until the Fed steps in with rate hikes to offset the impact of the fiscal stimulus. If the Fed felt that the greater fiscal deficit was becoming a problem for medium-term inflation stability, then there could be a faster pace of rate hikes that would boost the real funds rate and put flattening pressure on the Treasury curve. A more straightforward way to describe that would be a scenario where the Trump tax cuts end up boosting U.S. real GDP growth to something close to 3% next year, which results in the U.S. unemployment rate falling to a "3-handle". This would likely put upward pressure on U.S. realized inflation and steepen the Treasury curve as the market prices in higher inflation - IF the Fed is slow to respond to that inflation pickup. When inflation rises by enough to threaten the Fed's 2% inflation target, perhaps even rising above that level, then the Fed would step in with more rate hikes. The result: a higher real fed funds rate and a flatter Treasury curve. That scenario is how we envision the next year playing out. Various FOMC members have already noted that they cannot account for any fiscal stimulus in their economic projections until they see the details. Furthermore, many members of the FOMC are expressing concern that the downdraft in inflation was enough of a surprise to raise questions about the Fed's understanding of the underlying inflation process. This suggests that the Fed will want to see inflation, both realized and expected, rise first before increasing the pace of rate hikes beyond current projections. Net-net, we see the Trump fiscal stimulus steepening the Treasury curve in 2018 before the Fed flattens it with tighter monetary policy. One caveat for the latter is the upcoming decision on the next Fed Chair. President Trump, ever the reality game show host, noted last week that the finalists for this season's episode for "The Apprentice: FOMC" are now down to Jerome Powell, John Taylor and current Chair Janet Yellen. Both Powell and, of course, Yellen would represent a continuation of the current cautious FOMC framework, while Taylor would likely be more hawkish given his public comments on Fed policy decisions (and the output of his own Taylor Rule!). If Taylor were to be appointed by Trump as the new Fed Chair, the Treasury curve may not steepen much on the back of fiscal easing if the markets begin to discount a more aggressive Fed. Bottom Line: The trade-off between a full-employment Trump fiscal stimulus and a slowly tightening Federal Reserve next year will first result in higher inflation expectations and a bear-steepening Treasury curve, and eventually lead to more aggressive rate hikes and a bear-flattening curve later in 2018. Trade-Off #3: Strong European Growth Vs. Mild Inflation The ECB meets later this week, and is expected to make a decision on the size and scope of its asset purchase program for next year and beyond. The latest Bloomberg survey of economists is calling for a cut in the monthly pace of asset purchases from €60bn/month to €30bn/month, but with an extension of the program until September 2018.3 The same survey calls for the ECB to deliver a hike in the deposit rate in Q1/2019, with a hike in the benchmark interest rate in Q2/2019. We agree with the former, although we think there will be no rate hikes of any kind until the 4th quarter of 2019, at the earliest. Chart 7Why Would The ECB NOT Taper? The trade-off between robust European growth and still modest rates of core inflation are the reason we expect the ECB to be very late to begin hiking policy rates after the asset purchase program is completed. It is clear from a variety of data, from almost all countries in the Euro Area, that the economy is expanding at a robust, above-potential pace (Chart 7). Headline inflation has increased steadily off the 2015 lows and now sits at 1.5%, still below the ECB's target of "just below 2%". The ECB has played down this pickup in inflation, given that is has largely been driven by the rise in oil prices since the 2015 lows. There is certainly a strong correlation between the annual change of oil prices (denominated in euros) and Euro Area headline inflation (middle panel), and the ECB expects fading oil price momentum to result in Euro Area headline inflation drifting back to 1% in early 2018. Yet the oil price increase that our commodity strategists are calling for next year would boost the year-over-year growth rate to a pace around 40%, which has in the past been consistent with 2% headline inflation outcomes. A rising euro would help mitigate the impact from oil, but as mentioned earlier, we see more potential for some modest depreciation of the euro versus the U.S. dollar after the run-up seen in 2017. Despite the pickup in headline inflation already underway, core inflation in Europe remains benign at 1.1%. Our measure of the "breadth" of the rise in core inflation across 75 individual subsectors - the Euro Area core inflation diffusion index - sits right around the "50 line" suggesting that just as many components of Euro Area core inflation are rising as are falling. Yet with broad Euro Area unemployment approaching 8%, and with some measures of wage inflation starting to awake as a result, the odds are increasing that continued strong growth will result in additional upward momentum in core inflation. The ECB is already forecasting a return of core inflation to 1.9% in 2019, which is why some reduction in the pace of asset purchases will be announced this week. The entire asset purchase program was only put in place in 2015 to fight a deflation threat after oil prices collapsed in 2014, and that has now passed with inflation steadily grinding higher. So the "trade-off" for investors in Europe, between strong growth and moderate inflation, will be resolved by the ECB shifting to a less-accommodative monetary policy stance. In terms of the impact on Euro Area bond yields, however, the change in the pace of bond buying matters even more than the size of the asset purchases. In Chart 8, we show the ECB's monetary base and three scenarios for how it will evolve through asset purchases until the end of 2018: Base Case: The ECB slows the pace of bond buying to €30bn/month starting in January 2018 until September 2018, then cuts that down to €15bn/month for the remainder of 2018 and stops the program completely at year-end. Dovish Scenario: The pace of bond buying is maintained at €60bn/month until the end of 2018, with no commitment to end the program then. Hawkish Scenario: The ECB tapers its purchases by €10bn/month for the first six months of next year, then ends the program in July 2018. In the bottom two panels of Chart 8, we show the year-over-year growth rate of the ECB's balance sheet, with those three scenarios, and compare them to the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield and our estimate of the German term premium. In all three scenarios, even the dovish one where the ECB keeps on buying at the current pace, the growth rate of the monetary base will decelerate in 2018. As can be seen in the chart, that growth rate has been highly correlated to yields and the term premium during the life of the ECB's asset purchase program. The conclusion here is that central bank asset purchase programs need to increase in size versus previous years to maintain the same impact on bond yields over time. Put another way, asset purchases represent a signaling mechanism ("forward guidance") from a central bank to the markets about future changes in interest rates when they are already at the zero bound. Increasing the size of the purchases sends a more powerful message than simply keeping the pace of buying unchanged. This is especially true if the underlying economy is growing and inflation is rising, which would typically cause investors to price in a higher expected path of interest rates into the government bond yield curve. So, unless the ECB takes the highly unlikely step of increasing the size of its asset purchases for next year, then there are no outcomes from this week's ECB meeting that should be expected to be sustainably bullish for longer-dated European government bonds. At the same time, there will be no signals given on future changes in short-term interest rates, as the ECB has maintained for some time that rates will not be touched until "some time" after the asset purchase program has ended (Q4/2019, in our view). Hence, Euro Area yield curves are likely to eventually see some bear-steepening pressure on the back of this week's ECB meeting. The story is similar for Peripheral European government bonds and Euro Area investment grade corporate credit. In Chart 9, we show the same growth rates of the ECB monetary base with our scenario projections versus the 10-year Italy-Germany spread, 10-year Spain-Germany spread, 10-year Portugal-Germany spread and the Barclays Bloomberg Euro Area Investment Grade corporate spread. While the correlations are not as clear as that for German yields, a slower pace of ECB asset purchases would be consistent with some spread widening in Peripheral European and in corporate credit. Chart 8ECB Bond Buying:##BR##Watch The Pace, Not The Level Chart 9European Credit Spreads##BR##Set To Widen Post-ECB? Bottom Line: The ECB will signal a reduction in the pace of its asset purchases this week, in response to the continued strength of the Euro Area economy. Current moderate rates of inflation will not derail a "taper", but will be enough to push off any ECB interest rate hike until late 2019. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten", dated October 19th 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Case For Steeper Yield Curves", dated October 3rd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-22/draghi-seen-going-for-ecb-bond-buying-limit-in-qe-s-last-hurrah The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Yield Curve & TIPS: To avoid policy failure the Fed must allow inflation to reach its 2% target before the onset of the next recession. This means it will soon fall behind the inflation curve. Treasury curve steepeners and TIPS breakeven wideners will benefit. Inflation: The current cycle looks very similar to the cycle of the late 1990s. In both cases the unemployment rate fell far below its natural level before inflation started to accelerate. Almost all of the indicators that predicted the 1999 increase in inflation are currently sending strong positive signals. Credit Spreads: Spreads are tight across the entire credit spectrum, but risk-adjusted value is most attractive in the Caa, B and Baa credit tiers. Feature Chart 1Low Inflation + Flat Curve = Policy Mistake In the 12 months leading up to August, headline PCE inflation came in at 1.43% and core PCE inflation was a mere 1.29%. Both readings are well short of the Fed's 2% target. At the same time, the 2/10 Treasury curve is only 79 basis points away from inversion (Chart 1). The combination of low inflation and a flat yield curve suggests that, despite below-target inflation, the market views Fed policy as relatively restrictive. This situation is not sustainable. The Fed must, and will, fall behind the curve. An inverted yield curve represents the market's expectation that the Fed will be forced to cut interest rates in the future. As such, it has an excellent track record as a recession indicator. Now consider a situation where the yield curve inverts with inflation never having re-gained the Fed's target. The Fed would have tightened the yield curve into inversion, and the economy into recession, without having achieved its inflation goal. This is the most striking example of monetary policy failure that we can dream up, and unless we witness a trend change in either inflation or the slope of the curve, it is an outcome we are likely to face. Of course we do not think the above scenario will actually come to pass. In fact, our investment strategy hinges on the premise that the Fed would never abide such an outcome. This means that one of two things will occur in the coming months: Inflation will rebound and the Fed will be able to fall behind the curve while still delivering a pace of rate hikes similar to its median expectation - one more hike this year and three more next year. Inflation will remain low and the Fed will be forced to fall behind the curve by reneging on its forecasted rate hike path. These two possibilities are illustrated by looking at the real fed funds rate (deflated by core PCE inflation) alongside the popular Laubach-Williams estimate of its equilibrium level (Chart 2). In the Fed's policy framework the real interest rate must stay below equilibrium for inflation to rise. Likewise, if the Fed lifts the real interest rate above equilibrium it is because it wants inflation to fall. What is clear from Chart 2 is that one more rate hike with no improvement in inflation will move monetary policy into restrictive territory. Our contention is that the Fed will ensure that monetary policy remains accommodative (i.e. it will remain behind the curve) until inflation returns to the 2% target. Chart 2Too Close To Neutral Investment Implications Chart 3Yield Curve & Breakevens Move Together The first corollary of the above proposition is that the Fed will need strong conviction that inflation is poised to move higher before it delivers another rate hike. Chair Yellen is clinging to this notion for now: My best guess is that these soft readings will not persist, and with the ongoing strengthening of labor markets, I expect inflation to move higher next year. Most of my colleagues on the FOMC agree.1 We would also agree that inflation will be strong enough going forward for the Fed to justify a rate increase in December and several more next year (see section titled "Party Like It's 1999?" below). This is the main reason we continue to advocate a below-benchmark duration stance. But while our duration call will suffer if inflation does not rise as we expect, our recommendations to position for a steeper yield curve and wider long-maturity TIPS breakeven rates will pan out as long as the Fed falls behind the curve. If we accept the premise that the Fed must hit its inflation target before inverting the yield curve, then it will keep rates low enough for long enough to achieve that goal. This means that long-dated TIPS breakevens will necessarily return to their target range between 2.4% and 2.5% by the time that core inflation returns to target, and that the yield curve will steepen alongside the widening in breakevens (Chart 3). If the deflationary pressure in the economy turns out to be stronger than we anticipate, then it simply means that a slower pace of rate hikes will be required to get inflation back to target. The way to position for this outcome on a medium-term horizon is via lower real yields (Chart 3, panel 2), not tighter TIPS breakevens or a flatter yield curve. A Fed that is behind the curve is also a key support for our overweight allocation to investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds. Even though valuations have become very expensive (see section titled "Risk-Adjusted Value In Corporate Credit" below), a sustained period of spread widening would likely require a more restrictive monetary policy, one more concerned with dragging inflation lower than with propping it up. Chart 4Tax Cuts Would Steepen The Curve Political Risk There are two looming political decisions that will impact both our view on how quickly inflation will trend higher and our view on whether the Fed will indeed fall behind the curve. On the inflation front, if President Trump's tax cut plan becomes law, then the resulting fiscal stimulus will almost certainly speed up the return of inflation to target. The market has figured this out and already we observe a correlation between the slope of the yield curve, long-maturity TIPS breakevens and the relative performance of a basket of highly-taxed stocks (Chart 4). Our geopolitical strategists remain optimistic that stimulative tax legislation will be passed early next year, but note that if the Democratic party wins the upcoming Alabama senate election (to be held December 12), then there may not be enough votes in the Senate to push a tax plan through.2 The second important political decision will be the appointment of a new Fed Chair. President Trump will announce his pick within the next two weeks, and the President has suggested that the race has been winnowed down to three candidates - current Fed Chair Janet Yellen, current Fed Governor Jerome Powell and Stanford University economist John Taylor. Ex-Fed Governor Kevin Warsh could also still be in the running, although he was not specifically named by the President last week (Table 1). Table 1Top 4 Fed Chair Candidates Of those four candidates, both Yellen and Powell would maintain the status quo at the Fed. Neither would threaten our view that the Fed will fall behind the curve on inflation. Taylor or Warsh, on the other hand, could both push for a faster pace of tightening. As Fed Chairman, Professor Taylor - of Taylor Rule fame - would certainly look to adopt a more rules-based monetary policy. In all likelihood this would involve structuring policy decisions around a chosen policy rule, with the Fed justifying any deviations from that rule. His views on the current speed of Fed tightening are not as well known, but he has been critical of the Fed's zero interest rate policy in the past and has spoken favorably about several policy rules that all suggest higher interest rates than are currently observed. Similarly, Kevin Warsh has suggested that the Fed should target inflation between 1% and 2%, rather than the current symmetric 2% target. Taken at face value, this change in target would suggest a more hawkish reaction function. A John Taylor or Kevin Warsh chairmanship would call into question our key premise that the Fed will fall behind the curve, and would likely cause the Treasury curve to bear-flatten in the immediate aftermath of the appointment. Bottom Line: To avoid policy failure the Fed must allow inflation to reach its 2% target before the onset of the next recession. This means it will soon fall behind the inflation curve. Treasury curve steepeners and TIPS breakeven wideners will benefit. Party Like It's 1999? This year's downtrend in core inflation has caused many to question whether it will ever rise again. Many are questioning whether the Phillips curve relationship between tighter labor markets and rising wage growth still holds, and even Janet Yellen is starting to wonder if the Fed is missing something: [O]ur framework for understanding inflation dynamics could be misspecified in some way. For example, global developments - perhaps technological in nature, such as the tremendous growth of online shopping - could be helping to hold down inflation in a persistent way in many countries.3 We would note, however, that this is not the first time it has taken longer than expected for cyclical inflation pressures to emerge despite a tight labor market. Consider that in the late 1990s the unemployment rate fell below its natural rate in April 1997, but inflation did not move meaningfully higher until mid-1999 (Chart 5). Chart 5The Current Cycle Looks Very Much Like The 1990s A strong dollar and negative import price shock certainly contributed to low inflation in the late 1990s, and this has also been true in the current cycle. The de-synchronized nature of the global recovery caused the dollar to surge in 2014 and 2015, much like in 1997 (Chart 6). In the late 1990s, it was only after the global recovery became more synchronized in 1999 that U.S. inflation started to respond to tight labor markets. In the current cycle, the synchronized global recovery only started in the middle of last year. Chart 6An Import Price Shock Kept Inflation Low In The 1990s And Today We identified several variables that led inflation higher in 1999. Chart 7 shows these variables from the late 1990s lined up with their readings from the current cycle. The cycles are aligned to when the unemployment rate fell below its natural level, and the vertical line shows when prices started to accelerate in 1999. The variables that led inflation higher in the 1990s were: Chart 7Pipeline Measures Led Inflation In 1999 PPI Finished Goods inflation BCA Pipeline Inflation Indicator The New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge4 Corporate Price Deflator With the possible exception of the corporate price deflator, all of these variables are currently sending a strong signal that inflation is poised to rebound. Similar to 1999, we would expect the initial move higher in inflation to be met with wider long-maturity TIPS breakevens and a steeper yield curve. Notice that the 2/10 Treasury slope troughed at -5 bps in 1998, but steepened to +40 bps in early 1999 before starting to flatten again as the Fed ramped up its pace of tightening (Chart 5, panel 3). In the current cycle, we await that final steepening surge before the Fed gets more aggressive and flattens the curve once more. Bottom Line: The current cycle looks very similar to the cycle of the late 1990s. In both cases the unemployment rate fell far below its natural level before inflation started to accelerate. Almost all of the indicators that predicted the 1999 increase in inflation are currently sending strong positive signals. Risk-Adjusted Value In Corporate Credit In a recent report we noted that high-yield bond valuations were approaching all-time expensive levels.5 We concluded that with limited room for spread compression, but equally with no obvious catalyst for sustained spread widening, the high-yield market has essentially become a carry trade. This week we extend that analysis to consider each credit tier in both investment grade and high-yield bonds. Our goal is to see if any credit tiers have room for spread compression, or alternatively, which credit tiers offer the best risk-adjusted value. Unfortunately, the quick answer is that no credit tiers look cheap. In Chart 8 and Chart 9 we show 12-month breakeven spreads for each credit tier, scaled by their percentile rank relative to history. In other words, each chart shows the percentage of time that breakeven spreads for each credit tier have been lower than they are currently. The Aa-rated breakeven spread has been lower than it is today 15% of the time (Chart 8, panel 2), while the Aaa-rated breakeven spread has been lower than it is today only 1% of the time (Chart 8, panel 1). We use the breakeven spread - the spread widening required to earn zero excess return on a 12-month horizon - because it adjusts for the changing average duration of each bond index.6 For example, the average duration of the investment grade corporate bond index has increased during the past fifteen years. This means that a given spread level today looks less attractive than when the duration risk was lower. Chart 8 shows that there is very little room for investment grade spread compression. At the 15th percentile the Aa credit tier looks most attractive, while all other credit tiers rank below the 10th percentile. In Chart 9 we see that valuations get somewhat more compelling as we move down in quality. Ba-rated breakeven spreads have been lower 19% of the time, B-rated spreads have been lower 32% of the time and Caa-rated spreads have been lower 43% of the time. Chart 8Investment Grade Breakeven Spreads Chart 9High-Yield Breakeven Spreads The results in Table 2 generally confirm that the lowest credit tiers offer the best risk-adjusted value. That table shows a measure we call Days-To-Breakeven. This is a measure of the number of days of average spread widening required for each credit tier to earn zero excess return on a 12-month horizon. It is calculated as the 12-month breakeven spread divided by each sector's historical average daily spread change. It is an attempt to measure each sector's value after adjusting for differences in both duration and spread volatility. According to this measure, Caa-rated and B-rated junk offer the best risk-adjusted value, while Baa-rated corporates offer slightly better value than Ba-rated junk bonds. Table 2 also shows the amount of option-adjusted-spread (OAS) tightening required by each credit tier (at current duration levels) to reach all-time expensive valuations. For example, the Baa-rated index can undergo another 35 bps of OAS tightening before it reaches all-time lows according to its 12-month breakeven spread. We also scale this measure by each sector's historical average daily spread change to calculate a Days-To-Minimum measure, and once again the message is the same. The Caa-rated, B-rated and Baa-rated credit tiers offer the most compelling risk-adjusted value. Table 2Risk-Adjusted Value By Credit Tier It is unfortunate, though not surprising, that low quality sectors offer the best risk-adjusted value at this late stage of the credit cycle. Most fund managers have probably already started to scale back credit risk in preparation for the next recession. This is probably a prudent strategy given that even in the lower credit tiers excess returns will not be exceptional. We forecast excess returns between 2% and 5% for the overall High-Yield index. However, we also think that investors are relatively safe taking credit risk until inflationary pressures start to mount and the Fed's reaction function becomes less supportive. If inflation recovers as we expect, then we will likely start scaling back the credit risk in our recommended portfolio sometime next year in preparation for a recession in 2019. Bottom Line: Spreads are tight across the entire credit spectrum, but risk-adjusted value is most attractive in the Caa, B and Baa credit tiers. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Speech by Janet Yellen delivered October 15, 2017. https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20171015a.htm 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Why So Serious?", dated October 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Speech by Janet Yellen delivered October 15, 2017. https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20171015a.htm 4 The Underlying Inflation Gauge captures sustained movements in inflation from information contained in a broad set of price, real activity, and financial data. https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/underlying-inflation-gauge 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Living With The Carry Trade", dated October 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 We calculate the breakeven spread as option-adjusted spread divided by duration. For simplicity we ignore the impact of convexity. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Storms set a low bar for Q3 EPS. BCA's Beige Book Monitor near cycle highs despite storms. Investors should fade the Q3 housing weakness. Latest Survey Of Consumer Finances highlights student loan debt issue. Feature Chart 1Q3 GDP Growth Has Held Up##BR##Remarkably Well Despite Hurricane Impact U.S. equities hit fresh all-time highs again last week, undeterred by the downward adjustment in Q3 earnings estimates in part due to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Investors appear to be looking through any near-term hit to economic growth and profits. Trump's tax plan cleared a key hurdle in Congress and tax cuts would surely give the market a boost if they are eventually passed. Bond yields and the dollar edged higher on speculation that President Trump will choose John Taylor as the next Fed Chair, who many believe will be a hawk. While we agree that investors should look through the hurricane effects, we worry that equity markets appear increasingly frothy. While the storms will cast a shadow over the Q3 earnings reports, the economic data has held up remarkably well. At 2.7% and 1.5%, the Atlanta Fed GDP Now and New York Fed's Nowcast for Q3 have recouped nearly all the ground they lost in the immediate aftermath of the storms (Chart 1). The Fed's Beige Book revealed a stout underlying economy despite the most weather related disruptions since superstorm Sandy in 2012. The Beige Book and most of the other economic data released in the past few weeks, aside from the inflation data, support a December rate hike. Markets are pricing in a near 100% chance of a 25bps hike at the December 12-13 FOMC meeting. The impact of Harvey and Irma have also lowered expectations for housing and residential investment in Q3, but housing is poised to rebound in the coming quarters even if the Fed raises rates once this year and three more times as we expect next year. The Fed's latest Survey of Consumer Finances will raise more concern over student loan debt, but also show that households' low cash balances and elevated allocation to equities match consumers' elevated confidence readings. Q3 Earnings Outlook Clouded By Storms Hurricanes Harvey and Irma may temporarily undermine corporate profits in a few industries in the third quarter. The annual growth rate of the 4-quarter moving total was poised to peak anyway, given more demanding year-ago comparisons (Chart 2). Still, EPS growth is peaking at a high level and should decelerate only slowly through 2018 toward a level more commensurate with 3.5-4% nominal GDP growth. We thus expect the earnings backdrop to remain a tailwind for the equity market, albeit a smaller tailwind. This forecast excludes any positive impact on growth from tax cuts. The announcement of tax cuts would be positive for EPS and the S&P 500 price index in the short term, although this would also bring forward Fed rate hikes. Rising oil prices are turbocharging earnings in the energy patch and we expect this to continue. Indeed, BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service raised its 2018 target price for both Brent and WTI last week to $65.15/bbl and $62.95/bbl, respectively. These estimates are up by $5.51 and $5.98/bbl from our forecast last month.1 The soft industrial production readings in September would be a concern for BCA's profit forecast, absent the storms' impact (industrial production is included in our top-down EPS model). However, the Fed noted that "the continued effects of Hurricane Harvey and, to a lesser degree, the effects of Hurricane Irma combined to hold down the growth in total production in September by 1/4 percentage point. For the third quarter as a whole, industrial production fell 1.5 percent at an annual rate; excluding the effects of the hurricanes, the index would have risen at least 1/2 percent." Moreover, strong readings in September and October on both the New York and Philadelphia Fed's manufacturing indices imply that the aftermath of the storms did not extend beyond Texas and Florida, and suggest a rebound in IP in Q4. The elevated readings on the Cass Freight index in recent months support that view (Chart 3). Chart 2Strong EPS Growth Ahead,##BR##Will Start To Slow Soon Chart 3Storms Impacted IP In Q3 Bottom Line: The earnings season is underway and forecasts have collapsed to a mere 4.2% year-over-year growth rate for Q3. They were as high as 5.5% at the start of Q3. Financials are heavily weighing on the outlook and the sector's profits are expected to contract by 9%. While the insurance sub-sector may be behind the bulk of the negative EPS revisions owing to the hurricanes, such extreme pessimism is unwarranted and the bar is set extremely low for both financials and the overall market. Based on the September and October Beige Books, corporate managements will not be too concerned with the dollar during this earnings reporting season. The Beige Book: Beyond The Storms The Beige Book released on October 18 supports the Fed's stance that the hurricanes will not alter the U.S. economy's medium-term trajectory and will keep the Fed on track to boost rates by another 25 basis points in December. BCA's quantitative approach2 to the Beige Book's qualitative data points to underlying strength in GDP and a tighter labor market, but there is still a disconnect between the Beige Book's view of inflation and the market's stance. Moreover, the stronger dollar has disappeared from the Beige Book and despite the lack of progress in Washington on Trump's pro-business agenda, business uncertainty is down. In addition, the prospects for commercial and residential real estate remain bright. Chart 4Beige Book Monitors Support Fed's Outlook##BR##On Economy And Inflation At 63%, BCA's Beige Book Monitor stayed near its cycle highs in October, providing more confirmation that the underlying economy remained upbeat in Q3 despite Hurricanes Harvey and Irma (Chart 4). The latest Beige Book covered the period from mid-September to October 6. Hurricane Harvey hit Texas and Louisiana in late August while Irma made landfall in Florida in early September and moved on to neighboring southeastern states through mid-month. While there were only four mentions of "weather", "hurricane" was used 58 times and "storm" nine times. The total 71 puts the weather impact on the Beige Book at its highest since superstorm Sandy struck the northeastern U.S. in Q4 2012 (Chart 4, panel 2). Based on the Beige Book, the dollar should not be an issue in the Q3 or Q4 earnings seasons. The greenback is no longer a concern for small businesses and bankers, which is in sharp contrast to 2015 and early 2016 when there was a surge in Beige Book mentions of a strong dollar (Chart 4, panel 4). In October, there were no remarks at all. The past three Beige Books (July, September and October) have seen only a single reference to a stronger dollar. The last time that three consecutive Beige Books had so few mentions was in late 2014. Remarkably, business uncertainty over government policy (fiscal, regulatory and health) has moved lower in 2017. The implication is that the business community is ignoring the lack of progress by Washington policymakers on Trump's agenda (Chart 4, panel 5). Echoing the market's disagreement with the Fed on inflation, a significant discrepancy in the Beige Book was evident in the number of inflation words (Chart 4, panel 3). Expressions of inflation dipped to a 7-month low in October. However, a disconnect persists between the still-elevated mentions of inflation and the soft readings on CPI and PCE. In the past, increased references to inflation have led measured inflation by a few months, suggesting that the CPI and core PCE may soon turn up. Bottom Line: The recent Beige Book backs BCA's view that the hurricanes will not derail the economy. Indeed, the September reading on our Beige Book monitor in early October suggests that the economy rebounded smartly as the effects of the storms waned in late Q3 and early Q4. However, the Beige Book has done little to resolve the debate around why an economy growing above potential and a tightening labor market have not boosted inflation. Moreover, the October Beige Book all but warned investors to fade the Q3 weakness in the housing data. Housing Woes Continue In Q3 The weakness in residential investment in Q3 is temporary and housing has not peaked for the cycle. The monthly data on housing in August and September were affected by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Housing starts for September were weaker than anticipated and below August's readings. Specifically, the 9% m/m drop in September's starts in the South followed the 5% drop in August. Existing home sales posted a modest month-over-month gain in September after a three month decline. Nonetheless, October's 68 reading on homebuilder sentiment was four points above September's reading and the highest since May (Chart 5). Rising rates are not a threat to housing affordability, even if the Fed is able to lift rates in line with its dot plot. Chart 6 shows the influence of higher rates on housing affordability and effective mortgage rates under two scenarios. A 200-basis point increase in mortgage rates (Chart 6, panel 1) would push the housing affordability index below its long-term average for the first time in nine years. BCA assigns a low probability to a rate jump given the Fed's commitment to gradually increase rates. A more plausible path for mortgage rates in the next year is a 100bps rise (Chart 6, panel 3). Under this scenario, the affordability index would deteriorate, but remain a tailwind for housing. Chart 5Solid Housing##BR##Fundamentals In Place Chart 6Housing Affordability Under##BR##Various Rate Assumptions The historically low reading on Bloomberg's Housing and Real Estate Surprise Index also suggests that housing is poised to rebound in the coming quarters (Chart 7). The last time that the index was as low as the -1.2 reading in mid-October was in late 2013 amid the taper tantrum, and prior to that in late 2008/early 2009. Moreover, the gap between Bloomberg's overall Economic Surprise Index and the Housing Surprise index has never been wider. Therefore, the weakness in the housing data is a weather-related anomaly. Chart 7Big Disconnect Between Housing Surprise And Economic Surprise It is important to assess whether residential investment has peaked for the cycle. Since the early 1960s, a crest in housing provided seven quarters of warning before a downturn commenced.3 While housing's contribution to overall economic growth plunged in Q2 and Q3, we expect housing to provide fuel for the next few years as pent up demand is worked off from the depressed household formation rate since the 2008 financial crisis. Moreover, BCA does not anticipate that rising rates will be a serious threat to housing in the next 12 months. The implication from our upbeat view on housing is that the next recession is still several years away. Reliable leading indicators of a recession such as the LEI, the yield curve and the 26-week change in claims, are not signaling a downturn (Chart 8). BCA's recession model puts the probability in the next 12 months at a meager 2%. Only one of the eight components signal a downturn. Furthermore, neither the St. Louis Fed's nor the Atlanta Fed's recession indicators is in the danger zone. BCA does not expect a buildup in the types of imbalances that previously led to economic declines. Instead, a recession may be triggered by a Fed policy mistake,4 a terrorist attack that disrupts economic activity over a large area for an extended time, or a widespread natural disaster. Chart 8Odds Of A Recession In Next Year Remain Low Bottom Line: In the next 12 months, investors should remain positioned for stocks to outperform bonds and rising rates. While markets have entered a more dangerous late-cycle "blow off" phase,5 housing's contribution to GDP has not peaked for the cycle, which means that recession is still more than a year away. Housing will rebound in Q4 after an appalling performance in Q2 and Q3. A healthy housing market will continue to support the consumer. Surveying The Consumer Table 1Household Balance Sheets Prior##BR##To Recessions And Today The Fed's latest triennial Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) shows that the consumer is less sensitive to housing, holds less cash and more equities than in the past. However, the report also shows that households that own interests in small businesses may disproportionately benefit from the GOP's corporate tax cut proposal. The SCF data supply a detailed examination of consumer health, not provided by the macro data. Nonetheless, key household- and consumer-related spending, which are saving- and balance sheet-related concepts in the SCF, closely track similar statistics in the macro datasets such as the Flow of Funds and the NIPA accounts.6 Table 1 shows household balance sheets in 1989, 1998, 2007, a year or two before the recessions and bear markets of 1990, 2001 and 2008-2009. The latest (2016) is also shown. Households are more sensitive to business conditions than ever before. Households in 2016 hold less cash (as a percentage of financial assets) than in any other pre-recession year, while consumers' equity holdings are the highest on record. Consumers' mix of nonfinancial assets showed that while housing was still the largest single asset (42.4% in 2016), the share of household assets devoted to primary residences was the lowest on record. Vehicles were only 4.8% of a household's nonfinancial assets in 2016, a new low. In contrast, individuals' equity in business (34%) was the highest ever. The implication is that a plunge in housing prices would be as detrimental to consumers today as it was in the mid-2000s. Hence, households' higher exposure to business ventures suggests that a tax cut that favors small businesses over individuals may shore up household finances. Despite improvement in many areas of consumer finances, the household exposure to student loans in 2016 was alarmingly high (Table 2). On the surface, the SCF data do little to ease fears that student loans will compromise household balance sheets and lead to the next recession. The mean student loan debt per household in 2016 was $34,200, 37% higher than in 2007, and more than triple the 1989 level. While 22% of families had student debt in 2016, a slight improvement from 2013, only 9% of families had student debt in 1989. Moreover, educational debt accounts for 8% of household debt. While that figure is dwarfed by the 67% of family debt in housing, a scant 4% of family debt was related to student loans prior to the last recession in 2007.7 Furthermore, 42.6% of families with education debt report that they have student loan debt of more than $25,000, a sharp upsurge from 2007 and more than double the percentage reporting $25,000 or more in 1989.8 Table 2Nearly Half Of All Families With Education Debt Have Student Loan Debt Of At Least $25,000 That said, BCA's view remains that student debt is a modest drag on economic growth, and is not a threat to U.S. government finances nor does it represent the next subprime crisis.9 John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten," October 19, 2017. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Great Debate Continues", dated April 17, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Disconnected," September 11, 2017. 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, "The Late Cycle View," October 16, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 6 https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2015/files/2015086pap.pdf 7 Sourced from 1989-2016 Survey of Consumer Finances Database at https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scfindex.htm. Historic Tables - Table 16 - Amount of debt of all families, distributed by purpose of debt. 8 Jeffrey P. Thompson and Jesse Bricker, "Does Education Loan Debt Influence Household Financial Distress? An Assessment Using The 2007-09 SCF Panel," October 16, 2014, Federal Reserve. 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Student Loan Blues: Can't Replay What I Borrowed," November 2016. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Chinese growth will slow next year, but underlying momentum remains strong. Jerome Powell is the most likely choice for Fed chair. However, no matter who is selected, the general thrust of monetary policy will not change radically next year. The transatlantic interest rate spread is not particularly wide considering that the output gap is larger in the euro area, while the neutral rate and expected inflation are lower. U.S. growth should surprise on the upside over the next few quarters, as already evidenced by the rebound in the economic surprise index. This will give the Fed greater scope to raise rates. We expect EUR/USD to reach $1.15 by the end of the year. Feature China: Let's Get This Party Congress Started China's 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China kicked off this week. As widely expected, President Xi Jinping lauded the successes that China has enjoyed over the past few years in his opening speech, but cautioned that more must be done to reduce corruption, clean up the environment, and expedite market reforms.1 We expect Chinese growth to slow modestly in 2018 from the current above-trend pace, as the government pares back stimulus efforts. Nevertheless, the underlying trend in growth will remain reasonably solid. Chart 1 shows that real-time measures of economic activity such as electricity production, excavator sales, and railway freight traffic are all growing at a healthy pace. Despite the introduction of some tightening measures this spring, the housing market remains resilient. The share of households planning to buy a new home is close to record high levels, while the amount of land purchased by developers - a good leading indicator for housing starts - has continued to accelerate (Chart 2). Chinese property developer stocks have been on a tear this year, outperforming even the red-hot tech sector. With housing inventory levels at multi-year lows, home prices should stay firm. In the industrial sector, rampant producer price deflation last year has given way to modest inflation this year. This has boosted industrial profits, which should support corporate spending in the months ahead (Chart 3). Chart 1Chinese Economy: No Need To Be Pessimistic Chart 2Chinese Housing Market Remains Resilient Chart 3Boost In Industrial Profits Bodes Well For Corporate Spending Both money and credit growth surprised on the upside in September. As we have argued before, copious private-sector savings will forestall a credit crunch and, at least for the foreseeable future, permit the government to run large off-balance sheet budget deficits in an effort to support aggregate demand (Chart 4). Indeed, for all the talk about slowing credit growth, medium- and long-term bank lending to nonfinancial corporations - probably the best single measure of credit flows to the real economy - has continued to accelerate this year (Chart 5). Investors should continue to overweight Chinese stocks relative to the EM aggregate. Chart 4China's Fiscal Deficit Has Been Increasing Chart 5Credit To Real Economy Accelerating Musical (Fed) Chairs News reports indicate that President Trump has winnowed down the list of candidates for Fed chair to five individuals: Chief economic advisor Gary Cohn, current Fed Governor Jerome Powell, former governor Kevin Warsh, Stanford university economist John Taylor, and current chair Janet Yellen. We suspect that Cohn will not make the cut, given his apparent falling out with Trump following the President's remarks about the Charlottesville protests. Warsh and Taylor are likely to be seen as too hawkish. That just leaves Powell and Yellen. Chair Yellen's relatively dovish views on monetary policy would likely sit well with Trump, but she has two major strikes against her. One, she has generally been in favor of more financial sector regulation, which is anathema to Trump. Two, Trump accused her of abetting Hillary Clinton during the election campaign. Keeping her as Fed Chair (assuming she would actually want the job) might convey the message that he is no longer interested in shaking up the existing institutional order in Washington DC. This just leaves Powell as the default candidate, who reportedly has received the blessing of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The prevailing wisdom is that Powell is a moderate who is only slightly more hawkish than Yellen. But the truth is that we don't really know where he stands because he has no academic publication record and has generally steered clear of taking bold views on monetary policy. Such a potentially malleable mind may be exactly what Trump is seeking! Still, the organizational structure of the Fed makes it impossible for the chair to run roughshod over other FOMC members. This suggests that no matter who is selected, the general thrust of monetary policy will not change radically next year. Thoughts On The Transatlantic Yield Spread I have been visiting clients in Europe this week and questions about the relative stance of monetary policy between the U.S. and the euro area have come up in almost every meeting. The gap between U.S. and euro area rate expectations has narrowed since the start of the year, helping to push the euro higher. Nevertheless, most interest rate spreads remain elevated by historic standards. This has led many commentators to speculate that they will continue to shrink, putting further upward pressure on EUR/USD. For example, the U.S. 5-year Overnight Index Swap rate currently stands at 1.82%. This compares to only 0.02% in the euro area. The current level of spreads can be partly explained by the fact that labor market slack is still substantially higher in the euro area than in the U.S. Outside of Germany, labor underutilization is still 6.3 percentage points higher across the euro area than in 2008 (Chart 6). In contrast, our work suggests that the U.S. labor market has returned to full employment.2 Chart 6Euro Area: Labor Market Slack Still High Outside Of Germany This is not to say that transatlantic interest rate spreads won't narrow over the coming years. They will. But what matters for investors is how spreads evolve relative to market expectations. The market is already pricing in roughly 50 basis points of spread compression in five-year rates between now and 2022. If one looks further out to 2027, the spread in expected policy rates stands at 94 basis points.3 That may still seem like a lot, but keep in mind that inflation expectations in the euro area are well below those of the U.S. The CPI swap market is predicting that U.S. inflation will exceed euro area inflation by 67 basis points over the next decade. All things equal, lower inflation in the euro area implies that nominal interest rates should be lower there too. Moreover, many euro area government bond markets trade at a discount due to country-specific default/denomination risks. While these risks have faded, they have not gone away. As such, GDP-weighted euro area government bond yields - which are arguably what the ECB cares most about - are generally higher than swap rates of the same maturity. In Search Of Fair Value Chart 7The Neutral Rate Is Lower In The Euro Area A reasonable estimate is that the market currently sees the real terminal rate in the U.S. as being roughly 40 basis points higher than in the euro area. As it happens, this is almost identical to the gap in the neutral rate between the two regions that Williams, Laubach, and Holston have calculated (Chart 7). Does that mean that the current transatlantic spread is close to fair value? Not quite. One of things that has become apparent over the past eight years is that euro area membership comes at a high price. When countries such as Italy and Spain are hit by adverse economic shocks, they are limited in how they can respond. They cannot devalue their currency because they do not have a currency to devalue; and they cannot loosen fiscal policy for fear of being attacked by the bond vigilantes. All they can do is suffer from grinding deflation in the hopes of regaining competitiveness through weak wage growth. This means that over the long haul, unemployment in the euro area is likely to be above NAIRU more often than in the U.S. This, in turn, implies that euro area policy rates will, on average, be below their neutral value more often than in the U.S. Thus, even if the gap in the real neutral rate between the two regions were 40 basis points, the expected gap in policy rates should be larger than that. Modest Downside For EUR/USD The discussion above suggests that the transatlantic interest rate spread is not especially wide if one looks further out in time. If U.S. growth surprises on the upside over the coming months, while euro area growth flatlines, spreads will widen again. Such an outcome is, in fact, quite likely. U.S. financial conditions have eased significantly relative to those of the euro area since the start of the year (Chart 8). To the extent that changes in financial conditions lead growth by about 6-to-9 months, the U.S. could start outperforming the euro area as we enter 2018. The fact the Goldman's Sachs' U.S. Current Activity Indicator has hooked higher and the economic surprise index has rebounded smartly is early evidence that this process may have already begun (Chart 9). We see EUR/USD falling to 1.15 by the end of the year. Chart 8Diverging Financial Conditions ##br##Favor U.S. Over The Euro Area Chart 9Early Evidence That U.S. May ##br##Outperform Euro Area Next Year Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy / China Investment Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Secular Bottom In Inflation," dated July 28, 2017; and "What's the Matter With Wages?" dated August 11, 2017. 3 We estimate the expected policy rates ten years out by looking at one-month, 10-year forward OIS rates (i.e., the market's expectation of where one-month OIS rates will be ten years from today). Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights U.S. credit growth is set to improve as capex has more upside and households benefits from a positive backdrop. The U.S. has substantially more room to increase leverage than the rest of the G10, pointing toward further monetary divergences. The euro is not very cheap and is trading at a significant premium to forward rate differentials. It is thus at risk if U.S. rates can rise vis-à-vis Europe. Chinese underlying inflation is becoming elevated, which could prompt additional tightening by the PBoC. Moreover, Xi Jinping's speech this week suggests a move away from the debt-fueled, investment-led growth model. The AUD is at risk. Feature A general lack of credit growth has been one of the key factors hampering both broader growth and inflation in the U.S. Not only has this muted activity and weak pricing pressure kept the Federal Reserve on the easier side of policy, the absence of lending growth has further depressed real rates as demand for loanable funds remains low. Can credit pick up from here, and what are the implications for the USD? Room For Optimism There are good reasons to lean a bit more on the positive side regarding the U.S. credit growth outlook. As Chart I-1 illustrates, U.S. commercial and industrial loan growth seems to be rebounding. Confirming that this impulse could gain momentum, it follows an easing in lending standards and a pick-up in durable goods orders - two leading indicators of business borrowings. Household debt is also showing some signs of revival. While the annual growth rate of household borrowings from banks has yet to trough, the annualized quarterly growth rate has picked up significantly - a development that tends to precede accelerations in the yearly measure. Moreover, this improvement is broad based among all the key components of household borrowings (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Upside For U.S. C&I Loans... Chart I-2... And For Household Debt As Well This has positive implications for U.S. nonfinancial private credit, which has been in the process of forming a shallow bottom relative to GDP. Moreover, based on the low level of debt servicing costs for both households and businesses, this trend has room to develop (Chart I-3). However, most of the increase in the debt-to-GDP since 1994 has been caused by financial engineering, with firms swapping equity for debt in their capital structure, and has therefore not lifted domestic demand nor created inflationary pressures. However, we posit that this phenomenon is toward its tail end, and that additional debt accretion could have a meaningful impact on growth. Why? On the business front, capex - an essential but volatile component of aggregate demand - is set to accelerate further. Business investment is led by firms' capex intentions, a series that has surged since the summer of 2016 (Chart I-4, top panel). Confirming the message from this indicator, profits from U.S.-listed businesses have also sharply rebounded, a signal that leads capex by a year, as highlighted last Monday by Anastasios Avgeriou, who heads BCA's U.S. Equity Sector Strategy service (Chart I-4, bottom panel).1 Chart I-3The U.S. Has Room To Relever Chart I-4Capex Outlook Looks Good On the household front, three factors support our assessment: First, household nominal and real wages and salaries should enjoy further upside as the labor market remains very healthy. This means more consumption and more capacity to accumulate debt, especially as household financial obligations remain near multi-generational lows (Chart I-5). In fact, U.S. real median household income already hit an all-time high in 2016. Chart I-5Supports To Household Consumption Second, household confidence is still near record-high levels, a factor which tends to lead credit growth and consumption. Optimistic households are more likely to spend their income gains and buy durable goods like houses or apartments, especially as the household formation rate has regained vigor. Third, U.S. net wealth has hit 430% of disposable income, a record, which will keep supporting consumption. As households see their net worth increase, they can boost consumption and debt as their leverage ratios improve, especially when financial obligation ratios are as low as they are today. These factors point toward a continued increase in the indebtedness of the U.S. private sector, one which this time we anticipate will add to demand through investments, real estate purchases and general consumption. This also means that real rates are likely to experience upside. More debt-fueled aggregate demand implies more demand for loanable funds, and thus higher real rates. In an economy operating near full capacity, it can also lift inflation. Tax cuts and fiscal stimulus would only be a bonus in this environment. This should give the Fed room to increase interest rates in line with its dot plot, or more than the two-and-a-half hikes priced into the OIS curve over the next two years. However, as 2017 has vividly demonstrated, movements in U.S. rates alone are not enough to make a call on the U.S. dollar. One needs to have a sense of how U.S. rates could evolve vis-à-vis the rest of the world. In the context of debt accumulation, we are optimistic that the U.S. could experience a re-leveraging relative to the rest of the G10, putting upward pressures on U.S. real rates relative to the rest of the world. To begin with, U.S. non-financial private credit stands at 150% of GDP, a drop of 20% of GDP since its peak in 2009. The rest of the G10 has not experienced the same extent of post-financial crisis deleveraging, and nonfinancial private credit there still hovers around 175% of GDP (Chart I-6). Today, the indebtedness of the U.S. relative to other advanced economies is near its lowest levels of the past 50 years. Debt levels are obviously not the only consideration; the ability to service that debt also must enter the equation to judge the capacity of an economy to accumulate debt relative to the rest of the world. Currently, according to the BIS, the debt-service ratios of the U.S. nonfinancial private sector still stand well below the GDP-weighted average of the rest of the G10 (Chart I-7). This also highlights that the U.S. has plenty of room to have both higher debt accumulation and higher real rates than the rest of the G10. Chart I-6U.S. Vs. G10: Debt Upside Chart I-7Lower Private Sector Debt-Servicing Costs In The U.S. This should support the dollar in 2018. As Chart I-8 shows, 10-year bond yield differentials between the U.S. and other large advanced economies lead tops in the dollar by one year. To highlight this relationship, this chart de-trends the DXY by plotting it as a deviation from its 10-year moving average. Not only does the current trend in real rate differentials already point to a higher dollar, but room for more debt accumulation in the U.S. relative to the rest of the G10 supports the notion that the elevated level of spreads could even expand, implying the era of monetary divergence has yet to end. As we highlighted last week, the dollar may not be as expensive as seems at first glance. We have expanded on our 'modelization' exercise this week, using methods employed by the Swiss National Bank to incorporate the Balassa -Samuelsson effect.2, 3 This metric, which incorporates the relative price of manufactured goods in each economy, further confirm our assessment from last week that the dollar is not expensive enough to warrant a sell-signal (Chart I-9). Thus, with competitiveness a non-issue for the dollar for now, the USD is likely to be able to take advantage of potentially supportive real interest rate spreads. Chart I-8Real Rates Point To A Higher Peak For The USD Chart I-9U.S. Only Sightly Expensive On the technical side, our U.S. Dollar Capitulation Index hit very depressed levels earlier this year, but is now rebounding. Crucially, it has moved meaningfully back above its 13-week moving average, an event which normally characterizes uptrends in the dollar (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Dollar: From Bearish To Bullish Mood Bottom Line: The U.S. economy looks set to enjoy an episode of rising debt supporting increasing economic activity and higher rates as capex should grow further and a supportive backdrop continues to emerge for households - whether or not tax cuts happen. Because the U.S. private sector has comparatively healthy balance sheets relative to the rest of the G10, this means that U.S. re-leveraging should outpace the rest of the world. Even if this U.S. re-leveraging is only a cyclical phenomenon and not a resumption of the debt super-cycle, it would imply that monetary policy divergences have yet to reach their apex, and thus the dollar could experience additional upside. Even Against The Euro? We tend to view the euro as the anti-dollar. It is the main vehicle to play both uptrends and downtrends in the dollar and it is also the most liquid instrument, backed with an economy similarly sized as the U.S. Thus, the views expressed above would imply a negative slant on EUR/USD. Such a framework can give an impetus to a EUR/USD view, but is also not enough. Indeed, factors more specific to this pair argue that EUR/USD does have downside. When it comes to valuations, using the SNB's methodology, the EUR/USD is more or less the mirror image of the DXY. This pair is slightly cheap, essentially within the statistical definition of fairly valued (Chart I-11). Thus, valuations alone are fully neutral for the euro. This means EUR/USD remains prisoner to relative interest rate dynamics. On this front, a key driver of this pair paints a risky picture for euro bulls. The 1-year/1-year forward risk-free rate spread between the euro area and the U.S. has been a reliable guide of the EUR/USD's trend for the past 12 years. Yet, the euro's rally has not been matched by a similar move in this spread. As a result, the gap between the currency pair and its rates-implied fair value is at its highest since the summer of 2014 (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Euro: Not That Cheap Chart I-12Forward Interest Rates Point To Euro Risk But then again, the differential between the European and U.S. 1-year/1-year forward risk-free rate is at its lowest ever over the time frame of this chart. However, it was even lower than current levels in 1999 and 1997. This suggests that if the U.S. can re-leverage relative to the rest of the G10, the spread could grow as negative as it was in these two previous instances. Supporting this assessment, we anticipate U.S. inflation to outperform euro area measures going forward. Last week, we explored the reasons why we see an upcoming uptick in U.S. inflation next year: U.S. financial conditions have eased, American velocity of money has increased, pipeline inflationary pressures are growing and underlying wage growth seems to be improving.4 Meanwhile, European financial conditions have tightened, especially against the U.S., which historically leads to an underperformance of European inflation measures. Very importantly, the euro area core CPI diffusion index has rolled over and is now below 50%, suggesting that euro area core CPI has limited upside (Chart I-13). This means potential downside vis-à-vis the U.S. and room for upside in U.S. rates relative to the euro area, especially as the European Central Bank is likely to craft its message carefully next week when it announces the tapering of its asset purchases, to prevent quick upward movement in interest rate expectations. Additionally, the dollar is still quite under-owned by speculators relative to the euro. Our favorite positioning measure, which sums long bets in the euro with short bets on the DXY - two equivalent wagers - continues to hover near record-high levels, suggesting potential downside in EUR/USD (Chart I-14). This continues to highlight the risks to the euro created by a repricing of the Fed. Chart I-13Euro Area CPI Peaking? Chart I-14Excess Bullishness In Euro Intact Bottom Line: The euro is obviously at risk if the dollar gets lifted by rising economic activity and indebtedness in the U.S., even if this cyclical upswing in debt does not represent a resumption of the debt super-cycle. Moreover, 1-year/1-year forward rates differentials point to heightened EUR/USD vulnerability, especially if U.S. inflation bottoms relative to the euro area. Moreover, long euro bets have yet to be washed out, deepening the EUR/USD's vulnerability. A Few Words On China Chart I-15China: Good Reasons For Policy Tightening Despite a marginal slowdown in Chinese real GDP growth and slightly disappointing industrial production and fixed asset investment numbers for the third quarter, some key Chinese economic activity metrics have been very robust. Imports are growing at a 19% annual pace, credit growth continues to outperform expectations and electricity production and excavator sales remain robust. Should this make investors bullish on China plays? In our view, two key risks lurk on the horizon. The first is monetary tightening. Pricing pressures in China are growing and are looking increasingly genuine. As Chart I-15 shows, core CPI is clocking in at 2.3%, the highest level since 2010-2011, a level which in the past prompted monetary tightening by the Chinese authorities. Additionally, services inflation - a purely domestic sector and thus one reflective of domestic inflationary pressures - is now above 3% and accelerating. Also, PPI has re-accelerated to 6.9%, pointing to a paucity of deflationary forces in the Chinese economy that could potentially give the People's Bank of China the green light to tighten further. We would expect the rise in the Shibor 7-day rate to continue and monetary conditions, which have been tightening since the end of 2016, to become an even bigger handicap in the future. The second risk lies around the Communist Party Congress underway in Beijing. Xi Jinping's marathon speech highlighted his vision for Chinese socialism in a new era. Xi is very clearly dedicated to the primacy of the Chinese communist party. He did highlight, however, that the new principal problem for the Chinese population is the need for a better life, with less imbalances, less inequalities. This fits with his previously revealed policy preferences. As Matt Gertken, who heads the Asian efforts on our Geopolitical Strategy team, has shown, Xi's administration has massively increased spending to protect the environment and increased financial regulation (Table 1).5 These preferences fit in the optic of addressing China's new principal problems: too much pollution and too much debt. Table 1Fiscal Priorities Of Recent Chinese Presidents Moreover, the continued fight against corruption also fits into that mold. It is a key tool to maintain the legitimacy of the Communist party, and a popular way to address some of the inequalities and imbalances plaguing China today. What does this mean? China has continued to accumulate debt over the past 10 years, with debt to GDP increasing by nearly 120% between 2008 and 2017 (Chart I-16). If a window is opening to tighten monetary policy because inflationary pressures are growing while there is political will to combat inflation and imbalances, it is likely that investment - which pollutes heavily - and debt - a byproduct of large capex programs - could be curtailed. Moreover, the Chinese government still has the wherewithal to support aggregate economic activity through fiscal stimulus. In addition, in the context of the above, much fiscal stimulus could be deployed to fight pollution and decrease inequalities by supporting households. This means that while Chinese GDP growth is unlikely to weaken substantially, the capex intensity of the economy could decrease. So would imports of raw materials and capital goods. As a result, this could be a very negative environment for metals. Metals prices have rebounded sharply since 2016 as Chinese investment has increased. But now that policy could be tightened further and that Xi's new administration has more freedom to move away from an investment-heavy, deeply polluting growth model, the rally in metals could be at risk. Copper, a bellwether for the metals complex, has surged nearly 70% since 2016, and bullish sentiment on the red metal is now at levels historically associated with imminent corrections (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Is This What Deleveraging Looks Like? Chart I-17Tighter Policy And A Reform Push Put Metal At Risk This means that currencies for which metals prices are a key driver of terms of trade are at great risk, specifically the BRL, the CLP and the AUD. Moreover, the latter is expensive, having recently been buoyed by some positive economic numbers, and is now widely owned by very bullish investors. We have a short sell AUD/USD at 0.79 and our short AUD/NZD trade at 1.11 was triggered following the Labor/NZ First/Green coalition announced Thursday in New Zealand. Bottom Line: Chinese authorities are set to tighten monetary conditions further as domestic inflationary pressures are growing. Moreover, while short on details, this week's speech by Xi Jinping at the opening of the 19th Communist Party Congress in Beijing seemed to confirm that addressing imbalances, inequalities, and environmental problems will be a key objective of this administration. This points toward a less debt-/investment-driven economic model - at least until deflationary problems re-emerge. While overall GDP growth could be supported by targeted fiscal support, investment plays linked to Chinese capex and real estate could suffer. The AUD is at risk, and we are entering our proposed short AUD/NZD trade. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, titled “Top 5 Reasons To Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives” dated October 16, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2 The Balassa Samuelson effect is an empirical observation that countries with higher productivity tend to experience an appreciating trend in there real exchange rate. Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Is The Dollar Expensive?”, dated October 13, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Samuel Reynard, “What Drives the Swiss Franc?” Swiss National Bank Working Papers (2008 – 14). 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Is The Dollar Expensive?”, dated October 13, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, titled “How To Read Xi Jinping’s Party Congress Speech”, dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1 Chart II-2 U.S. data was mixed: Last week's CPI releases showed that inflation disappointed in September, with headline CPI increasing by only 2.2%, below the expected 2.3%; and Core CPI coming in at 1.7%, in line with expectations; However, long-term TIC data showed a large inflow of funds of USD 67.2 bn, much larger than the expected USD 14.3 bn. The labor market continues to tighten with initial jobless claims and continuing claims dropping to 222,000 and 1.888 million respectively. The DXY has rebounded this week on this news, and also helped by a somewhat disappointing ZEW survey from the euro area, but pared its gains on Wednesday. Regardless, positive developments in the U.S. fiscal space and disappearing slack will provide a tailwind for the greenback. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day -August 25, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3 Chart II-4 Data from the euro area has been mixed: Industrial production grew at an annual rate of 3.8% in August; The trade balance contracted to EUR 16.1 bn from EUR 23.2 bn on a non-seasonally-adjusted basis, but improved on a seasonally-adjusted basis. The final estimate for core CPI hit 1.1%, in line with expectations; The ZEW Survey dropped and underperformed expectations; Despite largely weak data, the euro has pared all of last week's losses. Markets may be pricing in Catalan developments as a bullish case. The Spanish government has threatened to enact Article 155 of the constitution if Catalonia does not comply, which will give Spain the authority to take measures to ensure compliance by the rogue region. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5 Chart II-6 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Bank lending outperformed expectations, growing at a 3% year-on-year pace. Machinery orders yearly growth also outperformed to the upside, coming in at 4.4% However, the annual growth of both imports and exports underperformed expectations and declined significantly from last month, coming in at 12% and 14.1% respectively. The yen has remained relatively flat these past two weeks. Overall, we expect USD/JPY to have additional upside, given that the U.S. OIS curve is not pricing in enough rate hike over the next 2-years. Ultimately, the driver of USD/JPY will simply be U.S. rates as Japanese 10-year rates are capped near 0%. This situation is not likely to change any time soon, as the Japanese economy is still hampered by very low inflation. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day -August 25, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7 Chart II-8 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Average hourly earnings outperformed expectations, growing at a 2.2% pace from a year ago. Both headline and core inflation came in line with expectations at 3% and 2.7% respectively. However, both retail sales and retail sales ex-fuel growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.2% and 1.6% respectively. Overall, we do not expect much more upside for the pound relative to the U.S. dollar, given that there is already a hike priced for November. At this point, the economic situation does not warrant any more hikes beyond just removing the emergency measures implemented after the Brexit fallout. Furthermore inflation has stopped climbing, and could start to come down in the coming months as the effects of the currency dissipate. Finally, Brexit negotiations have hit a bit of a temporary impass. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9 Chart II-10 The AUD has not seen much action this week. The RBA minutes highlighted that "slow growth in real wages and high levels of household debt were likely to be constraining influences". This is largely in line with our argument that spare capacity is limiting wage growth and inflation in the economy. Going forward, China remains a risk to our view, with the most recent import figures having provided a welcomed fillip to the AUD. Nevertheless, remarks by RBA Governors will limit the upside in the AUD. Expectations of a rate hike by the RBA depend upon growth numbers, which are unlikely to be achieved given the current trajectory of wages and consumer spending. Furthermore, high underemployment in the economy also remains a drag on spending, dampening the positive effect of a strong job report. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11 Chart II-12 Recent data in New Zealand has been mixed: Electronic card retail sales year-on-year growth declined form 4.4$ to 2.9%. Business NZ PMI softened from 57.9 to 57.5. However, headline inflation came in at 1.9%, rising from the previous month reading of 1.7% and outperforming expectations. The kiwi sold off by almost 2% yesterday, as Jacinda Ardern was elected as the new prime minister of New Zealand. The market is now pricing the risk that the Labor party, which Ardern leads, could change the mandate of the central bank from just targeting inflation to also seeking full employment. Moreover, Labor and its coalition partner, NZ First, want to curtail immigration, one of the tailwind to New Zealand growth. These development would structurally limit the upside for kiwi rates, acting as a headwinds to the New Zealand dollar. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13 Chart II-14 The CAD has been somewhat strong recently due to developments in the oil market. KSA-Russia support for an extension of supply cuts to OPEC 2.0, as well as developments in Iraq, have pointed to an increase in prices. While the path for Canadian interest rates seem fairly priced, oil prices could buoy the CAD. Risks surrounding NAFTA remain, as President Trump stays inflexible with regards to tariffs, although this is likely to have a greater effect on Mexico than on Canada. Furthermore, albeit still in its infancy Morneau's tax plan, which is anticipated to mostly affect the richest of small business, could have an effect on investment intentions. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15 Chart II-16 Recent data in Switzerland has surprised to the upside: The unemployment rate decreased from 3.2% and 3.1%, outperforming expectations. Producer and import prices yearly growth came in at 0.8%, also surprising to the upside. Finally, the trade balance also outperformed, coming in at 2.918 billion dollars for September. It seems that the fall in the franc has been very positive to the Swiss economy. Overall, it would be difficult to see much more upside in EUR/CHF, as the euro already reflects euro area positives. That being said, we are reticent to be outright bearish on this cross as the economic data is still too weak for the SNB to change its monetary policy stance. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17 Chart II-18 Recent data in Norway has been negative: Manufacturing yearly output growth underperformed expectations, contracting at 5.7%. Both core and headline inflation also surprised to the downside, coming in at 1% and 1.6% against expectations of 1.2% and 1.7% respectively. Finally, the Norwegian trade balance declined from 12.4 billion dollars to 9.2 billion dollars USD/NOK has risen 3% since September, even as oil prices have continued their path upward. This was first and foremost reflective of the higher probability of rate hikes in the U.S. in December. Additionally, the recent Norwegian inflation and trade balance numbers are showing that the krone rebounds has tightened monetary conditions in this Scandinavian economy. Overall, we remain bullish on USD/NOK and bearish on EUR/NOK. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19 Chart II-20 The most recent inflation data was slightly weak, with CPI increasing by 0.1% monthly, and 2.1% yearly. Unemployment worsened as the rate rose to 6.2% from 6%. The krona depreciated against the euro on the news, but was flat against the dollar. Despite this temporary setback, PMIs are still perky across the board, and credit is hooking up. China and Europe's recent performance has likely provided a tailwind for growth, which should translate into higher inflation as capacity utilization is extremely tight. Furthermore, the depreciation of the SEK since the beginning of September has eased monetary conditions, making way for the central bank to begin a tightening process in the wake of the ECB's tapering program. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Special Report

One of BCA's long-standing clients, Ms. Mea, recently paid us a visit at our Montreal office. Ms. Mea is an experienced and successful investor who has been reading different BCA products for many years. She noted that over the years she has both agreed and disagreed with our market views, but that she appreciates our thematic approach including themes, analysis and views, as they are important to her investment process. Like many of our clients, Ms. Mea has been disappointed by the Emerging Markets Strategy (EMS) team's EM/China call, which has not been correct over the past 18 months. My team and I spent a few hours with Ms. Mea detailing our views and methodology. Despite some tough discussions, she said she found the dialogue valuable. Reflecting on our meeting, I thought it would be beneficial to share the key points with all of EMS clients. This report is a summary of that. Ms. Mea and I agreed to continue the debate as the story plays out, so I will be meeting with her occasionally in Europe when I travel there. Ms. Mea: Clearly your recommended strategy has been wrong for some time. I am aware that your negative view on EM/China and strategy was right and profitable from 2011 until early 2016. Nevertheless, since early last year EM risk assets have rallied considerably, and not participating in this rally has been painful - not to mention being short EM risk assets. For our global equity funds, underweighting EM within the global universe did not hurt performance in 2016. However, this year the EM equity benchmark has considerably outperformed the global averages (Chart I-1). So, what has gone wrong, and why haven't you changed your view already? Chart I-1EMS's Big Picture Asset Allocation Strategy: EM Relative To DM Stock Prices Answer: My objective today is not to dispute your comments - my view and investment strategy have clearly gone wrong. Rather, I would like to highlight what has gone wrong as well as elaborate on my methodology and thought process. Let me be clear, if I thought in 2016 or early 2017 that the market would rally for more than six months and - in the case of EM equities - by more than 20%, I would have recommended clients to play this rally regardless of my big picture themes and views. The same is true today. My general view has been based on two pillars: Chinese growth and Federal Reserve policy/the U.S. dollar. 1. The first pillar of my argument has been that China's growth improvement would prove unsustainable due to lingering credit imbalances/excesses. In the April 13, 2016 report,1 I laid out the case that China's 2015-16 fiscal stimulus of RMB 850 billion would be offset by a potential slowdown in credit growth from an annual growth rate of 11.5% to 9-9.5%. Chart I-2China: Borrowing Costs Have Been Rising This thesis of credit growth deceleration was based on the natural tendency of credit growth to gravitate toward nominal GDP growth, especially since the credit-to-GDP ratio had massively overshot in the preceding seven years. Besides, since 2013 high-profile policymakers in China had been talking about the need for deleveraging, containing financial excesses, and not repeating the mistakes of 2009-2010, when money and credit was allowed to run at an extremely strong pace. In first half of 2016, I downplayed the recovery in money and credit aggregates arguing that they are temporary and unsustainable. When a country has a lingering credit bubble - which has been the case in China, I am biased to downplay upticks in money and credit growth and easing in monetary policy. At the same time, I put a greater emphasis on both monetary tightening and slowdown in money/credit when the economy suffers from credit excesses. The opposite is also true in cases where there are no excesses/imbalances. Since November 2016, the People Bank of China (PBoC) has been tightening liquidity and pushing money market rates and corporate bond yields higher (Chart I-2). This has been taking place in addition to regulatory tightening on both bank and shadow banking activities. As a result, I have been predicting that regulatory and liquidity tightening amid lingering credit and speculative excesses would weigh on money, credit and capital spending. Importantly, I reckoned that financial markets would be forward-looking and would reverse their rally in anticipation of weaker growth down the road instead of reacting to robust - yet backward looking - growth data. Indeed, money and credit growth have already slowed to all-time lows (Chart I-3). Nevertheless, broad economic growth has not slowed (Chart I-4). This has also been true for China's impact on the rest of the world - the mainland's imports have remained robust (Chart I-5). Chart I-3China: Money And Credit Aggregates Chart I-4China: Business Cycle Perspective Chart I-5China: Money Impulses And Imports Not only have I been surprised by the mainland economy's ability to withstand the slowdown in money/credit so far, but I have also been caught off guard by how financial markets have shrugged off the rise in onshore interest rates and the deceleration in money/credit. That said, liquidity tightening works with a time lag. The fact that it has not yet had an impact on the real economy does not mean it won't going forward. 2. The second pillar of my view has been that the Fed's dovish stance would prove transitory. The global market rally began in February 2016 when the Fed sounded dovish in the face of a surging U.S. dollar, collapsing commodities prices, very weak global trade and plunging global risk assets. Remarkably, global growth and corporate profits have recovered very strongly, the U.S. dollar has weakened considerably and commodities and global tradable goods prices have rebounded. As such, I expected that U.S. interest rate expectations would move higher, dampening the carry trade. Unfortunately, markets' reactionary functions does not always follow a symmetrical logic. The decline in U.S. inflation rate amid a weak dollar, rising import prices and robust U.S. growth - especially the tight labor market and some wages pressures (Chart I-6) - has puzzled me. Ms. Mea: Why have you disregarded the clear improvements in EM profits and global trade in 2017? Answer: I have been aware of improving economic data and corporate profits. Yet, these types of data are backward looking and are not a guarantee of future trends. Even though the released economic data and corporate profits have been strong, our forward-looking indicators for both EM and China have been heralding and continue to point to a major downtrend in EM profits (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Subtle Upside Risks To U.S. Inflation Chart I-7EM Profits Are At Risk Importantly, I presume stock prices lead profits. Hence, it is dangerous to turn bullish when forward-looking indicators that lead profits are already flashing red. These are empirical indicators and have a great track record. As such, I have placed substantial weight on them rather than on backward-looking economic and profit data. Since early 2017, I have been facing the following dilemma: Should I change my view based on strong, yet backward-looking, profit data, or remain cautious based on forward-looking growth indicators as well as our big-picture themes. I chose the latter, which in retrospect was wrong. Looking back, the biggest mistake I made was putting little weight on how markets have been trading. EM and global stocks continue to trade as they would in a genuine bull market: they have looked past negative news and rallied a lot in response to positives. Ms. Mea: You mentioned big-picture themes. Can you elaborate on your framework and methodology? Answer: At the core of my analytical framework lies investment themes. I formulate these themes based on a series of in-depth research reports. These themes have multi-year relevance - I expect them to have staying power beyond one year. These themes represent an anchor to my view and strategy. Without anchor themes, I would tend to change my views back and forth based on fluctuations in economic data or swings in financial markets. Having established themes, my team and I monitor cyclical data, market dynamics/signposts and any type of evidence to prove or refute those established themes. Clients have recently been asking why I only show charts/evidence that confirm my view, and rarely entertain the alternative scenario. Indeed, there are always contradictory signals, signposts and data that I identify every week. Yet, I still choose to show those that support my ongoing themes and views. Why? Because I opt to convey a well-argued coherent message to my clients. In this context, I use the limited client-time allocated to reading our reports to highlight the reasons supporting my current themes and high-conviction views. It would also be unhelpful for readers if I demonstrate several charts that herald a bullish stance, and then conclude the opposite. If I were to utilize the alternative approach, i.e., present data and evidence on both sides of the debate, the report would be ambiguous. As a result, readers would gain little conviction and would likely be left confused. Each of these approaches has advantages and disadvantages: when the view plays out, investors see the correct angle and, thereby, develop a strong conviction on the strategy, and hopefully act upon it. Conversely, when the view goes wrong, investors typically wish they had seen the opposite side as well. Chart I-8China: No Deleveraging So Far In short, my goal is to leave clients with a clear and well-argued message when I have high conviction. As to conviction level, like all investors, I am dealing with a black box when gauging the outlook for financial markets. I am never 100% certain; I make investment recommendations only when my conviction level is somewhere around 65-75%. Generally, I do not discuss the areas where my conviction level is less than 60%. Less than 60% means "I do not know". An example of this is whether the current tech rally will persist. Importantly, I try to bring to clients' attention data and evidence that they may not be aware of and analytical points that differ from commonly known market narratives. Investors are aware of overall global financial market dynamics and ongoing narratives. My goal is to add value to their knowledge with the framework of thematic investment research, and to highlight new and potentially market moving charts, data and evidence. My major theme on China in the past several years has been the following: Chinese banks have originated too much money, and the corporate sector has taken on a large amount of leverage. This, in tandem with speculative excesses in the shadow banking and property markets, pose considerable downside risks to capital spending growth in the mainland. This is especially the case given that both liquidity and regulatory tightening of banks and non-banks already begun in late 2016. While financial markets, economic data and corporate profits have gone against this theme, this does not mean credit/money excesses in China have disappeared or do not exist. On the contrary, they have gotten even bigger now (Chart I-8, top panel). The Chinese economy has recovered and benefited commodities prices and the rest of EM due to another round of substantial money/credit injection. Broad money and broad credit have surged by about RMB 45-50 trillion since the middle of 2015 - depending on which measure one uses (Chart I-8, bottom panel). In the context of mushrooming leverage, ongoing policy tightening entails a poor risk-reward profile for bullish bets on mainland growth. This is why I am reluctant to abandon this theme and the bearish view. Ms. Mea: What would it take to change your big picture theme on China? To fundamentally reverse my view on China and commodities on a multi-year time line, I would need to reject my theme that China has meaningful credit excesses and imbalances, or buy into the view that these imbalances are a natural outcome of China's excess savings and will never correct. I have strong conviction in my big picture theme and I have not seen convincing arguments to change it. That said, if I come to the conclusion that EM risk assets and China-related plays will rally for six months or longer, I will change the investment strategy and recommend playing that rally. In this case my market strategy will change even though the big picture theme remains intact. As to the relationship between national and household savings, credit, and money, I have elaborated at great length that money creation and credit excesses do not originate from excess savings.2 Hence, it is simply not natural for a country with excess savings to experience and sustain credit bubbles. Importantly, adjustments in terms of credit excesses/deleveraging in China have not even started (Chart 8, top panel). This does not imply that investors should wait until deleveraging ends before turning positive on mainland growth. Markets are forward looking and will bottom when they see the light at the end of tunnel. But it is very dangerous to be positive when the adjustment has not yet began. It appears China's capital spending in general and construction in particular - the most vulnerable and credit-dependent segments - have in recent years been fluctuating in mini-cycles, similar to what played out in Japan during the 1990s and 2000s. I am not suggesting that China resembles Japan entirely, but comparing their mini cycles is a worthwhile exercise. Chart I-9 shows that the Japanese economy, money, credit and share prices were on a rollercoaster ride in the 1990s and 2000s. Notably, the profile of Chinese H shares fits the profile of Japan's stock market during that period (Chart I-10). On average, the recovery phase of these mini-cycles/equity rallies lasted about 20-24 months. Chart I-9Mini-Cycles In Japan In The 1990-2000s Chart I-10Chinese H-Shares Now And Nikkei In 1990s My judgment is that the recovery in the Chinese economy and related financial markets over the past 18 months resembles the mini cycles Japan experienced in the 1990s and 2000s. If so, after the rally in the past 18 months, forward-looking investment strategy should be focused on identifying signposts of a reversal. Consistently, given my bias stemming from our core themes and the fact that financial markets are forward looking and have already rallied a lot, I have been looking for signs of a top in China's business cycle and Asia's trade flows. It is pointless for me to change the view if my bias is that markets will reverse their trend in the next couple of months. Investors who are bullish and long but are somewhat concerned about China's growth sustainability still may want to monitor and be aware when the business cycle and markets will reverse. This is where I believe our research is helpful and relevant to investors with a bullish bias. It is hard to forecast what would be an inflection point to overturn the current financial market trend. It could be an unambiguous message from China's Communist Party Congress in the coming days that containing financial risks - a code word for deleveraging - is a major policy priority, or it could be weak economic data in China, or lower commodities prices and weaker EM currencies, being the flipside of a stronger dollar. Chart I-11China: Beware Of Rising Inflation Ms. Mea: It seems there is no silver lining in your view. Does this mean Chinese policymakers cannot do much to generate a positive outcome for the economy and financial markets? Answer: Chinese policymakers are in a very tough position. Yet it does not mean there is no silver lining. I assign a 20-25% probability that policymakers can stabilize leverage in the economy and financial system without a meaningful growth slump. If this scenario transpires, my negative view on EM and China-related plays will continue to be wrong. There is a 40-45% probability that growth will slump as the authorities focus on deleveraging and structural reforms (allowing markets to play a greater role in resource/capital allocation), and that policy tightening will begin biting. This heralds a deflationary outcome from a cyclical perspective, but it also represents a necessary adjustment to ensure efficiency gains and productivity-led growth over the long run. In fact, this would make me structurally bullish on China's growth again. There is also a 30-35% probability that policymakers - having no tolerance for any kind of growth slump - will continue to stimulate via money/credit and fiscal deficits. The outcome of this scenario will be an inflation outbreak Notably, as I argued in the October 4th 2017 report,3 underlying inflationary pressures are rising, as shown in Chart I-11. Unless growth decelerates meaningfully, inflation will need to be tackled. If not, capital outflows from residents will escalate again, and the currency will come under depreciation pressure given that the deposit rate is at a very low 1.5%. Rising inflation limits policymakers' maneuvering room: they have to tighten and cannot stimulate rapidly and considerably when growth slows. In short, a silver-lining scenario - which would include the authorities curbing out excesses while preserving overall growth, and especially capital spending growth - is always there and is a well-known narrative in the investment community. I do not write about it because I assign a 20-25% probability of it actually panning out. Why not more? Because the imbalances and excesses are currently so large that it will be difficult to contain them without jeopardizing growth. Finally, my view on China does not spread to the entire economy - our focal point has been and remains capital expenditures in general and construction in particular. These areas are being financed by credit, and consume a lot of raw materials and capital goods. Mainland imports - which are heavy in commodities and capital goods (the two account for 95% of total imports) - are the link between mainland investment expenditures and the rest of the world in general, and EM in particular. The latter will suffer if Chinese imports contract. Ms. Mea: It seems your big-picture themes have considerable influence on your views and strategy. How have your big-picture investment themes evolved over time? Last decade, my overreaching theme was that EM and China were structurally sound and that EM/China/commodities were in a bull market. So, I went from being a staunch bull to a resolute bear. I took over the EMS strategy service in 2005, and was bullish on EM, China and commodities up until 2010 (Chart I-1 on page 1). In 2005, I published an in-depth report arguing that commodities were in secular bull market due to demand from China.4 In April 2006, I pioneered a new theme that in the case of a U.S./DM recession, EM could stimulate and boost domestic demand - an out-of-consensus thesis5 at the time. Having these themes in mind, I recommended upgrading/accumulating Chinese stocks amid the Lehman crisis in the fall of 2008.6 The message was that Chinese policymakers could and would stimulate, and that such stimulus would succeed in lifting Chinese growth, corporate profits, commodities prices and EM risk assets. That was a non-consensus trade at the time, and the exact opposite of my current view. Following the credit boom in EM/China in 2009-10, excesses and imbalances emerged, and I shifted to a negative stance on EM/China in 2010 (Chart I-1 on page 1). Furthermore, in our June 8, 2010 Special Report titled, 'How to Play EM This Decade,' I made a call on a major top and forthcoming bear market in commodities arguing that the 2010-decade leaders in terms of growth and share price performance would be the healthcare and technology sectors. I speculated that during the current decade mania will unfold either in the technology or heath care sectors or some combination of both. Since 2010, the technology and healthcare equity sectors have been the best equity sectors, while commodities have been the worst performing ones within both the global and EM equity space. Consistent with this theme, I have been overweighing EM technology stocks and bourses where tech has a large weight, such as Taiwan, China and Korea. Besides, since 2010 I have maintained a pair strategy recommendation of being long tech and short materials. Ms. Mea: It seems you have been changing the goalposts lately, using new data on Chinese money and credit instead of relying on traditional ones. Our research is an ongoing effort to understand the macro landscape better. Our objective is always to find new variables and indicators that better lead business cycles and corporate profits while continuing to track the existing ones. Thus, it is not about changing goalposts but refining existing indicators or examining alternative ones that have a better track record. The following aspects have led usintroduce new broad money measures in China: Over the past two years, official M2 has been much weaker than various credit and money measures, as illustrated in the top panel of Chart I-8 on page 8. Broad money, and hence new purchasing power, is created when banks originate credit - by lending to or buying claims on non-bank entities. Therefore, properly measuring broad money is vital to assessing the new purchasing power that is created in the economy. In brief, in 2016 and early this year I relied on China's official broad money M2 measure, but it has underestimated the amount of new purchasing power created in the past two years. This was one of the reasons we misjudged the duration and magnitude of this equity rally. In addition, the regulatory clampdown on banks and non-banks may have prompted them to shift credit assets from off balance sheet to on balance sheet, or vice versa. Banks and shadow bank entities can obscure or hide credit by classifying it differently, but the banking system cannot conceal the amount of money in the system. Therefore, by tracing broad money creation, one can trail new purchasing power originated by banks. For these reasons, we have begun calculating new broad money aggregates for China - we produced our measure of M3 (M2 plus some other banks liabilities that are not included in M2) and credit-money (broad money calculated using the asset side of commercial banks' balance sheets). Chart I-3 on page 3 illustrates that all measures of money and credit have slowed in late 2016 and this year. On balance, having examined various measures of money and credit, including official M2, we have concluded that in the past 12 months money/credit creation has been slowing in China, irrespective of which aggregate we focus on (please refer to Chart I-3 on page 3). Ms. Mea: How do you explain strong September money and credit numbers out of China? Money, credit and business activity data for September were indeed strong, but they should be adjusted for working days. In China, the annual Mid-Autumn Festival fell in October this year versus September over the past several years. During this festival, business activity grinds to a halt for several days. I conjecture that money, credit and growth data out of China and Asia in general was strong in September partially due to the increase in the number of business days in September this year versus September a year ago. We need to wait for October data and average the two months to get a better picture of the trajectory of the business cycle in Asia. Chart I-12China: Velocity Of Money Has Been Declining Ms. Mea: Your view on China, commodities and EM is largely contingent on very weak money growth. Is it possible that the correlation between money and economic growth has diminished or completely broken down in China? The only reason why broad money growth could deviate from nominal GDP growth is due to the rising velocity of money. Let's remind ourselves: Nominal GDP = Money Supply x Velocity of Money. For nominal GDP growth to rise, a considerable decelaration in money supply growth needs to be offset by an even larger acceleration in the velocity of money. It is extremely difficult to forecast velocity of money. I assume money velocity will be steady (constant) and, consequently, nominal GDP growth to be affected primarily by changes in broad money growth. Chart I-12 demonstrates that the velocity of money in China has been declining over the past eight years. So, it would be odd for the velocity of money to suddenly rise going forward, in turn making money growth a less reliable indicator for nominal GDP growth. Overall, while it is always possible that the correlation between money growth and economic activity can break down, it is not something that one can forecast or bet on with high conviction. Chart I-13EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##Broad Money And Bank Loan Growth Is Weak Ms. Mea: What about other emerging markets? How dependent are they on China? Where are they in the business cycle? The link from China to other emerging markets is via commodities and EM countries' other exports to the mainland. Even non-commodity countries like Korea and Taiwan sell a lot to China. If Chinese growth decelerates, commodities prices relapse, the U.S. dollar rallies or the RMB comes under selling pressure, the outlook for other EM countries and their risk assets will be dim. I argued that EM currencies, credit, and stocks on aggregate levels are not cheap.7 Segments that appear attractively valued are cheap for a reason, while healthy segments (countries/sectors/companies) are rather expensive. Money and bank loan growth also remain lackluster in the majority of EM, excluding China, Korea and Taiwan (Chart I-13). The reason is that the banking systems in many of these developing countries have not been restructured and remain sick following years of overextended credit and rising non-performing loans. Therefore, even though EM exports to China and the rest of the world have picked up, there has been little recovery in their domestic demand. If external conditions - exports, exchange rates and borrowing costs - deteriorate anew, EM domestic demand recovery will be derailed. Investors often refer to Russia and Brazil when they cite macro adjustments in developing economies. It is true that Russia and Brazil have already gone through a lot of pain and adjustment, including provisioning for NPLs in their respective banking systems. Nevertheless, financial markets in both countries remain dependent on commodities prices and the U.S. dollar outlook. Barring external shocks, both economies will continue to revive. That said, my big-picture view entails a negative shock to EM sentiment due to China and a rally in the greenback so I cannot turn bullish on them yet. In addition, Brazil's public debt is rising in an unsustailable manner, and political risks remain significant, particularly ahead of next year's elections. It will be hard to boost nominal growth and contain the explosion of public debt without meaningful currency depreciation that reflates the economy. That cannot not bode well for foreign investors in Brazilian markets. Credit excesses continue to linger in some other EM economies, and there has been little adjustments in their leverage even when we remove China, Korea and Taiwan from the aggregate (Chart I-14). All in all, while some EM economies have undergone necessary macro adjustments, the largest economy - China - has not. When China begins its own macro adjustments, shockwaves will likely hit Asian economies and commodities producers. There are not many large developing countries outside Asia that are not raw materials exporters. Ms. Mea: What about the technology sector? It alone has been responsible for a substantial portion of price gains in the EM equity benchmark in this rally. Does your view on China's credit cycle also influence your outlook for technology stocks? Indeed, EM tech stocks have exploded in recent years, accounting for a significant portion of EM share price appreciation. Excluding tech stocks, EM equities have not rallied nearly as much (Chart I-15). Chart I-14EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##Leverage Has Not Diminished Chart I-15EM Equities: Tech Versus Non-Tech Also, Table I-1 reveals that eight out of 11 equity sectors have underperformed the benchmark. Meanwhile, a large share of tech gains has been produced by five or so companies. Table I-1EM Sectors: Only Three Out Of 11 Sectors ##br##Outperformed The Benchmark I have no strong view on the technology sector's absolute performance following the exponential price gains of past years. Overweighting the technology sector has been my recommendation since 2010, as we discussed above, and it has panned out quite well. I still maintain this overweight call, but within the technology sector we prefer semis to internet and social-media stocks. On the second part of your question, my negative view on China's credit cycle does not have direct ramifications for technology stocks, including Chinese ones. Critically, the call on internet- and social media-related companies is a bottom-up call. On the macro level, I can only state the following: It is essential to realize that in the past nine years a lot of new purchasing power in China has been created because of explosive money origination by banks. If money/credit growth structurally downshifts in China in the years ahead, nominal income growth for both households and companies will slow and the growth in their spending power will also moderate. That said, I am not in a position to assess and comment on business model viability and equity valuation levels of internet and social media-related companies like Alibaba, Tencent or Baidu. As to the other two tech heavyweights - Samsung Electronics and TSMC - I continue to recommend an overweight position in semis and other tech stocks that stand to benefit from DM growth. However, I am less certain about their absolute performance given their exponential rally. Chart I-16EMS's Fully-Invested Equity Portfolio ##br##Performance Versus The Benchmark Finally, regardless of my view on EM absolute performance, we always add value to dedicated EM equity and fixed-income investors by selecting countries to overweight and underweight relative to their respective benchmarks. Our country equity allocation strategy has been very successful. Chart I-16 illustrates our country fully-invested equity portfolio performance versus the EM benchmark. The portfolio is built based on our overweight and underweight recommendations on individual bourses, and is assumed to be fully invested. Our country calls have done quite well in the past nine years, producing 58% outperformance versus the benchmark with extremely low volatility. This translates into 520 basis points of annual compound outperformance for nine years. Our recommended country allocation and other equity positions as well as fixed income and currency recommendations are published at the end of each week's report. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled "Revisiting China's Fiscal And Credit Impulses," dated April 13, 2016, link available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports from October 26, 2016, November 23, 2016 and January 18, 2017; available on ems.bcaresearch.com 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, " China: Deflation Or Inflation?," dated October 4, 2017; link available on page 21. 4 Please refer to the International Bank Credit Analyst Special Report titled, "Commodities: Buy On Dips," dated April 2005. 5 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Global Monetary Tightening And Emerging Markets: Is It Different This Time?"dated April 19, 2006. 6 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Upgrade/Accumulate Chinese Stocks,"dated September 29, 2008. 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled "Is The Dollar Expensive, And Are EM Currencies Cheap?" dated October 11, 2017, link available at ems.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

In this week's Weekly Report, we are highlighting what we expect to be the key macro theme we see dominating markets in 2018: the nascent recovery in capital outlays transforming into a full blown capex upcycle. The second panel shows that the recent V-shaped recovery in operating EPS should morph into a sizable capex upcycle. Vibrant capex then feeds back into profits, leading to a virtuous cycle. Empirical evidence suggests that a lagged relationship exists between these two variables: since the early 1980s capex growth has typically trailed profit growth by one year. Intuitively, as earnings recover, CEOs have more confidence in the outlook for final demand and choose to deploy longer-term oriented capital. National accounts data also confirm the positive correlation between capex1 and corporate non-financial operating earnings2 growth, albeit with a shorter lag. Our chart shows that since the 1980s recession, all four recessions were preceded by stock market reported capex soaring to roughly a 20% annual growth rate. At the current juncture, capex is merely on the cusp of entering expansion territory and, if history at least rhymes, a significant capex upcycle is looming and higher beta/higher operating leverage deep cyclicals sectors are going to be in the driver's seat. Please see Monday's Weekly and Special Reports for more details. 1 Source: National Income and Product Accounts 2 Source: Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1

Highlights High-Yield: High-Yield spreads are 149 bps away from being more expensive than they have ever been. But in the absence of inflation it is difficult to pinpoint a catalyst for sharp spread widening. We expect excess high-yield returns between 2% and 5% (annualized) during the next 6-12 months. EM Sovereigns: There is no compelling valuation argument in favor of hard currency EM Sovereign debt versus U.S. corporate bonds. We will look to shift into EM once the pace of Fed rate hikes starts to slow later in the cycle. Economy & Inflation: Core inflation disappointed expectations in September, but the details of the report showed some silver linings. Inflation looks to be past the worst of its downtrend and should be strong enough during the next two months for the Fed to lift rates in December. Feature Chart 110-Year Treasury Yield Breakdown Just past the three quarter mark of 2017 and stubbornly low inflation remains the story of the year in U.S. bond markets. Quite simply, if inflation rebounds during the next two-and-a-half months, as the Federal Reserve expects, then Treasury yields will move sharply higher and Treasury total returns for 2017 will be close to zero. Otherwise, yields are likely to remain near current levels and 2017 Treasury total returns will approximate carry, in the range of 2.5%. Our valuation framework for the 10-year Treasury yield underscores the importance of inflation for the duration call. The real 10-year Treasury yield (currently 0.43%) is consistent with market expectations for just under two Fed rate hikes during the next 12 months (Chart 1). With the median Fed member calling for 3-4 hikes during that period, the potential remains for somewhat higher real yields in the near-term. But with all but one Fed member forecasting a terminal fed funds rate of 3% or below (1% or below in real terms), the long-run upside in real yields appears limited. On the other hand, the compensation for inflation embedded in 10-year bond yields is still far too low. At 1.85%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is well below the 2.4% to 2.5% range consistent with the Fed hitting its inflation target. This continues to be the case even as our Pipeline Inflation Indicator has accelerated in recent weeks (Chart 1, bottom panel). Bond investors are waiting for inflation to show up in the core CPI and PCE data before liquidating their positions. We retain our below-benchmark duration bias on a 6-12 month horizon on the view that inflation will soon resume its cyclical uptrend. 10-year inflation compensation has 55-65 bps of upside in this scenario, while 10-year real yields will probably stay close to current levels. The outlook for core inflation is discussed in more detail in the Economy & Inflation section below. High-Yield: Just A Carry Trade At this late stage of the credit cycle, low inflation is also the key support for excess returns in both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds. We see limited scope for further spread tightening but think it's likely that the carry trade will continue until inflation turns the corner and long-maturity TIPS breakevens settle into the 2.4% to 2.5% range consistent with the Fed's target.1 In this week's report we explore what this carry trade means for excess high-yield returns, and put those returns into context with what the asset class has typically delivered for bond investors. Table 1 shows historical annual excess returns for the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index since 1995.2 On average High-Yield has returned 3.42% over Treasuries each year, but with significant variation. Most of that variation results from years when the default rate is either rising quickly during a recession or falling fast in the early stages of economic recovery. Since neither of those scenarios is likely during the next 6-12 months we filter out those periods by looking at years when the average index option-adjusted spread (OAS): Widened by more than 100 bps Tightened by more than 100 bps Was range bound between -100 bps and +100 bps The average excess return is 4.9% in years when the spread is confined to a -100 bps to +100 bps range. High-Yield has returned 5.46% in excess of Treasuries so far this year, and the OAS has tightened 61 bps. It is unlikely that junk spreads will tighten by 100 bps or more during the next 12 months. The average index OAS is currently 348 bps, only 115 bps above its all-time low (Chart 2). However, to properly assess current spread levels we also need to consider that the average index duration has declined during the past fifteen years. All else equal, the same spread level is more attractive today because index duration is lower. Table 1Historical Annual High-Yield##br## Excess Returns* (%) Chart 2Junk Spreads Not Far ##br##From All-Time Tights We adjust for index duration by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread.3 At 93 bps, the breakeven spread is currently 40 bps above its all-time low (Chart 2, bottom panel). In other words, at current duration levels, the junk OAS can tighten another 149 bps before the sector is more expensive than it has ever been. Either way, what's clear from Chart 2 is that we should probably not expect much more than 100 bps of further tightening this cycle. Or, put differently, it would definitely make sense to reduce high-yield exposure as we approach all-time expensive valuations. But we can get even more specific about our expectations for high-yield excess returns. Excess junk returns can be approximated using the following formula: Excess return = Starting OAS - Default Losses - Duration*(Change in OAS) The expected return from carry during the next 12 months can be thought of as today's index spread less our expectation for default losses. Capital gains and losses can be approximated using today's index duration and the expected change in spreads. For simplicity we ignore convexity effects. This excess return approximation is shown in the second panel of Chart 3, where the dashed line assumes a base case scenario where default losses fall in line with our expectation and the OAS remains flat. Table 2 shows what 12-month excess returns would be in this base case scenario, as well as in several other scenarios. Chart 3High-Yield ##br##Expected Returns Table 2High-Yield 12-Month Excess ##br##Return* Projections In a base case scenario, where default losses are 1.09% and the OAS is flat, we would expect excess junk returns of 2.39% during the next 12 months. In a more bullish scenario where the OAS tightens by another 100 bps - bringing it to within striking distance of all-time tights - we would expect excess returns of 6.15%. We also consider scenarios where default losses differ from our forecast of 1.09%. For context, that 1.09% forecast is derived from Moody's baseline default rate forecast of 2.26% and our own model-based recovery rate forecast of 51%. For example, in a scenario where default losses are somewhat higher than expected (2%) but where the OAS stays flat, we would expect excess returns of only 1.48%. We should note that 12-month high-yield default losses have never been lower than 0.5%. So we present that optimistic scenario as an upper-bound on potential excess returns to junk. Notice that even in the most optimistic scenario we can envision, default losses reaching all-time lows and spreads contracting to within a hair of all-time tights, expected excess high-yield returns still only reach 6.74%. We would view that as the absolute best case scenario for high-yield. Realistically, default losses will probably fall into a range between 1% and 2% during the next 12 months. Assuming also that spreads come under neither strong upward nor downward pressure, we would expect excess high-yield returns between 2% and 5% (annualized) during the next 6-12 months. Bottom Line: High-Yield spreads are 149 bps away from being more expensive than they have ever been. But in the absence of inflation it is difficult to pinpoint a catalyst for sharp spread widening. We expect excess high-yield returns between 2% and 5% (annualized) during the next 6-12 months. Is Hard Currency EM Debt A Substitute For Junk? Chart 4Favor U.S. Corporates Over EM Sovereigns With relatively feeble expected returns from U.S. high-yield bonds, it's logical to explore whether there are any more attractively valued alternatives in the U.S. bond universe. One potential candidate is the U.S. dollar denominated debt of Emerging Market governments. Unfortunately, valuation in that space does not look much better than in U.S. corporates. In an effort to control for differences in both credit rating and index duration, we compare 12-month breakeven spreads between the Bloomberg Barclays EM USD Sovereign Index and a credit rating matched benchmark consisting of a combination of U.S. investment grade and high-yield corporate bond indexes. We notice that hard currency EM Sovereigns and similarly rated U.S. corporate bonds offer almost exactly the same breakeven spread, and also that EM Sovereigns have been getting comparatively cheaper since early last year (Chart 4). At the moment there is no compelling argument to favor one sector over the other on pure valuation grounds. We therefore also consider the main macro drivers of relative excess returns between EM Sovereigns and U.S. corporates (Chart 4, bottom 2 panels). The last two significant periods of EM outperformance coincided with falling U.S. rate hike expectations - as evidenced by our declining fed funds discounter - and a weaker U.S. dollar. With our 24-month fed funds discounter at only 62 bps - meaning the market expects less than three rate hikes during the next 24 months - we think it is likely to move higher from here. This should lead to one more bout of EM cheapening relative to U.S. corporates. At that point, once we are past peak rate hike expectations for the cycle, we will likely get a more attractive entry point to move into EM. Interestingly, an examination of country level spreads also does not identify any clear pockets of cheapness in EM (Chart 5). Mexico and Turkey both offer similar breakeven spreads to equivalently rated U.S. corporates, but our Emerging Markets Strategy service has a dim view of both the Turkish Lira and Mexican peso versus the U.S. dollar.4 The higher-rated EM countries: Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar offer the most attractive relative spreads. But, at least for Qatar, that elevated spread is most likely compensation for a highly volatile currency (Chart 6).5 Chart 5Breakeven Spreads: USD EM Sovereign Vs. U.S. Corporates Chart 6USD EM Sovereign Breakeven Spread Differentials Vs. Exchange Rate Volatility Bottom Line: There is no compelling valuation argument in favor of hard currency EM Sovereign debt versus U.S. corporate bonds. We will look to shift into EM once the pace of Fed rate hikes starts to slow later in the cycle. Economy & Inflation Some Silver Linings In September's CPI The September CPI report was released last week and it disappointed expectations with core CPI rising only 0.13% month-over-month. For context, an environment where inflation is well anchored around the Fed's target would be consistent with core CPI prints of 0.2% every month, roughly 2.4% annualized. However, despite the disappointing month-over-month figure, we continue to see evidence that inflation is past the worst of its recent downtrend. First, while year-over-year core CPI was roughly flat in September, the 3-month rate of change increased for the fourth consecutive month. The year-over-year rate of change tends to converge toward the 3-month rate of change (Chart 7). Second, a look at the underlying components of core CPI shows the following (Chart 8): Chart 7CPI Inflation Chart 8Core CPI Components Shelter inflation fell from 3.30% to 3.24% year-over-year in September. This mild deceleration is consistent with the reading from our model, and will persist going forward (Chart 8, panel 1). Chart 9Wireless No Longer A Drag Core goods inflation also fell in September, but should soon start to rise as the weaker dollar and rising import prices pass through to overall core goods prices (Chart 8, panel 2). Core services inflation, excluding shelter and medical care, increased for the third consecutive month (Chart 8, panel 3). This component of inflation is most sensitive to wage growth, and it is where we would expect most of the inflation to come from going forward. Medical care inflation continues to decelerate sharply (Chart 8, bottom panel), but as we have discussed previously, this mostly reflects a convergence between CPI and PCE inflation.6 The Fed's 2% target refers to PCE inflation. The acceleration in core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) is particularly important as it is yet another signal that tight labor markets are starting to pressure wages higher. This is the dynamic that must continue to play out if inflation is to return to the Fed's target, and we would tend to view increases in inflation as more sustainable if they are driven by this component. Additionally, the critical core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) component has been depressed in recent months by an incredibly sharp decline in cellular service (aka wireless) inflation (Chart 9). The decline occurred when both Verizon and AT&T unveiled unlimited data plans in the same month, but that drop has since reversed. When we exclude wireless from core services inflation, in addition to shelter and medical care, we see that the resulting series tracks wage growth much more closely in recent months. This underscores our conviction that core services inflation will respond to tightening labor markets and mounting wage pressure going forward. Consumer Sentiment Is Sky High There was one other notable datapoint released last week, and that was the University of Michigan's Consumer Sentiment survey which surged to its highest level since 2004 (Chart 10)! This should lend support to consumer spending (and hence GDP growth) in Q3 and Q4 and is consistent with the message from the New York Fed's GDP tracking estimate which projects GDP growth to average 2.3% in the second half of 2017. This is well above the Fed's 1.8% estimate of trend. Chart 10Consumer Spending & Sentiment With growth coming in solidly above trend, it is unlikely that September's disappointing month-over-month CPI print will be enough to prevent the Fed from lifting rates in December. As long as inflation is flat or higher during the next two months, then another rate hike this year is probably in the cards. Bottom Line: Core inflation disappointed expectations in September, but the details of the report showed some silver linings. Inflation looks to be past the worst of its downtrend and should be strong enough during the next two months for the Fed to lift rates in December. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Excess returns are calculated relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. 3 The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required on a 12-month investment horizon to deliver zero excess returns. For simplicity we ignore convexity effects and calculate the breakeven spread as OAS divided by duration. 4 For Turkey please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Dollar Expensive, And Are EM Currencies Cheap?" dated October 11, 2017. For Mexico please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Questions From The Road", dated September 20, 2017. Both available at ems.bcaresearch.com 5 Both Saudi Arabia and UAE have pegged exchange rates and are not shown in Chart 6. 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Unwind", dated September 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Revisiting the shadow banking system 10 years later. The September CPI data is unlikely to resolve the inflation debate at the Fed. How to invest in a late cycle environment. Wage Inflation was on the rise even before the hurricanes. Feature Chart 1September CPI And Retail Sales Keep##BR##The Fed On Track To Tighten The state of the U.S. business cycle, and what could end it, were key topics of conversation at BCA's semi-annual Research Advisory Board meeting in early October. Most participants agreed with the BCA view that the economy is in the late stages of the economic cycle, and a few suggested that another bubble in the shadow banking sector may end the expansion. With those discussions in mind, we review the state of the shadow banking in the first section of this report and then examine how key aspects of the economy and U.S. asset classes behave while the U.S. economy is in the final stages of an expansion. In the final section, we take another look at wage inflation signals from the hurricane impacted September jobs report, and conclude that wage growth has accelerated even excluding the effect of the storms. The September CPI and retail sales data were also impacted by the storm, but the message is that the underlying economy is strong enough to generate some inflation (Chart 1), although the September CPI is unlikely to resolve the inflation debate at the Fed. The minutes of last month's FOMC meeting (released last week) indicate that the upcoming inflation data could be pivotal to whether the Fed delivers another rate hike in December. There are two more CPI reports ahead of the December FOMC meeting (with the second release coming on the day of the policy announcement). While the September CPI data was hard to interpret due to the storms, the next few data prints need to affirm the Fed's forecast that core inflation is indeed recovering from the "transitory weakness" seen earlier this year. BCA's U.S. bond strategists believe that inflation will be strong enough for the Fed to justify a hike in December and recommend below-benchmark duration for fixed income portfolios. Shadow Banking Update At current levels, shadow banking activity in the U.S. is not a threat to the economic expansion. The ratio of financial sector debt to non-financial sector debt is a rough proxy of how the system can leverage existing debt into new securities and boost credit creation (Chart 2). As financial innovation and deregulation boosted system liquidity, outstanding financial debt as a percentage of non-financial debt climbed from 10% in the mid-1970s to over 50% in 2008. In Q2 2017, the shadow banking proxy stands at only 33%, because the global financial crisis and subsequent reregulation of the financial sector have reigned in excesses. The last time that the ratio was this low was in the late 1990s. Bank lending standards highlight key differences between the backdrop in the mid-2000s and today (Chart 3). In the mid-2000s, even as the Fed had boosted rates by 425 basis points, lending standards were easy and loosening. In contrast, the 100 bps increase in the Fed funds rate since late 2015 was accompanied by a tightening of lending requirements. Moreover, lending criteria were already tight when the Fed began its latest rate hikes. Chart 2The Shrinking Shadow##BR##Banking Sector Chart 3Bank Lending Standards Tighter##BR##Today Than In Mid '00s The Fed and other regulators are more attuned to financial excesses than they were a decade ago. The central bank under Yellen has raised the profile of financial stability.1 BCA views "financial stability" as a third mandate for the central bank, along with low and stable inflation, and full employment. That said, the Fed did not assess financial stability at the September FOMC meeting and the topic was only briefly mentioned by Fed staff and FOMC participants. At the July 2017 meeting, the central bank's staff characterized the "financial vulnerabilities of the U.S. financial system" as moderate on balance. BCA expects that the Fed will return to the topic at either one or both remaining FOMC meetings in 2017. The October 2017 Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report2 provided a checklist of liquidity measures to watch as the U.S. economy enters the end of an elongated expansion. In view of these indicators, we would describe liquidity conditions in the U.S. as fairly accommodative, although not nearly as abundant as prior to the Lehman event in 2008. Monetary conditions are super easy, while balance sheet and financial market liquidity are reasonably constructive. In contrast, funding liquidity, while vastly improved since the global financial crisis, is still a long way from the pre-Lehman go-go years (as per indicators such as bank leverage). The Fed is set to begin the process of unwinding the massive amount of monetary liquidity created by its quantitative easing program. This has the potential to undermine other types of liquidity in the financial system, leading to a correction in risk assets. However, the BCA Special Report argues that the reaction of the bond market is more important for risk assets than the balance sheet adjustment itself. If inflation only edges higher and market expectations for the upward path of the Fed funds rate remain gentle, then risk assets should take the balance sheet unwind in stride. An abrupt upward shift in inflation would be an altogether different story. Bottom Line: The U.S. expansion entered a late-cycle environment near the close of 2016 as the unemployment rate dipped below NAIRU. Nonetheless, none of our recession-timing indicators warns that a downtown is imminent3 and the financial excesses in the end stage of the 2001-2007 economic expansion are not present today. If the next recession begins in the second half of 2019, then global equities will probably peak earlier that year or in late 2018. Given the starting point for valuations, U.S. equities may decline by 20% to 30% peak-to-trough. Stay overweight equities for now. The time to trim exposure could come in mid-2018. Late-Cycle Playbook Chart 4Easier Financial Conditions##BR##Will Boost U.S. Growth Easing financial conditions will lead to faster U.S. GDP growth in the next few quarters. Financial conditions have eased sharply this year due to a strengthening stock market, narrower credit spreads and a weaker dollar. Changes in financial conditions lead growth by about 6 to 9 months, implying that U.S. growth could reach 3% early next year (Chart 4). This could drop the unemployment rate to 3.5% by end-2018, more than one point below the Fed's estimate of full employment and even lower than the 2008 low of 3.8%. Rising inflation will compel the Fed to lift rates aggressively next year to cool the economy and push the unemployment rate back above NAIRU. The U.S. has never averted a recession in the post-war era when the unemployment rate has increased by more than one-third of a percentage point. BCA's stance is that the U.S. economy enters the expansion's final stage when the unemployment rate dips below NAIRU. Chart 5 shows that the unemployment rate moved below NAIRU in November 2016. In the past 45 years, the economy has spent an average of 33 months in late-cycle mode ahead of 5 recessions. The exception was 1981-82 when the unemployment rate did not dip below NAIRU ahead of the recession; we treated the separate 1980 and 1981-82 recessions as one episode. Note that several of these late-cycle intervals overlap with recessions (vertical lines on Charts 5, 6 and 7 indicate the start of recessions). Chart 5Late Cycle Performance Of Stocks, Bonds, & Commodities The late-cycle environment favors equities over Treasuries, gold and oil, but other risk assets (small caps, investment-grade and high-yield corporates) underperform (Table 1). The dollar drops by an average of 5% in late cycles and it moved lower in 4 of the 5 previous episodes. Oil is a consistent late-cycle performer, climbing in all the stages in our analysis. The average returns across all assets classes are similar, even excluding the 1973 OPEC oil embargo and the 1987 stock market crash. Nonetheless, asset class returns in the current environment have mostly run counter to history. Table 1Late Cycle Performance Of Stocks, Bonds, & Commodities In typical late-cycle performance, U.S. stocks have outperformed Treasuries since November 2016, the dollar has weakened and oil is up, though by far less than in an average late cycle. However, both investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds have outpaced Treasuries, and small caps have beaten large caps. Moreover, gold prices have dropped. However, the current late-cycle period has been in place for only 10 months, which is more than two years short of the 33-month average of late cycles since 1972 (Table 1). Furthermore, the level of S&P 500 earnings, both trailing and forward, also rise uniformly in late cycles. That said, earnings growth tends to peak about halfway through each cycle, but we note that we have only forward EPS data for three of the five episodes in our analysis. Profit margins take the same course as earnings and earnings growth (Chart 6). The late-cycle climb in wages and labor compensation impacts margins. Additionally, inflation tends to escalate during late cycles (Chart 7). Chart 6S&P 500 Earnings And Margins In Late Cycle Chart 7Inflation And Interest Rates During Late Cycles Bottom Line: The late-cycle environment may persist for another two years or so, favoring stocks over bonds, a weaker dollar and higher oil prices. Although we are overweight both investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds, these two asset classes tend to underperform Treasuries as the business cycle fades. We also expect wages and inflation to continue to mount, suggesting that duration should be kept short. The late-cycle pattern is at odds with BCA's view that the dollar will appreciate modestly in the next 12 months. However, the dollar's trajectory depends both on Fed policy and the direction of rates in the economies of the major U.S. trading partners. The Bank of Canada will be lifting rates in the coming quarters, but policy rates will be flat for some time in the Eurozone and Japan, such that interest rate differentials will shift in favor of the dollar on a multi-lateral basis. Another Look At Wage Inflation In last week's report4 we indicated that the September jobs report was difficult to interpret due to the impacts of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Specifically, we stated that the unexpected 0.5% month-over-month gain in average hourly earnings should be discounted. Employment in the low-paying leisure and hospitality sector fell by 111,000 in September, helping to boost the aggregate average hourly wage. These wages will correct lower as these workers return to their jobs post-hurricane recovery. A closer look at the wage data, however, suggests that the acceleration in wage growth in September 2017 to 2.9% from 2.7% in August and a recent low of 1.9% in 2014, has been in place for some time. Admittedly, the 2.9% year-over-year reading on wage inflation, may have overstated labor costs in September. That said, at 56% in August, the percentage of U.S. states where the year-over-year percentage change in average hourly earnings is rising has been on the upswing since mid-2014. The August reading was the highest since 2012 (Chart 8). In Chart 9, we created an "equally-weighted" AHE measure to adjust for shifts in the composition of the labor market, but we found that the recent deceleration is not linked to compositional effects. Since wage growth bottomed out in late 2012, the compositional shifts slightly lowered wage inflation on average, but the growth rates today are roughly the same. Chart 10 updates research by the Kansas City Fed5 that found only a few industries (mostly in the goods-producing sector) account for most of the rise in wages, notably manufacturing, construction and wholesale trade. Financial services, retail, professional and business services, and leisure and hospitality - all service sector industries - were the laggards. The report shows that although earnings growth has fallen behind in service-oriented industries since 2015, hours worked have increased faster than in the goods-producing sector. Chart 856% Of States Have Seen##BR##Higher Wage Inflation Chart 9Compositional Effects Do Not##BR##Explain Recent Wage Weakness Chart 10Acceleration In Hours Worked##BR##Should Lead To Faster Wage Growth Moreover, the August JOLTS data also provides evidence that the labor market began to tighten before the effects of Harvey and Irma. The quit rate matched a 15-year high in August, and job openings were at an all-time high. Job openings in the leisure and hospitality sector were at all-time highs in August, and the quit rate in that storm-impacted industry stood at 4.2% (Chart 11). Even excluding the leisure and hospitality industry from the average hourly earnings data, wage growth has unambiguously climbed in the past 1- and 3- months (Chart 12). Chart 11Overall Job Openings And Quit Rates##BR##Vs. Leisure And Hospitality Chart 12Wage Acceleration Evident Even##BR##Excluding Leisure And Hospitality Bottom Line: Wage inflation was on the upswing even before the hurricanes hit in late August and September. Persistent wage inflation will allow the Fed to raise rates again in December and three or four times next year. This supports BCA's underweight stance on duration. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate," July 24, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, "Liquidity And The Great Balance Sheet Unwind," October 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Strategy Outlook Fourth Quarter 2017: Goldilocks And The Recession Bear," October 4, 2017. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Small Cap Surge," October 9, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 "Wage Leaders and Laggards: Decomposing The Growth In Average Hourly Earnings," Willem Van Zandweghe, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, February 15, 2017.

Special Report

Underappreciated Capex Table 1Evolution Of S&P 500 Q3 2017 Estimates Equities moved laterally last week, consolidating recent gains. Loosening fiscal policy coupled with synchronized global growth remain the dominant macro themes. Earnings season got underway and since our early October Q3 EPS analysis, overall forecasts have collapsed further to a mere 4.3% year-over-year growth rate trailing even expected revenue growth (Table 1). Importantly, the financials sector (which we are overweight) is heavily weighing on the overall profit picture and is expected to contract profits by 9% (Table 1). While the insurance sub-sector (which we are underweight) may be behind the bulk of the negative EPS revisions owing to the recent hurricane catastrophes, such extreme pessimism is unwarranted and the bar is set extremely low both for the financials sector and the overall market. While still early in the season, better than expected bank reports are hinting that surprises will be to the upside. If bank cash has already been put to work following the late-June mega buyback announcements, then profits will most certainly overwhelm. Following up from last week's easy fiscal/tight money analysis1, the ongoing capex upcycle (and any assistance from a possible infrastructure bill) is likely to add fuel to the fire and propel equities deeper into overshoot territory. This nascent recovery in capital outlays transforming into a full blown capex upcycle is the key macro theme we see dominating markets in 2018. Investors and pundits alike are dismissing the potential positive thrust from a capital spending upturn that is not only a common late-cycle phenomenon, but also the result of a virtuous EPS cycle. Chart 1 shows that the recent V-shaped recovery in operating EPS should morph into a sizable capex upcycle. Vibrant capex then feeds back into profits, leading to a virtuous cycle. Empirical evidence suggests that a lagged relationship exists between these two variables: since the early 1980s capex growth has typically trailed profit growth by one year. Intuitively, as earnings recover, CEOs have more confidence in the outlook for final demand and choose to deploy longer-term oriented capital. Granted, this also works in reverse: when profits contract, all spending ceases and preservation of cash takes center stage. This is the nature of animal spirits, and currently they are in takeoff mode. National accounts data also confirm the positive correlation between capex2 and corporate non-financial operating earnings3 growth, albeit with a shorter lag. Bear in mind that one key difference between the stock market reported capex data and the national accounts is the energy/basic resource sectors' unusually large slice of the stock market-reported overall capex pie (Chart 2). Chart 1Virtuous Cycle Chart 2Resources Retrenchment Is Over Nevertheless, the message is clear and consistent from both data sets and most importantly from forward looking indicators of cyclical spending: a sustainable capex upcycle is brewing (Chart 3). It would be unprecedented if the current business cycle ended without a visible capex upcycle. The bottom panel of Chart 1 shows that since the 1980s recession, all four recessions were preceded by stock market reported capex soaring to roughly a 20% annual growth rate. At the current juncture, capex is merely on the cusp of entering expansion territory and, if history at least rhymes, a significant capex upcycle is looming. Drilling beneath the surface on sector capex composition is revealing. Chart 4 shows that basic resources (energy, industrials & materials) reported financial statement capex is still contracting. The rest of the eight sectors combined are also experiencing a sizable capex deceleration, signaling a wide-ranging capex slowdown (Charts 5, 6 & 7 break down the top eleven sector capex growth rate). Chart 3Expect A Capex... Chart 4...Recovery... Chart 5... Across... Similar to the recent 2015/16 broad-based EPS contraction phase that was not limited to the three resource related industries but permeated most GICS1 sectors, all segments of the market have been in capex retrenchment mode, suffering the aftermath of the recent profit recession. If our thesis of a virtuous EPS-to-capex cycle takes root in the coming quarters, then a synchronized capex upcycle is in the cards, and higher beta/higher operating leverage deep cyclicals sectors are going to be in the driver's seat (Chart 7). Chart 6... All... Chart 7...Sectors Our October 2nd S&P industrials sector boost to overweight4 shifted our portfolio to a modest cyclical over defensive tilt, and this week's Special Report highlights five key reasons to prefer cyclicals over defensives (please see below). Top 5 Reasons To Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives Following last November's Trump election victory euphoria, the S&P cyclicals/defensives ratio has been marking time, oscillating in a tight 5% trading range, and digesting the impressive run up. Factors are now falling into place for a playable breakout in the cyclical/defensive ratio. Five key macro drivers outline our warming up to a cyclical over defensive portfolio tilt: Capital expenditures upcycle Synchronized global growth in general and emerging markets (EM) growth in particular U.S. dollar softness Risk premia suppression Diverging operating metrics Capex Upcycle The capex upcycle, which should take root globally, not just in the U.S. (second panel, Chart 8), will disproportionately benefit capital goods producers versus their defensive brethren. Basic resources manufacturers are extremely capital intensive/high operating leverage businesses that flex their earnings power muscle when capex is on the upswing. In fact, if our thesis of a generalized capex upcycle materializes, then even defensive sector manufacturers will boost spending (Chart 6) and reinforce capital goods producers' top and bottom line growth prospects. Chart 8Capital Expenditures Upcycle... The worst for deep cyclicals-related capex is likely over and as confidence returns, purse strings will loosen and lead to fresh investment decisions in order to satisfy upbeat final demand. Keep in mind that capex is starting from an historically low point for the complex, and there are high odds that the recent tick up in capex will gain traction (Chart 2) as resource companies are now more flush with cash. As a reminder, the most opportune time to buy cyclicals at the expense of defensives is in full expansion mode during a virtuous cycle and not in retrenchment mode. Leading indicators of capital outlays have taken off at full throttle (top panel, Chart 8), and the reviving global credit impulse (courtesy of the Bank for International Settlements) suggests that bankers will continue to extend credit and fulfil loan demand. This credit fuel will likely propel both capex and the relative share price ratio higher (bottom panel, Chart 8) or, at the very least, remove the critical constraint to firms growing their balance sheets. Synchronized Global Growth Synchronized global growth typically boosts global final demand and is also conducive to a coordinated global capex upcycle. The resurgent global manufacturing PMI and buoyancy in most of its subcomponents suggests that cyclicals have the upper hand (fourth panel, Chart 9). Importantly, the IMF's most recent World Economic Outlook upgraded global growth, penciling in 2.1% and 5.3% real GDP growth for the back half of 2018 for advanced and developing economies, respectively. Historically, this growth differential has been positively correlated with relative share prices and the recent IMF upgrade of forward output growth should add impetus to the upswing in the relative share price ratio (top panel, Chart 9). Indeed, emerging markets economies are gaining steam and EM assets reflect recent resiliency: EM stock prices in particular both in local currency and U.S. dollars are at multi year highs painting a bright picture for the cyclical/defensive ratio (third panel, Chart 9). Within the EMs, China remains a key source of uncertainty. The economy has likely passed the point of peak growth momentum, and economic data surprises have recently turned negative. Still, shorter-term measures of money & credit growth have turned positive, and global growth indicators continue to point to a robust external demand (which will, in turn, support Chinese import growth). All told, while China is likely to decelerate from current levels, the slowdown is likely to be benign and will cause the economy to settle into a stable growth range. This is a positive outcome for trades that are sensitive to the potential for a sharp decline in Chinese economic activity, such as cyclicals versus defensives. Soft U.S. Dollar The U.S. dollar has a critical influence on the relative share price ratio. The currency remains in the red year-to-date, on a trade-weighted basis, and cyclical momentum will likely linger in negative territory at least for the remainder of the year given that the greenback peaked in late 2016. This represents a bullish backdrop for cyclical compared with defensive EPS prospects as a lagged currency effect should boost relative profitability (Chart 10). Chart 9...Synchronized Global Growth... Chart 10...The Dollar's Softness... The S&P cyclicals sectors sport, on average, 47% foreign sales exposure, whereas defensives garner a mere 14% of total revenue from abroad according to FactSet.5 The implication is that a depreciating U.S. dollar gooses cyclicals EPS three times more than defensives, ceteris paribus. Our relative export proxy corroborates this profit advantage that cyclicals enjoy at the expense of defensives (third panel, Chart 10). One final way that the U.S. currency depreciation benefits cyclicals is via the commodity channel. In general, commodities are priced in U.S. dollars, thus any drop in the currency is almost immediately mirrored in rising commodity prices and vice versa. In contrast, fluctuating commodity prices represent an input cost for select defensives and commodity inflation tends to eat into profit margins. Our relative pricing power gauges do an excellent job capturing these pricing dynamics and the forward looking ISM manufacturing prices paid sub-index signals additional relative pricing power gains (fourth panel, Chart 10). Low Risk Premia Chart 11...Suppressed Risk Premia... The fall in the greenback has historically been correlated with reviving global real output, "risk on" phases and a decline in risk premia. The opposite is also true. Currently, investor euphoria reigns supreme and the suppression in risk premia across asset classes is flashing green for a cyclical over defensive portfolio tilt. All four major asset volatilities we track have collapsed of late (Chart 11), and there are high odds they will remain depressed as long as coordinated global economic growth chugs along. Financial conditions remain easy both in DM and across most of EM. The St. Louis Fed Financial Stress Index6 is also plumbing multi year lows. Similarly, globally, junk bond spreads are narrow and even the level of junk yields is no longer "high yield", especially in the Eurozone. Finally, the Bloomberg calculated soft versus hard data surprise index is at all-time highs and will likely rekindle relative share price momentum. The upshot is that the runway is clear for the cyclical/defensives ratio (Chart 11). Diverging Operating Metrics Turning to operating metrics, cyclicals clearly have the upper hand. The top panel of Chart 12 shows that the overall business sales-to-inventories ratio troughed in early 2016 and reflects a brighter final demand backdrop for cyclicals relative to defensives. This pickup in end demand is conducive to a further widening of relative operating margins, a message corroborated by the multi-year highs in the ISM manufacturing survey (second panel, Chart 12). The most important development exiting the late-2015/early-2016 global manufacturing recession is that deep cyclicals have made major strides in deleveraging balance sheets and significantly improving their liquidity while in massive retrenchment mode (Chart 12). That era is now over and cyclical cost structures are adjusting, albeit slowly, to higher revenue run rates. The commodity price recovery since early 2016 has considerably improved net debt-to-EBITDA and interest coverage for cyclicals versus defensives. Moreover, relative free cash flow growth generation in isolation is also expanding for the first time in three years and should sustain the valuation rerating phase (middle panel, Chart 13). Our relative Cyclical Macro Indicators best encapsulate the shifting macro landscape: the current message is to expect more gains in the relative share price ratio (top panel, Chart 13). Chart 12...Divergent Operating Metrics... Chart 13...And Cyclical Macro Indicators, All Support Cyclicals Over Defensives Risks Most of the indicators we track point to additional gains in relative share prices, however, three risks bear close attention. While relative valuations are slightly on the expensive side and cash flow generation should sustain the cyclical valuation premium, if cyclicals compared with defensives profits disappoint in the coming quarters, then the lack of a valuation cushion is a key risk to our constructive cyclicals over defensives view. Related to this profit mishap risk, any severe Chinese/EM slowdown or global growth scare would put our view offside as relative EPS growth would underwhelm. A spike in the U.S. dollar is the final risk to our thesis. Any surge in the U.S. dollar would short circuit relative performance and a relapse to the 2016 lows could materialize. Either a more hawkish than expected Fed or a destabilizing Chinese currency devaluation (similar to August 11, 2015) can cause tremors in global markets that would reverberate via a soaring greenback. Such an outcome would deal a blow to commodity prices and cyclicals profits and, as a result, cyclicals share prices would bear the brunt of the U.S. dollar's might. Investment Implications Adding it up, the revving capital expenditures upcycle, synchronized global growth in general and firming EM growth in particular, U.S. dollar softness, risk premia suppression and diverging operating metrics all favor cyclicals at the expense of defensives. Bottom Line: Shift to a cyclical over defensive portfolio bent. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Easy Fiscal Offset Tighter Monetary Policy?"dated October 9, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Source: National Income and Product Accounts 3 Source: Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Earnings Take Center Stage,"dated October 2, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 https://www.factset.com/earningsinsight 6 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/STLFSI