Europe

Highlights The global 6-month credit impulse is likely to turn up in the fourth quarter. This warrants profit-taking in some pro-defensive equity sector, regional, and country allocation... ...for example, in the 35 percent outperformance of European healthcare versus banks in just seven months. But do not become aggressively pro-cyclical until the 10-year yield on the Italian BTP (now at 3.2) moves closer to 3... ...and the sum of the 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund and JGB (now at 3.4) also moves closer to 3. Chart Of The WeekThe Cycle Is About To Turn Feature One of the most common questions we get is, when will the cycle turn? And our response is always, which cycle? The cycle that most people focus on is the so-called business cycle, which describes multi-year economic expansions punctuated by recessions. However, the business cycle - to the extent that it is a cycle - is very irregular. Its upswings and downswings vary greatly in length (Chart I-2). This irregularity is one reason why economists are useless at calling the turns. Nevertheless, investors still obsess with calling the business cycle because they think this is the only cycle that drives the financial markets. Chart I-2The Business Cycle Is Very Irregular We disagree. Nature bestows us with a multitude of cycles with different periodicities: the daily tides, the monthly phases of the moon, the annual seasons, and the multi-year climate cycles. So it would be unnatural, and somewhat arrogant, to assume the economy and financial markets possess only one cycle. In fact, just as in nature, the economy and financial markets experience a multitude of cycles with different periodicities. There Is Not One Cycle In The Economy, There Are Many If you plotted yearly changes in temperature, you would get a flat line and you would think there were no seasons! The point being that you cannot see a yearly cycle if you look at yearly changes. To see the cyclicality of the seasons, you must plot 6-month changes in temperature. Likewise, you cannot see the shorter-term cycles in the economy and financial markets using analysis, such as yearly changes, designed to see longer-term cycles. Once you grasp this basic maths, the mini-cycles in the economy and financial markets will stare you in the face (Chart I-3), and a whole new world of investment opportunities will open up. Chart I-3The Mini-Cycle Is Very Regular As we advised on January 4: "Global growth experiences remarkably consistent - and therefore predictable - 'mini-cycles', with half-cycle lengths averaging eight months. As the current mini-upswing started in May 2017 we can infer that it is likely to end at some point in early 2018. So one surprise could be that global growth will lose steam in the first half of 2018 rather than in the second half, contrary to what the consensus is expecting... Pare back exposure to cyclicals and redeploy to defensives" The advice proved to be very prescient. The global economy did enter a mini-downswing sourced in the emerging markets (Charts I-4 - I-6). Chart I-4The U.S. Mini-Downswing Was Muted... Chart I-5...The Euro Area Mini-Downswing Was Also Muted... Chart I-6...But The China Mini-Downswing Was Severe Nevertheless, the global nature of financial markets meant that the German 10-year bund yield declined by 40 bps, while European healthcare equities outperformed banks by a mouth-watering 35 percent, and materials by 15 percent (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Some of these performances are as large as can be gained in a full business cycle begging the question: Why obsess with the impossible-to-predict business cycle when there are equally rich pickings in the easier-to-predict mini-cycle? Chart I-7Banks Vs. Healthcare Tracks The Mini-Cycle Chart I-8Materials Vs. Healthcare Tracks The Mini-Cycle Furthermore, if you get the equity sector calls right, you will get the equity regional and country calls right too. As cyclicals have underperformed, the less cyclically-exposed S&P500 has been the star performer of the major regional indexes. And cyclical-heavy stock markets like Italy's MIB have strongly underperformed defensive-heavy stock markets like Denmark's OMX (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Italy Vs. Denmark = Banks Vs. Healthcare It follows that the evolution of the global economic mini-cycle is pivotal in every investment decision (Box 1). BOX 1 The Theory Of Economic And Market Mini-Cycles The academic foundation of the global economic mini-cycles is a model called the Cobweb Theorem.1 When bond yields rise, interest rate sensitive sectors in the economy feel a headwind, but with a lag. Similarly, when bond yields decline, interest rate sensitive sectors feel a tailwind, but again with a lag. The lag occurs because credit demand leads credit supply by several months. As credit demand leads credit supply, the turning point in the price of credit (the bond yield) always leads the quantity of credit supplied (the credit impulse). The result is a perpetual mini-cycle oscillation in both economic variables. And because the quantity of credit supplied is a marginal driver of economic activity, this also creates mini-cycles in economic activity. These mini-cycles are remarkably regular with half-cycle lengths averaging around eight months and the regularity creates predictability. Moreover, as most investors are unaware of this predictability, the next turning point is not discounted in financial market prices - providing a compelling investment opportunity for those who do recognise the existence and predictability of these cycles. The Mini-Cycle Will Soon Turn Up The global 6-month credit impulse entered its current mini-downswing in January. Given that mini-downswings tend to last around eight months, we should expect the global economy to exit its mini-downswing in September, the escape valve being the recent decline in bond yields (Chart Of The Week). The caveat is that bond yields were slow to react to the mini-downswing and the decline in 10-year yields, averaging around 40 bps from the peak, has been pretty shallow. It follows that the next mini-upswing could be delayed to October/November, and be somewhat muted. Nevertheless, the surprise could be that global growth will stabilise in the fourth quarter of 2018, contrary to what the consensus is expecting. And this would suggest taking some of the most mouth-watering profits in pro-defensive equity sector, regional, and country allocation - for example, in the 35 percent outperformance of European healthcare versus banks (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Banks Have Severely Underperformed Healthcare Would we go a step further and become pro-cyclical? Not yet. One reason is that there is a limit to how far bond yields can rise before destabilising the very rich valuations of all risk-assets. This is captured in our 'rule of 4' which says that when the sum of the 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund, and Japanese government bond (JGB) exceeds 4 - which broadly equates to the global 10-year yield exceeding 2 percent - it is time to go underweight equities. With the sum now equal to 3.4, yields can rise by only 25-30 bps before hurting risk-assets. Another reason for circumspection is that the investment landscape is still scattered with a large number of landmines, one of which has its own rule of 4. The Other 'Rule Of 4': The Italian 10-Year Bond Yield When Italian bond prices decline, it erodes the value of Italian banks' €350 billion portfolio of BTPs and weakens the banks' balance sheets. Investors start to get nervous about a bank's solvency when equity capital no longer covers net non-performing loans (NPLs). On this basis, the largest Italian banks now have €160 billion of equity capital against €130 billion of net NPLs, implying excess capital of €30 billion (Chart I-11). It follows that the markets would start to worry about Italian banks' mark-to-market solvency if their bond valuations sustained a drop of around a tenth from the recent peak. We estimate this equates to the 10-year BTP yield breaching and remaining above 4 percent (Chart I-12).2 Chart I-11Italian Banks' Equity Capital Exceeds Net NPLs By 30 Bn Euro Chart I-12Italian Banks' Solvency Would Be In Question If The 10-Year Yield Breached 4% Today the 10-year BTP yield stands just shy of 3.2 percent, but it is about to enter a testing period. The Italian government must agree its 2019 budget by September and present a draft to the European Commission by mid-October. The budget must tread a fine line. Cutting the structural deficit to appease the Commission would diminish the credibility of the populist government. It would also be terrible economics, making it harder for Italy to escape its decade-long stagnation.3 On the other hand, locking horns with Brussels and aggressively increasing the structural deficit might panic the bond market. The optimal outcome would be to leave the structural deficit broadly where it is now. To sum up, the global 6-month credit impulse is likely to turn up in the fourth quarter, warranting some profit-taking in pro-defensive positions. But we do not advise aggressive pro-cyclical sector, regional, and country allocation until the 10-year yield on the Italian BTP (now at 3.2) - and the sum of the 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund and JGB (now at 3.4) - both move closer to 3. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'The Cobweb Theory And Market Cycles' published on January 11 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Assuming that the average maturity of Italian banks' BTPs is around 5 years. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'Monetarists Vs Keynesians: The 21st Century Battle' July 12 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal trading Model* In support of the preceding fundamental analysis, the outperformance of healthcare versus banks is technically extended. Its 130-day fractal dimension is at the lower bound which has reliably signalled previous trend exhaustions. On this basis we would position for a 10% reversal with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, long PLN/USD reached the end of its 65-day holding period comfortably in profit, and is now closed. This leaves six open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-13 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Two key issues will remain important drivers of global financial markets in the coming quarters: the direction of the dollar and Chinese policy stimulus. Policy and growth divergences will remain tailwinds for the dollar and there is little the Trump Administration can do to reverse the upward trend. Dollar strength is exposing poor macro fundamentals in many emerging market economies. The problems facing EM economies run deep, and will not disappear anytime soon. Expect more EM fireworks. EM market turmoil could pause the Fed's tightening campaign, but this would require evidence that the U.S. economy and/or financial markets are being negatively affected. Chinese stimulus is a risk to our base-case outlook. A growth impulse might keep the RMB from weakening further, boost commodity prices and support EM exports. However, we believe that Chinese stimulus will not be a 'game changer', and might even cause more problems if the authorities push the RMB lower. The U.S. economy and financial system are less exposed to emerging markets than in the Eurozone. An excellent profit backdrop also provides U.S. risk assets with a strong tailwind. Nonetheless, the U.S. is not immune to EM woes. Poor valuation implies a meaningful correction in U.S. risk assets on any flight-to-quality event. Stay cautious on asset allocation. Fed Chair Powell is willing to wait for the "whites of the eyes" of inflation before becoming alarmed, almost ensuring that the FOMC will fall behind the inflation curve. Evidence of labor market overheating is accumulating. Bond yields will rise as the FOMC tries to catch up and long-term inflation expectations bounce. We believe that investors are underestimating the upside in U.S. inflation risks over the medium term. We recommend below-benchmark duration, although government bonds would temporarily rally if EM turbulence sparks a flight-to-quality. We still expect the supply/demand balance in the world oil market to tighten later this year. Stay positioned for higher oil prices. Japanese corporate profits have been stellar, but that will soon change. EPS growth is likely to soften in the Eurozone too. Favor the U.S. market in unhedged terms. Feature There are numerous key issues on the investment landscape, but two stand out at the moment because they both have wide-ranging global implications: (1) Will the U.S. dollar continue to appreciate; and (2) Will Chinese policymakers place structural reform on the back burner and 'go for growth' in the near term? The latest U.S. economic and profit data provide a strong tailwind for American risk assets. Nonetheless, the mighty U.S. dollar is casting a dark shadow over the heavily-indebted emerging market economies, sparking comparisons with the late 1990s. Could Turkey be the start of a 'domino' effect, similar to Thailand's plunge into financial crisis in 1997 that eventually spread to Brazil and Russia, and finally contributed to the demise of Long-Term Capital Management in the fall of 1998? On the global growth front, the story has not changed much from our assessment last month. Growth is solid, but slowing, in part due to a deceleration in developed-economy capital spending. The global expansion has become less synchronized and relative growth dynamics are pointing to more upside for the greenback (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Cyclical Divergence Is Still Dollar Bullish As in the late 1990s, the Fed is likely to ignore turbulence in EM financial markets and will continue on its tightening path until it begins to affect the U.S. economy or asset prices. The path of least resistance for the dollar is up until something breaks. A major policy impulse from China could alter the feedback loop between the strengthening dollar and EM asset prices. A growth pickup would lift China's imports and commodity prices, both of which would support emerging market economies and asset prices. There is plenty of uncertainty regarding the size of the recently-announced Chinese stimulus measures, but our take is that they are likely to underwhelm because a major growth push would undermine the authorities' structural initiatives. The implication is that the global backdrop will remain unfriendly to emerging market assets at a time when they are more vulnerable than the consensus believes. The risk of a financial accident is escalating. The good news is that the U.S. earnings picture remains excellent, which precludes us from being underweight on risk assets. Nonetheless, investors should have no more than a benchmark allocation to equities and corporate bonds in the major advanced economies. We are upgrading government bonds to neutral at the expense of cash on a tactical basis, to reflect the rising possibility of a global flight-to-quality. The First Domino Turkey has had all the hallmarks of a crisis for a long while. Erdogan's slim hold on power has motivated several populist policy decisions that have stretched Turkey's macro fundamentals. The central bank has been forced to provide large injections of liquidity into the banking system, despite double-digit inflation readings. The country suffers from a classic "twin deficit" problem. Turkish private sector external debt stands at 40% of GDP, of which 13% of GDP is short-term, the highest among EM countries. Erdogan wants economic growth at all costs, but has done little in terms of the structural reforms necessary to lift the country's growth potential. The Lira has lost almost 26% of its value versus the dollar since August 1 and Turkish spreads have blown out. It appears that a lot of bad news has been discounted, but our EM strategists do not see this as a buying opportunity. One risk is that Erdogan imposes capital controls next. Our emerging market team's long held caution on EM is rooted in concern for failing fundamentals.1 They emphasize that Turkey was the catalyst, not the main cause, for the broader financial stress observed across EM assets in August. BCA has highlighted for some time that EM debt is a ticking time bomb. Chart I-2 shows that EM dollar-denominated debt is now as high as it was in the late 1990s as a share of both GDP and exports. Chart I-3 highlights the most vulnerable EM economies in terms of the foreign currency funding requirement, and the foreign debt-servicing obligation relative to total exports. Turkey stands out as the most vulnerable, along with Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Chile, and Colombia. Chart I-2Debt Makes EM Vulnerable Chart I-3EM Debt Exposure In all previous major EM selloffs, any decoupling between different EM regions proved to be unsustainable. And it certainly does not help that the Fed remains on its tightening path; EM equities usually fall when U.S. financial conditions tighten (Chart I-4). The combination of a strong dollar and weak RMB is a deadly combination for highly-indebted emerging market economies. Chart I-4EM Highly Sensitive To U.S. Financial Conditions... Investors should expect contagion to intensify. China To The Rescue? Some investors are hoping that China will 'save the day' by providing a major dose of policy stimulus, as it did in 2015, the last time that EM was close to a tipping point. We doubt China will be able to play the same stabilizing role. The Chinese authorities are committed to their long-term structural goals. They have been trying to reorient the economy toward consumption and away from investment and exports, as well as undertake other reforms to reduce financial risk, pollution, poverty and corruption. China kept policy on the tight side until recently, which resulted in a gradual growth slowdown. The Li Keqiang index (LKI) is a good coincident indicator for economic growth (Chart I-5). This index has ticked up in recent months, along with imports, but this likely reflects industrial activity designed to fill foreign orders before the new U.S. tariffs take effect. Our LKI model, based on money and credit, points to further economic weakness ahead. Chart I-5China: Watch Credit And Fiscal Impulse The escalation of the trade war with the U.S. is forcing the Chinese authorities to provide some short-term policy stimulus in order to pre-empt any resulting economic damage. A flurry of policy announcements over the past month has given investors the impression that Beijing has cranked up the policy dial, including cuts to short-term interest rates, a decrease in reserve requirements, liquidity provision to the banking system, and promises of various forms of fiscal stimulus. Chinese stimulus has historically been positive for commodity prices and EM assets. However, we are less sanguine this time. First, the authorities are not abandoning structural reforms, which means that the associated growth headwinds will not disappear. Second, our China experts believe that Chinese policy is only turning moderately reflationary; this is not the 'big bang' that followed the Great Recession in the late 2000s, or the same level of stimulus provided following the 2015-16 global manufacturing downturn. There will no doubt be some fiscal stimulus, but we do not expect a major expansion in bank credit to the private sector because of the government's crackdown on shadow banking, excessive leverage and growing non-performing loans. The change in the policy stance amounts to 'taking the foot off the brake' rather than pressing firmly on the accelerator.2 Third, and perhaps most importantly, the authorities may rely even more on the currency lever to do the heavy lifting if the economy continues to slow and/or the tariff war escalates further. This would be negative for commodity demand because a weaker RMB will make commodities dearer for Chinese producers. Metals prices are particularly at risk. China's competitors will also feel the sting of a cheaper RMB. It will be critical to watch the Chinese money and credit data in the coming months to gauge whether our view on the policy stimulus is correct. We will also be watching the combined credit and fiscal impulse which, at the moment, points to continued weakening in import growth in the near term (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Slower EM growth and/or more financial market turbulence is likely to take a larger toll on the euro area than the United States. Exports to emerging markets account for only 3.6% of GDP for the U.S., compared to 9.7% of GDP for the euro area. Euro area banks also have more exposure to emerging markets than U.S. banks (Chart I-6). Notably, Spanish banks - BBVA in particular - has sizable exposure to Turkey. Meanwhile, Italian assets have come under pressure as the rift between the European Commission and the new populist government widens and Italian banks become increasingly wary of financing their government. Chart I-6DM Bank Exposure To EM European growth will therefore likely continue to trail that of the U.S. Our base case does not see euro area growth falling below a trend pace in the coming quarters, but relative growth momentum and the ongoing policy divergence will favor the dollar over the euro. FOMC: No Urgency The key message from the latest FOMC Minutes and Chairman Powell's Jackson Hole speech is that policymakers are sticking with the "gradual" approach to tightening, despite the late-cycle acceleration in economic growth. The blowout second-quarter GDP report supports the view that fiscal stimulus is stoking the economy at a time when there is little slack. Evidence that the labor market is overheating is not simply anecdotal anymore. In past cycles, an acceleration in growth at a time when inflation is already at target and unemployment is below estimates of full employment would have sparked aggressive Fed action. But the Minutes and Powell's speech revealed no sense of urgency. Powell made the case that the Fed must proceed carefully in an environment where there is much uncertainty about the level of the neutral policy rate, the natural rate of unemployment and the slope of the Phillips curve. Moreover, long-term inflation expectations are still hovering below a level that is consistent with meeting the 2% target over the medium term. Some FOMC policymakers believe that this fact justifies taking chances with an inflation overshoot in the coming quarters. Another reason for the FOMC to proceed cautiously is the wage picture, which is confusing even to economic experts because the official measures paint a mixed picture (Chart I-7). The Employment Cost Index for private sector workers continues to march higher. However, growth in compensation per hour, average hourly earnings (AHE) and unit labor costs have all eased a little this year. The Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, one of the cleanest measures of wages, reveals an even more significant pullback. The softening in wage growth has been fairly widespread across age cohorts, educational attainment and regions, according to the Atlanta Fed data (Chart I-8). Part-time workers appear to be the only segment that has bucked the trend. It is not clear why workers in the 16-24 age group, as well as those with bachelor's degrees (of any age), have seen the most pronounced softening in wage growth this year. Chart I-7Mixed U.S. Wage Data Chart I-8U.S. Wage Slowdown Broadly-Based Which measure is telling the correct story: the ECI or the Atlanta Wage Tracker? Both are a relatively clean measure of wages and it is difficult to tell based on the relative merits of each index alone. Nonetheless, there is little doubt that the labor market is now very tight by historical standards. Small business owners' compensation plans remained near record levels in July, while concerns about the "quality of labor" have never been higher (Chart I-9). Chart I-10 shows that the ratio of the level of job openings to unemployed workers has surpassed the pre-recession level in all but one sector according to the Jolts survey. Indeed, in most cases this ratio is well above the previous peak. Unemployment is now below the estimated level of full-employment in more than 80% of U.S. states. Chart I-9U.S. Labor Shortage Is Growing Chart I-10JOLTS Signals Very Tight Jobs Market No Evidence Of U.S. Overheating? Labor shortages first appeared for skilled workers, helping to explain why highly-skilled workers have enjoyed the fastest wage gains in recent years. But this year's Fed Beige Books have noted that many businesses are now having trouble finding low- and middle-skilled workers, as listed in Table I-1. These industries roughly line up with the ones that reveal above-average growth in average hourly earnings, and with the ones where labor market tightness is the most acute according to the Jolts survey (second and third columns in the table). The shortages appear to be broadly based, ranging from truck transportation to financial services, manufacturing and construction. This makes it all the more curious that Chairman Powell finds that there is no evidence of overheating in the labor market. The evidence seems pretty conclusive to us and it even features in the Fed's own Beige Book. Keep in mind that inflation is not always the 'cost push' type, beginning in the labor market and traveling to consumer prices. Sometimes inflation can begin in the market for goods and services, and then affect wage demands. U.S. consumer price inflation appears to be headed higher based on the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge (Chart I-11). Our CPI diffusion index shows that inflation is accelerating in a majority of categories. Other measures of underlying inflation, such as the Sticky Price Index, the Trimmed Mean, and the Median inflation rate are all in a solid uptrend. Dollar strength this year will eventually put downward pressure on core goods inflation, but that will take some time; non-energy goods inflation is more likely to rise in the near term as it catches up to the previous acceleration in imported goods prices (Chart I-11, bottom panel). Table I-1Labor 'Shortages' Identified In The Beige Book Chart I-11U.S. Underlying Inflation Is Rising U.S. Inflation To Surprise On Upside We believe that the market is underestimating the risk of a meaningful inflation overshoot over the medium term. Investors still do not believe that the Fed will be able to consistently meet the 2% target over the long-term, based on CPI swaps and TIPS breakeven rates. BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, penned a two-part Special Report in August on the potential for upside inflation surprises over the coming years.3 First, increasing political pressure on the major central banks is worrying. Second, policymakers are coming around to the idea that there may be an exploitable trade-off between higher inflation and lower unemployment. This was a mistake last made in the inflationary 1970s. Finally, the pressure to keep monetary policy accommodative until the "whites of the eyes" of inflation are visible will remain strong. Bonds are in for some trouble if we are correct on the inflation outlook. We recommend that investors with a 6-12 month investor horizon remain short in duration and overweight TIPS versus conventional Treasurys. That said, we cannot rule out a flight-to-quality episode at some point, possibly reflecting trade tensions and/or EM turmoil, which would send Treasury yields temporarily lower. The Fed may be forced to place rate hikes on hold if financial conditions tighten too quickly. No Margin Peak Yet In The U.S.... The S&P 500 was unfazed by the turmoil in emerging markets and the re-widening in Italian bond spreads in August, likely because of continuing good news on the profit front. Corporate earnings remained in a sweet spot in the second quarter. Nominal GDP grew by a whopping 5.4% from a year ago, helping to boost the top line for the corporate sector. The lagged effect of previous dollar depreciation is still flattering earnings, although this only accounts for about two percentage points according to our model (Chart I-12). Meanwhile, equity buybacks have kicked into overdrive (Chart I-13). Chart I-12U.S. Dollar Impact On EPS Growth Chart I-13U.S. Equity Buyback In Overdrive Margins continued their impressive ascent in the second quarter to well above the pre-Lehman peak (Chart I-14). A lot of the increase is related to the tax cuts; EBITDA margins are still substantially below the 2007 peak according to the S&P data. It is disconcerting that all of the surge in S&P 500 margins is due to the Tech sector (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Excluding Tech, S&P after-tax margins have simply moved sideways since 2010. Looking ahead, the tailwind from previous dollar depreciation will shift to a headwind by mid-2019. Chart I-12 shows that the contribution from changes in the dollar to EPS growth will shift from a positive two percentage points to a drag of 1½ percentage points if the dollar is flat from today's level in broad trade-weighted terms. If the dollar rises by another 5% this year, then next year's drag on EPS growth will reach three percentage points. Moreover, the impact of the tax cuts on after-tax profits will fade next year. Wage pressures are building and this should eventually squeeze profit margins. That said, a margin peak does not appear to be imminent. Last month we introduced some macro indicators for profit margins (Chart I-15). Most appeared to be rolling over a month ago, but they have all since ticked up. Chart I-14Tech And Taxes Driving Profit Margins Chart I-15U.S. Margin Indicators Have Turned Up The bottom line is that we continue to expect a mean reversion in U.S. profit margins in the coming years, but this is not a risk for at least the rest of 2018. ...But Profit Outlook Darkening In Japan Second quarter earnings season was also a good one for Japanese companies. Twelve-month forward earnings estimates have been in a steep incline and margins have been rising (Chart I-16). Despite this, the Nikkei has only managed to move sideways this year in local currency terms. Concerns over trade and global growth have perhaps weighed on Japanese stock performance. Company profits have a high beta with respect to global growth. Things are looking shaky on the domestic front too. Domestic demand growth is decelerating, consistent with a weakening Economy Watcher's Survey. Some of the weakness may be related to poor weather, but the LEI suggests that this trend will continue in the coming quarters (Chart I-17, bottom panel). Chart I-16Japan: Trailing Earnings Are Solid... Chart I-17...But Profit Margins Will Narrow Chart I-17 presents some of the variables that have helped to explain historical trends in Japanese EPS. Industrial production growth, a good proxy for top line growth, is decelerating. Nominal GDP growth has fallen to just 1.1% year-over-year, at a time when total labor compensation has surged by more than 4%. The difference between these two, a proxy for profit margins, has therefore plunged. Previous shifts in the yen have not had a large impact on EPS growth over the past year and we do not expect that to change much in 2019. On a positive note, Japanese stocks are attractively valued now that the 12-month forward P/E ratio has fallen below 13 (Chart I-16, bottom panel). It is also constructive that the Bank of Japan is the only central bank that is not backing away from monetary stimulus. The recent widening of the trading band for the 10-year JGB yield was a technical change meant to give the central bank more flexibility, not a signal that policymakers are planning to change tack. Nonetheless, we believe that earnings growth and margins will disappoint market expectations over the next year. The story is much the same for the Eurozone. Both trailing and forward profit margins have been in a strong uptrend. Twelve-month forward EPS growth has been holding at a solid 9%. Nonetheless, the data that feed into our Eurozone profit model point to some softening ahead, including industrial production and the difference between nominal GDP and the aggregate wage bill (not shown). The Eurozone's credit impulse turned negative even before concerns about EM and Italian politics exploded onto the scene. Thus, home-grown profit generation is likely to moderate along with foreign-sourced earnings. For the moment, the BCA House View remains at benchmark on Japanese and Eurozone stocks in currency-hedged terms. In unhedged terms, we prefer the U.S. market to these other bourses because of our bullish dollar bias. Investment Conclusions: Two key issues will remain important drivers of global financial markets in the coming months and quarters: the direction of the dollar and Chinese policy stimulus. We believe that the U.S. dollar has additional upside potential due to growth and policy divergences. There is some speculation in the financial community that President Trump might resort to currency intervention. However, any intervention would be sterilized by the Fed. The only way to shift currencies on a sustained basis would be to organize a coordinated change in monetary or fiscal policies among the U.S. and its main trading partners. This is highly unlikely. Thus, the path of least resistance is up for the U.S. dollar. Dollar strength is exposing poor macro fundamentals in many emerging market economies. The problems facing EM economies run deep, and will not disappear anytime soon because high debt levels make these economies vulnerable to any weakness in global growth, commodity prices or global liquidity conditions. EM financial market turmoil could cause the Fed tightening campaign to go on hold, but this would require evidence that the former is negatively affecting the U.S. economy and/or financial markets. In other words, we need to see some pain before the Fed blinks. Chinese stimulus is a risk to our base-case EM outlook. Policy stimulus might keep the RMB from weakening further, boost commodity prices and support EM exports. This would not change the EM debt situation, but would at least give emerging economies a temporary reprieve. Careful analysis suggests that Chinese stimulus will not be a 'game changer', and might even cause problems if the authorities push the RMB lower. But it will be critical to monitor the next couple of money and credit reports. The U.S. economy and financial system are less exposed to further EM turmoil than in the Eurozone. But as the LTCM event demonstrated in 1998, the U.S. is not immune. Moreover, U.S. equity prices are more expensive than they were during previous EM selloffs that have occurred since the Great Recession. This could mean a larger equity re-rating on any flight-to-quality. This is not to say that we expect a bear market in DM risk assets to get underway in the near future. A U.S./global recession before 2020 is unlikely. Nonetheless, the risk of a meaningful correction is elevated enough that caution is warranted, especially at a time when all risk assets appear expensive. Chart I-18 updates our valuation measures for some major asset classes. All appear to be expensive, especially U.S. equities, raw materials and gold. EM sovereigns and equities are at the cheaper end of the spectrum, but are still not cheap in absolute terms even after the recent selloff. Chart I-18Major Asset Valuation Comparison Treasurys rallied briefly after Chairman Powell signaled that he is not willing to accelerate the pace of rate hikes in light of the U.S. economy's growth acceleration. He is willing to wait until he sees the "whites of the eyes" of inflation before becoming alarmed, almost ensuring that the FOMC will fall behind the inflation curve. Bond yields will rise as the FOMC tries to catch up and long-term inflation expectations bounce. Over the medium term, we believe that investors are underestimating the upside in U.S. inflation risks. We recommend below-benchmark duration, although bonds may temporarily rally if EM turbulence sparks a flight-to-quality. We still expect the supply/demand balance in the world oil market to tighten later this year. Stay positioned for higher oil prices. Finally, as we go to press, the U.S. is trying to force Canada to sign on to the U.S./Mexico 'agreement in principal' by August 31. A framework deal with Canada would likely leave many tough issues unresolved. There is also a chance that Canada misses the deadline and that the existing trilateral deal will not survive. It is technically possible that Canada's refusal to join the U.S.-Mexico bilateral deal will delay its ratification well into next year. In the meantime, Trump could raise the stakes for Canada by boosting tariffs on Canadian autos and/or by suspending NAFTA altogether. As a result, we decided to go ahead and publish our Special Report on U.S. equity sector implications if NAFTA is not ratified and tariffs rise to WTO levels. The report begins on page 20. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst August 30, 2018 Next Report: September 27, 2018 1 Please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report "What's Really Driving The EM Selloff?"dated June 28, 2018, available on ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China is Easing Up On The Brake, Not Pressing The Accelerator," dated July 26, 2018, available on cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Reports: "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? Parts I and II," dated August 10 and 24, 2018, available on gis.bcaresearch.com II. What If NAFTA Is Not A Done Deal? U.S. Equity Implications This Special Report examines the impact of a NAFTA cancelation on 21 level-three GICs industries. While the latest news on the NAFTA renegotiation with Mexico is positive as we go to press, there is still a non-negligible risk that the existing trilateral deal will not survive. The U.S.-Mexico bilateral deal is an "agreement in principle" and will take time to ratify. Meanwhile, a framework deal with Canada would leave many thorny issues to be resolved. President Trump can still revert to his tough tactics on Canada ahead of the U.S. mid-term elections. If the President does not gain major concessions that can be presented as "victories" to voters, he is likely to take an aggressive stand in order to fire up his political base. The probability of Trump triggering Article 2205 and threatening to walk away from the suspended U.S.-Canada free trade agreement is still not trivial, despite the deal with Mexico. By itself, the cancelation of NAFTA would not be devastating for any particular U.S. industry because the size of the tariff increases would be fairly small as long as all parties stick with MFN tariff levels. That said, the impact would not be trivial, especially for those industries that have extensive supply lines that run between the three countries involved (especially Autos). We approached the issue from four different perspectives; international supply chains, a model-based approach, and an analysis of foreign revenue exposure and input cost exposure. The broad conclusion is that there are no winners from a NAFTA cancelation for the U.S. manufacturing GICs industries. Pharmaceuticals, Health Care Equipment & Supplies, Personal Products and Construction Materials are lower on the risk scale, but cannot be considered beneficiaries of a NAFTA collapse. The remaining industries are all moderately-to-highly exposed. Considering the four perspectives as a group, the most vulnerable industries are Automobiles, Automobile Components, Metals & Mining, Food Products, Beverages, and Textiles & Apparel. Our U.S. equity sector specialists recommend overweight positions in Defense and Financials; while neither stands to benefit from a NAFTA abrogation, they should at least be relative outperformers. They recommend underweight positions on Auto Components, Steel and Electrical Components & Equipment as relative (and probably absolute) underperformers should NAFTA disappear. While the latest news on the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is positive as we go to press, there is still a non-negligible risk that President Trump could revert to his tough tactics ahead of the U.S. mid-term elections.1 Even if Canada signs on to a framework deal, a lot of thorny details will have to be worked out. A presidential proclamation triggering Article 2205 of the NAFTA agreement (as opposed to tweeting that the U.S. will withdraw) would initiate a six-month "exit" period. Trump could use this deadline, and the threat of canceling the underlying U.S.-Canada FTA, to put pressure on Canada (if not Mexico) to concede to U.S. demands, just as he could revoke his exit announcement anytime within the six-month period. While some market volatility would ensue upon any exit announcement, even a total withdrawal at the end of the six months would have a limited macro-economic impact as long as the U.S. continued to respect its WTO commitments and lifted tariffs only to Most Favored Nation (MFN) levels. Nonetheless, a modest tariff hike is not assured given the Administration's "America First" policy, its looming threat of Section 232 tariffs on auto imports, its warnings against the WTO itself, and the steep tariffs it has already imposed on Canada, including a 20% tariff on softwood lumber and the 300% tariff on Bombardier CSeries jets. Moreover, even a small rise in tariffs to MFN levels would have a significant negative impact on industries that are heavily integrated across borders. Our first report on the evolving U.S. trade situation analyzed the implications of the U.S.-China trade war for the 24 level two U.S. GICs equity sectors. This Special Report examines the impact of a NAFTA cancelation on 21 level three GICs industries (finer detail is required since NAFTA covers mostly goods industries). We find that there are no "winners" among the U.S. equity sectors because the negative impact would outweigh any positive effects. The hardest hit U.S. industries would be Autos, Metals & Mining, Food Products, Beverages, and Textiles and Apparel, but many others are heavily exposed to a failure of the free trade agreement. Out Of Time President Trump is seeking a new NAFTA deal ahead of the U.S. midterms in November. While this timing may yet prove too ambitious, the U.S. has made progress in recent bilateral negotiations with Mexico, raising the potential that Trump will be able to tout a new NAFTA framework deal by November 6. Yet, investors should be prepared for additional volatility. There are technical issues with the bilateral U.S.-Mexico deal that could delay ratification in Congress until mid-2019. The new Mexican Congress must ratify the deal by December 1 if outgoing President Enrique Peña Nieto is to sign off. Otherwise, the incoming Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador may still want to revise any deal he signs, prolonging the process. Meanwhile, it would be surprising if the Canadians signed onto a U.S.-Mexico deal they had no part in negotiating without insisting on any adjustments.2 The important point is that President Trump's economic and legal constraints on withdrawing from NAFTA have fallen even further with the Mexican deal. If Trump does not get major concessions that can be presented as "victories" to voters, he is likely to take an aggressive stand in order to fire up his political base, as a gray area of "continuing talks" will not inspire voters. This could mean imposing the threatened auto tariffs or threatening to cancel the existing trade agreements with Canada. Thus, the risk of Trump triggering Article 2205 is still not trivial. A bilateral Mexican trade deal is not the same as NAFTA. Announcing withdrawal automatically nullifies much of the 1993 NAFTA Implementation Act. Some provisions of NAFTA under this act may continue, but the bulk would cease to have effect, and the White House could refuse to enforce the rest. The potential saving grace for trade with Canada was that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), which took effect in 1989, was incorporated into NAFTA. The U.S. and Canada agreed to suspend CUSFTA's operation when NAFTA was created, but the suspension only lasts as long as NAFTA is in effect. However, Trump may walk away from both CUSFTA and NAFTA in the same proclamation. In that event, WTO rules for preferential trade would require the U.S. and Canada to raise tariffs on trade with each other to Most Favored Nation (MFN) levels. These tariff levels are shown in Charts II-1A and II-1B. The Charts also show the maximum tariff that could potentially be applied under WTO rules. The latter are much higher than the MFN levels, underscoring that the situation could get really ugly if a full trade war scenario somehow still emerged among these three trading partners. Chart II-1AU.S.: MFN Tariff Rates By GICS Industry (2017) Chart II-1BMexico & Canada: MFN Tariff Rates By GICS Industry (2017) Current tariffs are set at zero for virtually all of these GICs industries, which means that the MFN levels also indicate how much tariffs will rise at a minimum if NAFTA is cancelled. Tariffs would rise the most for Automobiles, Textiles & Apparel, and Food Products (especially agricultural products), and Beverages. U.S. tariffs under the WTO are not significantly higher than NAFTA's rates; the average MFN tariff in 2016 was 3½%, which compares to 4.1% for the average Canadian MFN tariff. Would MFN Tariffs Be Painful? An increase in tariff rates of 3-4 percentage points may seem like small potatoes. Nonetheless, even this could have an outsized impact on some industries because tariffs are levied on trade flows, not on production. A substantial amount of trade today is in intermediate goods due to well-integrated supply chains. Charts II-2A and II-2B present a measure of integration. Exports and imports are quite large relative to total production in some industries. The most integrated U.S. GICs sectors include Automobiles & Components, Materials, Capital Goods and Electrical & Optical Equipment. Higher tariffs would slam those intermediate goods that cross the border multiple times at different stages of production. For example, studies of particular automobile models have found that "parts and components may cross the NAFTA countries' borders as many as eight times before being installed in a final assembly in one of the three partner countries."3 Tariffs would apply each time these parts cross the border if NAFTA fails. Chart II-2AU.S./Canada Supply Chain Integration Chart II-2BU.S./Mexico Supply Chain Integration Appendix Tables II-1 to II-4 show bilateral trade by product between the U.S. and Canada, and the U.S. and Mexico. In 2017, the U.S. imported almost $300b in goods from Canada, and exported $282b to that country, resulting in a small U.S. bilateral trade deficit. The bilateral deficit with Mexico is larger, with $314b in U.S. imports and $243b in exports. The largest trade categories include motor vehicles, machinery, and petroleum products. Telecom equipment and food products also rank highly. As mentioned above, the impact of rising tariffs is outsized to the extent that a substantial portion of trade in North America is in intermediate goods. Box II-1 reviews the five main channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry. Box II-1 Trade Channels There are at least five channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry: (1) The Direct Effect: This can be positive or negative. The impact is positive for those industries that do not export much but are provided relief from stiff import competition via higher import tariffs. The impact is negative for those firms facing higher tariffs on their exports, as well as for those firms facing higher costs for imported inputs to their production process. These firms would be forced to absorb some of import tariffs via lower profit margins. Some industries will fall into both positive and negative camps. U.S. washing machines are a good example. Whirlpool's stock price jumped after President Trump announced an import tariff on washing machines, but it subsequently fell back when the Administration imposed an import tariff on steel and aluminum (that are used in the production of washing machines). NAFTA also eliminated many non-tariff barriers, especially in service industries. Cancelling the agreement could thus see a return of these barriers to trade; (2) Indirect Effect: The higher costs for imported goods are passed along the supply chain within an industry and to other industries that are not directly affected by rising tariffs. This will undermine profit margins in these indirectly-affected industries to the extent that they cannot fully pass along the higher input costs. There would also be a loss of economies-of-scale and comparative advantage to the extent that firms are no longer able to use an "optimal" supply network that crosses borders, further raising the cost of doing business; (3) Foreign Direct Investment: Some U.S. imports emanate from U.S. multinationals' subsidiaries outside the U.S., or by foreign OEM suppliers for U.S. firms. NAFTA eliminated many national barriers to FDI, expanded basic protections for companies' FDI in other member nations, and established a dispute-settlement procedure. The Canadian and Mexican authorities could make life more difficult for those U.S. firms that have undertaken significant FDI in retaliation for NAFTA's cancellation; (4) Macro Effect: The end of NAFTA, especially if it were to lead to a trade war that results in tariffs in excess of the MFN levels, would take a toll on North American trade and reduce GDP growth across the three countries. Besides the negative effect of uncertainty on business confidence and, thus, capital spending, rising prices for both consumer and capital goods will reduce the volume of spending in both cases. Moreover, corporate profits have a high beta with respect to economic activity. The macro effect would probably not be large to the extent that tariffs only rise to MFN levels; (5) Currency Effect: To the extent that a trade war pushes up the dollar relative to the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso, it would undermine export-oriented industries and benefit those that import. However, while we are bullish the dollar due to diverging monetary policy, the dollar may not benefit much from trade friction given that tariffs would rise for all three countries. Chart II-3 is a scatter chart of GICs industries that compares the average MFN tariff on U.S. imports to the average MFN tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports from the U.S. A U.S. industry may benefit if it garners significant import protection but does not face a higher tariff on its exports to the other two countries. Unfortunately, there are no industries that fall into the north-west portion of the chart. The opposite corner, signifying low import protection but high tariffs on exports, includes Beverages, Household Durables, Household Products, Personal Products and Machinery. Chart II-3Import And Export Tariffs Faced By U.S. GICS Industries Model-Based Approach The C.D. Howe Institute has employed a general equilibrium model to estimate the impact of a NAFTA failure at the industrial level.4 The model is able to capture the impact on trade conducted through foreign affiliates. The study captures the direct implications of higher tariffs, but also includes a negative shock to business investment that would stem from heightened uncertainty about the future of market access for cross-border trade. It also takes into consideration non-tariff barriers affecting services. Table II-1Impact Of NAFTA Cancellation By Industry As with most studies of this type, the Howe report finds that the level of GDP falls by a relatively small amount relative to the baseline in all three countries - i.e. there are no winners if NAFTA goes down. Moreover, the U.S. is not even able to reduce its external deficit. While the trade barriers trim U.S. imports from NAFTA parties by $60b, exports to Canada and Mexico fall by $62b. At the industry level, the model sums the impacts of the NAFTA shock on imports, exports and domestic market share to arrive at the estimated change in total shipments (Table II-1). It is possible that an industry will enjoy a boost to total shipments if a larger domestic market share outweighs the damage to exports. However, the vast majority of U.S. industries would suffer a decline in total shipments according to this study, because the estimated gain in domestic market share is simply not large enough. Beef, Pork & Poultry and Dairy would see a 1-2% drop in total shipments relative to the baseline forecast. Next on the list are textiles & apparel, food products and automotive products. Even some service industries suffer a small decline in business, due to indirect income effects. Foreign-Sourced Revenue And Input Cost Approach Another way to approach this issue is to identify the U.S. industries that garner the largest proportion of total revenues from Mexico and Canada. Unfortunately, few companies provide much country detail on where their foreign revenues are derived. Many simply split U.S. and non-U.S. revenues, or North American and non-North American revenues. Table II-2 presents the proportion of total revenues that is generated from operations outside the U.S. for the top five companies in the industry by market cap (in some cases the proportion that is generated outside of North America was used as a proxy for foreign- sourced revenues). While this approach is not perfect, it does provide a good indication of how exposed a U.S. industry is to Canada and Mexico. This is because any company that has "gone global" will very likely be doing substantial business in these two countries. Table II-2Foreign Revenue Exposure At the top of the list are the Metals & Mining, Personal Products, and Auto Component industries. Between 62% and 81% of revenues in these three industries is derived from foreign sources. Following that is Household Durables, Leisure Products, Chemicals and Tobacco. Indeed, all of the level three GICs industries we are analyzing are moderately-to-highly globally-oriented, with the sole exception of Construction Materials. Table II-3Import Tariff Exposure U.S. companies are also exposed to U.S. tariffs that boost the price of imported inputs to the production process. This can occur directly when firm A imports a good from abroad, and indirectly, when firm A then sells its intermediate good to firm B at a higher price, and then on to firm C. In order to capture the entire process, we used the information contained in the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Input/Output tables. We estimated the proportion of each industry's total inputs that would be affected by a rise in tariffs to MFN levels. We then allocated the industries contained in the input/output tables to the 21 GICs level 3 industries we are considering, in order to obtain an import exposure ranking in S&P industry space (Table II-3). All 21 industries are significantly vulnerable to rising input costs, which is not surprising given that we are focusing on the manufacturing-based GICs industries and NAFTA focused on trade in goods. The vast majority of the industries could face a cost increase on 50% or more of their intermediate inputs to the production process. The Automobile industry is at the top of the list, with 72% of its intermediate inputs potentially affected by the shift up in tariffs (Automobile Components is down the list, at 56%). Containers & Packaging, Oil & Gas, Aerospace & Defense, Textiles and Food Products are also highly exposed to tariff increases. The automobile industry is a special case because of the safeguards built into NAFTA regarding rules-of-origin and the associated tracing list. The U.S. is seeking significant changes in both in order to tilt the playing field toward U.S. production, but this could severely undermine the intricate supply chain linking the three countries. Box II-2 provides more details. Box II-2 Automotive Production In NAFTA; Update Required We are focused on two key aspects to the renegotiation of the NAFTA rules that could have far reaching implications for automakers and the auto component maker supply base: the tracing list and country of origin rules. Regarding the first of these, the Trump administration has a legitimate gripe when it comes to automotive production. A tracing list was written in the early-1990's to define automotive components such that the rules of origin (ROO) could be easily met; anything not on the list is deemed originating in North America. As anyone who has driven a vehicle of early-1990's vintage and one of late-2010's vintage can attest, high tech components (largely not included on the tracing list) have grown exponentially as a percentage of the cost of the vehicle and, at least with respect to electronic and display components, are sourced mostly from overseas. Updating the tracing list would force auto makers to source a significantly greater amount of components domestically, almost certainly raising the cost of the vehicle and either hurting margins or hurting competitiveness through higher prices. The current NAFTA ROO require that 62.5% of the content of a vehicle must be sourced in North America, with no distinction between any of the member nations. The result of this legislation has been the creation of a highly integrated supply base that sees components move back and forth across borders through each stage of the manufacturing process. Early proposals from the Trump administration for a NAFTA rework included a country of origin provision for as much as 50% U.S. content. Such a provision would certainly cause a massive disruption in the automotive supply chain with components manufacturers forced to relocate or automakers electing to source overseas and pay the 2.5% MFN tariff on exports within North America. Either scenario presents a headwind to the tightly woven auto components base, underscoring BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy's underweight recommendation on the sector. The recently announced bilateral trade deal with Mexico raises the ROO content requirements to 75% from the 62.5% contemplated under NAFTA but, importantly, no country of origin provisions appear in the new deal. Still, given how quickly this is evolving, a final NAFTA deal could be significantly different. Chart II-4 presents a scatter diagram that compares import tariff exposure (horizontal axis) with foreign revenue exposure (vertical axis). The industries in the north-east corner of the diagram are the most exposed to NAFTA failure. The problem is that there are so many in this region that it is difficult to choose the top two or three, although Metals & Mining stands out from the rest. It is easier to identify the industries that face less risk in relative terms: Pharmaceuticals, Construction Materials, Health Care & Supplies, Leisure Products and, perhaps, Machinery. The rest rank highly in terms of both foreign revenue exposure and import tariff exposure. Chart II-4Foreign Revenue And Import Tariff Exposure Conclusions: By itself, a total cancelation of NAFTA would not be devastating for any particular U.S. industry because the size of the tariff increases would be fairly small as long as all parties stick with MFN tariff levels. That said, the impact would not be trivial, especially for those industries that have extensive supply lines that run between the three countries involved. The negative impact on GDP growth would likely be worse for Canada (and Mexico if its bilateral somehow fell through), but U.S. exporters would see some loss of business. We approached the issue from four different perspectives; international supply chains, a model-based approach, and an analysis of foreign revenue exposure and import tariff exposure. The broad conclusion is that there are no winners from a NAFTA cancelation for the U.S. manufacturing GICs industries. Pharmaceuticals, Health Care Equipment & Supplies, Personal Products and Construction Materials are lower on the risk scale, but cannot be considered beneficiaries of a NAFTA collapse. The remaining industries are all moderately-to-highly exposed. Considering the four perspectives as a group, the most vulnerable industries are Automobiles, Automobile Components, Metals & Mining, Food Products, Beverages, and Textiles & Apparel. Our U.S. equity sector specialists recommend overweight positions in Defense and Financials; while neither stands to benefit from a NAFTA abrogation, they should at least be relative outperformers. They recommend underweight positions on Auto Components, Steel and Electrical Components & Equipment as relative (and probably absolute) underperformers should NAFTA disappear. As we go to press, rapid developments are taking place in the NAFTA negotiations. The U.S. and Mexico have completed a bilateral agreement in principle and a Canadian team is looking into whether to sign onto the agreement by a U.S.-imposed August 31 deadline. This deadline would enable the current U.S. Congress to proceed to ratification before turning over its seats in January, though it is not a hard deadline. It is possible that the negotiations will conclude this week and the crisis will be averted. But the lack of constraints on President Trump's trade authority gives reason for pause. If Canada demurs, Trump could move to raise the cost through auto tariffs or announcements that he intends to withdraw from existing U.S.-Canada agreements in advance of November 6. While Mexico has now tentatively secured bilaterals with both countries through the new U.S. deal and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which includes Canada), it still stands to suffer if a trilateral agreement is not in place. Moreover it is technically possible that Canada's refusal to join the U.S.-Mexico bilateral could delay the latter's ratification well into next year. Therefore, we treat Mexico the same as Canada in our analysis, despite the fact that Mexican assets stand to benefit in relative terms from having a floor put under them by the Trump Administration's more constructive posture and this week's framework deal. If Trump does not pursue a hard line with Canada, then it will be an important sign that he is adjusting his trade policy to contain the degree of confrontation with the developed nations and allies and instead focus squarely on China, where we expect trade risks to increase in the coming months. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Matt Gertken Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Chris Bowes Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy APPENDIX TABLE II-1 U.S. Imports From Canada (2017) APPENDIX TABLE II-2 U.S. Exports To Canada (2017) APPENDIX TABLE II-3 U.S. Imports From Mexico (2017) APPENDIX TABLE II-4 U.S. Exports To Mexico (2017) 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO," dated June 28, 2018, and Weekly Report, "Are You 'Sick Of Winning' Yet?" dated June 20, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Working Together: Economic Ties Between the United States and Mexico. Christopher E. Wilson, November 2011. 4 The NAFTA Renegotiation: What if the U.S. Walks Away? The C.D. Howe Institute Working Paper. November 2017. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our equity indicators continue to signal that caution is warranted, but U.S. profits have been so strong recently as to dominate any negative market forces. Our Monetary Indicator is hovering at a low level by historical standards, suggesting that liquidity conditions have tightened. It is constructive that our Composite Technical Indicator has hooked up, narrowly avoiding a technical break below the zero line. It is also positive that our Composite Sentiment Indicator is rising, but not yet to a level that would signal trouble for stocks from a contrary perspective. However, our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator continues to erode, and the Japanese WTP appears to be rolling over. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Flows into the U.S. stock market are waning, and those into the Japanese market are wavering. Flows into European stocks have flattened off. Moreover, our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on a 'sell' signal in August. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. Our indicators thus suggest that the underlying health of the U.S. equity bull market is fraying at the edges. Nonetheless, robust U.S. profits figures have sparked a euphoric late-cycle blow-off phase. The net revisions ratio is still in positive territory, and the net earnings surprises index has surged to an all-time high. Not much has changed on the U.S. Treasury front. The 10-year bond is slightly on the cheap side according to our model, and oversold conditions have not yet been worked off. This month's Overview section discusses the potential for upside inflation surprises in the U.S. that will place the FOMC "behind the curve". The term premium and long-term inflation expectations are still too low. This year's dollar rally has taken it to very expensive levels according to our purchasing power parity estimate. The long-term trend in the dollar is down, but economic and policy divergences vis-à-vis the U.S. and the other major economies suggests that the dollar is likely to continue moving higher in the near term. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Lesson 1: Inflation is a non-linear phenomenon. Lesson 2: Beware government interference in monetary policy. Lesson 3: An emerging markets shock is deflationary for developed markets. Lesson 4: The 'Rule of 4' for equities and bonds. Feature We took a much needed holiday last week, hoping that financial markets would enter a midsummer slumber. Our hopes were dashed. The timing of the Turkish lira crisis reminded us of the old adage: time, tide - and financial markets - wait for no man. But on reflection, our summer holiday gave us the time for some, well... reflection: a precious quality in a world that is rapidly neglecting the value of reasoned analysis. The addiction to minute-by-minute commentary and knee-jerk reaction - epitomised by the Twitterati - means that we are 'thinking fast', when we should be 'thinking slow'. So here, after some reflection, are four long-term lessons from the Turkish lira crisis. Lesson 1: Inflation Is A Non-Linear Phenomenon. Turkey's recent experience clearly demonstrates that inflation is non-linear - meaning that inflation doesn't move in a gradual or controlled fashion. Non-linear phenomena experience sudden and explosive phase-shifts (Chart I-2). In Turkey's case, a major cause of its currency crisis was that inflation recently phase-shifted out of a well-established channel to its current 16 percent rate (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekTurkish Inflation Experienced A Non-Linearity Chart I-2Inflation Can Experience A Phase-Shift People struggle with the concept of non-linearity because the vast majority of our day to day experiences are linear, meaning the output is proportionate to the input. The speed of our car depends linearly on the pressure on the accelerator pedal; the temperature in our home depends linearly on the thermostat setting; the volume of music in our headphones depends linearly on the volume setting; and so on. Likewise, the vast majority of economic models - including the infamous DSGE inflation models used by central banks - assume linear relationships.1 But some phenomena are non-linear. An example you might relate to is trying to get a small amount of tomato ketchup out of crusted-over squeezy bottle. It is impossible. You squeeze and no ketchup comes out; you squeeze harder and still nothing comes out; and then suddenly you get the explosive phase-shift: the entire bottle empties on your plate! Inflation also experiences violent phase-shifts. The main reason is that people cannot perceive small changes in inflation, making inflation expectations very sticky, which is to say non-linear. The Turkish people might not perceive inflation rising from 8 percent to 10 percent, but they would certainly perceive it rising to 16 percent. Hence, as policymakers squeeze the ketchup bottle, nothing happens at first. But at a tipping point, the self-reinforcement of inflation expectations becomes explosive. Whereupon, the whole bottle comes out. The broad money supply, M, gaps up because it becomes rational for banks to lend as much as possible. And its velocity, V, also gaps up because it becomes rational to spend the money - both newly created and pre-existing balances - as quickly as possible (Chart I-3-Chart I-6). So the product MV, which equals nominal GDP, experiences an even sharper non-linearity. Chart I-3The Velocity Of Money... Chart I-4...Is A Non-Linear Phenomenon Chart I-5The Money Multiplier... Chart I-6...Is A Non-Linear Phenomenon This begs the question: when should we worry about a sudden phase-shift in developed market inflation rates? The answer comes from Lesson 2. Lesson 2: Beware Government Interference In Monetary Policy. An economy's broad money supply, M, is dominated by loans. So to expand the broad money supply, somebody has to borrow money. This means that the danger of an inflation phase-shift rises sharply if the government can borrow and spend money at will, with the central bank creating it.2 Over the past few centuries, the British government - by periodically leaving the gold standard - did exactly this to pay for the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War and the First World War (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The British Government Created Inflation To Pay For Wars Which answers the question of when to worry. The government has to get into cahoots with the central bank. In other words, the central bank loses its independence and fiscal policy has the scope to become ultra-loose. This describes the situation in Turkey, where President Erdogan has forced the central bank to suppress interest rates, while putting his son-in-law in charge of the Turkish treasury. Could something similar happen in developed economies? President Trump's fiscal stimulus combined with his recent attempt to influence Federal Reserve policy (to more dovish) is a small step in this direction. Nevertheless, the major developed market central banks are on a hawkish path. They are squeezing less on the ketchup bottle. Therefore, the real risk of a phase-shift in developed market inflation will arise not before the next global downturn, but after it - when desperate policymakers might resort to desperate measures. In the near term, we expect developed market inflation to remain contained, and one supporting reason comes from Lesson 3. Lesson 3: An Emerging Markets Shock Is Deflationary For Developed Markets. The slowdown and recent shock in emerging markets has caused the dollar and yen to surge. Even the euro - on a broad trade-weighted basis - has held up very well through the Turkish lira crisis and is up 2 percent in 2018 (Chart I-8). Chart I-8An EM Shock Boosts DM Currencies... Meanwhile, since May, industrial metal prices have plunged 20 percent (Chart I-9) and even the crude oil price is down by 10 percent. Chart I-9...And Depresses Industrial Commodity Prices An emerging market shock also threatens the developed market banking system by impairing its foreign loans. Thereby, it risks stifling domestic credit creation. The combination of stronger currencies, lower commodity prices, and potentially weaker bank credit creation is a disinflationary headwind for developed markets in the near term. Lesson 4: The 'Rule of 4' For Equities And Bonds. If developed market inflation remains contained in the near term, it should also keep a lid on bond yields. This is significant because our non-consensus call is that the main threat to developed market risk-assets comes not from trade wars and/or a global economic slowdown; it comes from rich valuations which will become dangerously unstable if bond yields march much higher. The bond yield that matters is the global long bond yield. Effectively, this is the weighted average of its three main components: the 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, the German bund and the Japanese government bond (JGB). But for a useful rule of thumb, just sum the three yields. A sum above 4 - which broadly equates to the global 10-year yield rising above 2 percent - means it is time to go underweight equities. A sum between 3.5 and 4 means a neutral stance to equities. A sum well below 3.5 means an overweight stance to equities - because it would justify even richer valuations. Investment Recommendations Asset allocation: Our 'rule of 4' sum now stands at 3.3, indicating a close to neutral stance to equities. For bonds, we have since May recommended an overweight position in a portfolio of high-quality government 30-year bonds. The recommendation is performing well, and it is appropriate to stick with it for the time being. Sector allocation: Stay overweight the classical defensives versus the classical cyclicals: materials, industrials and banks. This recommendation has fared spectacularly well. Healthcare has outperformed banks by 20 percent since February, so the pressing question is: when to take profits? We anticipate at some point in the fourth quarter. Within the cyclical sectors, prefer banks over oil and gas. Regional and country equity allocation: the geographical allocation of equities follows directly from the sector allocation. Our preferred ranking of sectors necessarily means that our preferred ranking of major equity markets is: S&P500 first, Eurostoxx50 and Nikkei225 second (tied), FTSE100 third. Again, this recommendation has performed extremely well. Currency allocation: Since February, our main currency recommendations have been short EUR/JPY, long EUR/USD, and long EUR/CNY. In effect the recommendations reduce to: long JPY/USD and long EUR/CNY, and this combination has proved to be an excellent 'all-weather' position (Chart I-10). Stick with it for the time being. Chart I-10Long JPY/USD And EUR/CNY Has Been##br## A Good 'All-Weather Combination' Finally, our long-standing short Turkish lira versus South African rand position has returned a mouth-watering 73 percent in four years.3 It is time to close the short Turkish lira position and bank the profits. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium models. 2 For example, by giving all public sector workers a 50% pay rise! 3 After the cost of carry, based on interest rate differentials. Fractal Trading Model* Market reaction to the Turkish lira crisis caused our two most recent trades to hit their stop-losses, but it has also created new opportunities. The aggressive sell-off in industrial commodities appears technically extended. So this week's recommended trade is an intra-cyclical equity sector pair-trade: long global basic resources, short global chemicals. The profit target is 3.5% with a symmetric stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Special Report

Dear client, Our publishing schedule will be shifting over the next two weeks. Next Friday, we will publish a Special Report aggregating various pieces from our colleague Matt Gertken of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy detailing the reforms taking place in China and their past and future evolution, and the economic and investment implications for China and the rest of the world. Matt argues that Chinese reforms are in place and here to stay, which should deepen the malaise in EM and support the dollar. We will not publish any report on August 31st. We will resume our regular publishing schedule on September 7. I hope you enjoy the rest of your summer. Best regards, Mathieu Savary Highlights The 1997 Asian Crisis was a deflationary event, causing commodity prices, commodity currencies and the yen to fall against the dollar, but it had a limited impact on the euro. When Russia collapsed in 1998, the LTCM crisis hit the U.S. banking system, with fears of solvency dragging Treasury yields lower, hurting the dollar against the yen and the euro. Today is not 1997, but the tightness of the U.S. economy suggests the Federal Reserve will need a large shock before abandoning its current pace of a hike per quarter; additionally, global liquidity conditions are tightening and China is slowing. The EM crisis is therefore not over, and vulnerable Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Colombia and South Africa could still experience significant pain. Unlike in 1998, the hot potato is not hiding in the U.S. but in Europe. A contagion event is therefore more likely to hurt the euro than 20 years ago; meanwhile, the yen stands to benefit. DXY could hit 100, and commodity currencies still have ample downside, the AUD in particular. Continue to monitor our China Play Index to gauge if Chinese stimulus could delay the day of reckoning for EM; this index can also be employed as a hedge for investors long the dollar or short EM plays. Feature "Misfortune tests the sincerity of friends." - Aesop This summer is oddly reminiscent of that of 1997. The Federal Reserve is tightening policy because the U.S. economy is not only at full employment but is also growing strongly and generating increasing domestic inflationary pressures. But the most familiar echoes come from outside the U.S. Specifically, emerging market trepidations are once again front page news as the Turkish lira, which had already fallen by 24% between January 2018 and July 31st, dropped by an additional 28% at its worst in a mere two weeks. Consequently, investors are now fretting about the risks of contagion across EM markets, one that could reverberate among G10 economies as well. We too worry that the echoes of 1997 are becoming increasingly louder. EM economies have built up large stocks of debt, and have financed themselves heavily by tapping foreign investors. However, these investors can be rather fickle friends, and we are set to test their sincerity. In this piece, we review how the events of 1997-'98 unfolded, what it meant for G10 currencies, and whether the same lessons can be applied today. We find that in 2018, an EM crisis could ultimately be more supportive for the dollar versus the euro, as unlike in 1998, where the hot potatoes were held by U.S. hedge funds, this time the mess sits squarely in Europe. Tom Yum Goong Goes Viral Initiated in the second half of the 1980s, the peg of the Thai baht seemed like a very successful experiment. The stability created by this institutional setup not only contributed to keeping Thai inflation at manageable levels, but by incentivizing capital inflows in the country it also helped Thailand build up its capital stock. At the time, this yielded a large growth dividend, with real GDP growth averaging 9% from 1985 to 1996. However, the economic boost generated by this cheap financing had a dark side. The Thai current account balance ballooned to a deficit of 8% of GDP in 1995-'96. As Herb Stein famously expressed, if something cannot go on forever, it will stop. Like in Aesop's fable where one of two travelers climbed up a tree to avoid a bear, leaving his friend to fend off the bear on his own, foreign investors abandoned Thailand, which was left on its own to finance its large current account deficit. While the Bank of Thailand was able to fend off the attacks for a few weeks, on July 2nd, 1997, it abandoned its efforts. The THB was left to float freely and dropped 56% against the USD over the subsequent six months. Other EM countries including Malaysia, Brazil and Korea, to name a few, had implemented similar U.S. dollar pegs. They too enjoyed stable inflation, growing money inflows and improved growth, but also experienced growing current account deficits and foreign currency debt loads. It did not take long for investors to extrapolate Thailand's woes to other countries. The Malaysian ringgit and the Indonesian rupiah began falling soon after the THB, while the Korean won began its own steep descent four months later (Chart 1). The economic pain was felt globally. The collapse in EM Asian exchange rates and the deep recessions experienced in these countries caused their export prices to collapse, which created a global deflationary shock (Chart 2). This shock was compounded by a fall in commodity prices that materialized as market participants realized that demand for commodities from the crisis-stricken countries was set to evaporate (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 1How The Thai Crisis Morphed Into An Asian Crisis Chart 2The Asian Crisis Was A Deflationary Shock Not only did this deflationary shock lift the USD against EM currencies and commodity currencies, it also caused inflation breakevens in the U.S. to fall significantly (Chart 3). However, because the U.S. economy remained robust through the second half of 1997 and in the early days of 1998, real rates did not respond much (Chart 3, bottom panel). Markets where not very concerned that this shock would force the Fed to cut rates, as it did not seem to affect the outlook for U.S. growth and employment. However, this combination of stable real rates in the face of weaker growth in EM, as well as the collapse in commodity prices ended up having large second-round effects. Russia defaulted in August 1998, prompting a collapse in the ruble. To patch up its finances, Russia began pumping ever more oil out of the ground, causing oil prices to fall below US$10/bbl in December 1998, deepening the malaise in commodity prices. This caused the Brazilian real to collapse in 1999, and the Argentinian peso to follow in 2002 (Chart 4). Chart 31997: Falling Breakevens, Stable Real Yields Chart 4Asian Crisis Goes Global Among these contagions, the Russian default was the event with the greatest systemic impact. This was because it was a direct hit to the U.S. banking system. Long Term Capital Management, a large Connecticut-based hedge fund, had accumulated massive bets on Russia. The country's default plunged the fund into the abyss. However, LTCM had liabilities to banks to the tune of US$125 billion. The exposure was perceived as an existential threat to the banking sector, and the market began to anticipate a repeat of the 1907 panic.1 Junk bond spreads jumped, the S&P 500 fell by 18%, and U.S. government bond yields collapsed by 120 basis points (Chart 5). The Fed was forced to respond, coming out of hibernation and cutting rates by 75 basis points between September and November of 1998. As the Fed forcefully responded to this shock and 10-year Treasury yields fell, the dollar, which had managed to stay somewhat stable against the synthetic euro from July 1997 to August 1998, fell 11%. Within the same one-year window starting in July 1997, the yen dropped 23%, dragged lower by the competitive pressures created by weaker Asian currencies. However, as soon as U.S. bond yields collapsed, the yen began to surge, rising by 36% from August 1998 to January 1999 (Chart 6). Only once the Fed started increasing rates anew did the euro and the yen level off. Chart 5The Russian Default Was The Real Shock For The U.S. Chart 6The Dollar Buckled After LTCM In aggregate, the dollar's performance through the 1997-1998 period was very mixed. The trade-weighted dollar managed to rise from July 1997 to August 1998. Nevertheless, this was a complex picture. During this timeframe the dollar rose against EM currencies - against the CAD, the AUD, the NZD and the JPY - but was flat against the euro. The USD then fell against everything from August 1998 to the first half of 1999. Only once the Fed started hiking again in the summer 1999, was the greenback able to resuming its broad ascent, one that lasted all the way until late 2001. Bottom Line: In 1997, the first domino to fall was Thailand. Since many East Asian economies suffered the same ills - current account deficits, foreign currency debt loads and falling foreign exchange reserves - Asian currencies followed, dragging the yen lower in the process. This generated a deflationary shock that hurt commodity prices and commodity currencies, leading to the infamous Russian default of 1998. The associated LTCM bankruptcy threatened the survival of the U.S. banking system, forcing bond yields much lower as the Fed cut rates three times. The dollar suffered because of this policy move, especially against the yen. However, once the Fed resumed its hiking campaign, the dollar recovered across the board, making new highs all the way to late 2001 and early 2002. Is 2018: 1997, 1998, Or 2018? In one key regard, today is not the late 1990s: Dollar pegs are few and far between. However, in many respects, similarities abound. First and most obviously, EM foreign currency debt loads, as measured against exports, GDP or reserves, are at similar levels to those prevailing in the late 1990s (Chart 7). This means that EM economies suffer when the dollar rises, as it represents an increase in their cost of capital, and thus a tightening in financial conditions. Second, the Fed has been increasing interest rates. Most importantly, the Fed is growingly concerned that domestic inflationary pressures in the U.S. are intensifying, courtesy of strong growth - at least relative to potential; a high degree of capacity utilization, especially in the labor market (Chart 8); and, unique to today, the U.S. has received a large degree of unneeded fiscal stimulus. Chart 7EM Dollar Debt Is High EM Have More ##br##Foreign-Currency Debt Than In The 1990s Chart 8The Foreign Pain Threshold For The Fed Is Much Higher ##br##Now Than In 2015 or 2016 This means it will take a lot of pain to derail the Fed from its desire to hike rates once a quarter. This also makes the current environment very different from 2015, the most recent episode of EM tumult. In 2015-2016, the Fed easily abandoned its hiking campaign. When it hiked rates in December 2015, the Fed anticipated increasing rates four times over the following 12 months. It delivered only one hike in December 2016. The reason was straightforward: Unlike today, the U.S. economy was still replete with slack (Chart 8) and was not on the receiving end of a large fiscal stimulus program, suggesting the Fed could not tolerate the deflationary impact of tightening financial conditions. Third, global liquidity is tightening, which is hurting the global growth outlook. Today, global excess money, as defined by the growth of broad money supply above that of loan growth in the U.S., the euro area and Japan, is contracting. Today, as in 1997, this indicator forebodes important weaknesses in global industrial production (Chart 9). U.S. liquidity is particularly important. Not only is dollar-based liquidity crucial to financing the large stock of dollar-denominated foreign debt, but the U.S. is also driving the fall in global excess money. The pick-up in U.S. economic activity is sucking liquidity from both the rest world and from the financial system to finance U.S. loan growth (Chart 10). This phenomenon was also at play in 1997. Chart 9Excess Money Is Contracting Global Excess ##br##Money Contracting, Just Like In Early 1997 Chart 10The U.S. Economy Is ##br##Sucking In Liquidity Why does this matter? Simply put, U.S. financial liquidity; built as a composite of 3-month T-bills, total bank deposits minus bank loans, bank investments, and M2 money supply; is a wonderful leading indicator. The current collapse in financial liquidity suggests that the global economy is about to hit a rough patch. As Chart 11 illustrates, the weakness of this indicator points to declines in our Global Leading Economic Indicators and in global commodity prices. This suggests the indicator is foretelling that a deflationary scare could materialize, an event normally also associated with a stronger dollar and downside in EM export prices (Chart 12). In a logically consistent fashion, the liquidity indicator is also warning that the AUD, CAD and NZD have substantial downside, while EM equity prices could also suffer more (Chart 13). Finally, it also highlights that even the U.S. stock market may not be immune to upcoming troubles (Chart 14). Chart 11U.S. Financial Liquidity Points To Weaker Growth... Chart 12...And A Stronger Dollar But Weaker EM Export Prices... Chart 13...Falling EM Stocks And Commodity Currencies... Chart 14...And Maybe Even A Correction In U.S. Stock Prices Fourth, gold is sending a similar signal as in the late 1990. As we have argued in the past, gold is a very good gauge of global liquidity conditions. During the Asian Crisis and the Russia/LTCM fiasco, industrial commodity prices only experienced a serious decline after the Thai baht had dragged down Asia into a tailspin. However, gold had been falling since 1996, a move predating the fall in Asian currencies (Chart 15). The precious metal was confirming that global liquidity was tightening and being sucked back into the booming U.S. economy. Today, gold prices are sending an ominous signal. After forming a large tapering wedge from 2011 to 2018, gold prices have broken down below the major upward-sloping trend line that had defined the bull market that began in 2001 (Chart 16). This indicates that gold may be starting another leg of a major bear market. Moreover, as the bottom panel of Chart 16 illustrates, it is true that net speculative positions in the yellow metal have plunged, but they remain far above the large net short positions that prevailed in the late 1990s. If gold is indeed entering another major down leg, this would confirm that tightening liquidity will further hurt EM asset prices, commodity prices and non-U.S. economic activity. Chart 15As Early As 1996, Gold Warned Of Upcoming Problems In Asia Chart 16Is A Secular Bear Market In Gold Beginning? Finally, adding insult to injury is China. The current communist party leadership is hell-bent on reforming the Chinese economy, moving it away from its dependence on capex and leverage. Consequently, China is in the midst of a major deleveraging campaign concentrated in the shadow banking sector, which has already caused money growth and total social financing to plumb to new lows (Chart 17). This is deflationary for the global economy as weaker Chinese credit weighs on capex, which in turns weighs on Chinese imports, as 69% of China's intake from the rest of the world are commodities and intermediate as well as industrial goods. Chart 17Chinese Monetary And Credit Conditions Remain ##br##Tight China Deleveraging Is Biting Chart 18No Capitulation ##br##Yet Moreover, the recent wave of renminbi weakness is exacerbating these deflationary pressures. The 9% fall in the yuan versus the dollar since April 11th represents a competitive devaluation that will hurt many EM countries. It also implies downside in China's import volumes, as it increases the prices paid by Chinese economic agents for foreign-sourced industrial goods and commodities.2 All these forces suggest that the pain that started in Argentina and Turkey could continue to spread across other vulnerable EM economies. It is doubtful that economies with large debt loads, large upcoming debt rollovers and other underlying economic problems will find it easy to receive financing in an environment of declining global liquidity, a strong dollar, budding deflationary pressures and a slowing China. Making this worry even more real, EM investors have not capitulated, as bottom-fishing has prompted massive inflows into Turkey in recent days (Chart 18). 2018 may not be 1997 or 1998, but it is likely to be a year to remember. Bottom Line: EM currency pegs to the dollar may not be as prevalent as they were back in the 1990s, but enough risks are present that contagion from Argentina and Turkey to other EM economies is a very real risk. Specifically, the domestic economic situation in the U.S. warrants higher interest rates, which suggests the Fed is unlikely to be fazed by EM market routs unless they become deep enough to present a threat to U.S. growth itself. Moreover, global liquidity conditions are tightening as the U.S.'s economic strength is sucking in capital from around the world. This combination means that EM countries with large dollar debt loads are likely to find debt refinancing a very onerous exercise. Finally, China is slowing and letting the RMB fall, which is exerting a deflationary impact on the world. Investment implications An environment of slower global economic activity, tightening global liquidity conditions and a potential deflationary scare is positive for the dollar. But 1998 shows that if the hot potato hides in the U.S. and the Fed is forced to ease aggressively, the dollar could nonetheless suffer. In order to get a sense as to whether the dollar can continue to strengthen or not, it is important to get a sense of where the exposure to an EM accident may lie. To begin this exercise, we need to first assess which EM countries are most vulnerable to catching the "Turkish Flu." To do so, we collaborated with our colleague Peter Berezin and his team at BCA's Global Investment Strategy to build a heat map of vulnerable EM economies. This heat map is based on the following factors: current account balance, net international investment position, external debt, external debt service obligation, external funding requirements, private sector savings/investment balance, private sector debt, government budget balance, government debt, foreign ownership of local currency bonds, and inflation. This method shows that after Turkey and Argentina, the next six most vulnerable countries are Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, South Africa, and Indonesia in this order (Chart 19). Chart 19Vulnerability Heat Map For Key EM Markets While our long-term valuation models show that the Colombian peso is already trading at a significant discount to its fair value, the BRL, the CLP, the ZAR, and the MXN are not (Chart 20). This highlights that these markets could provide serious fireworks in the coming months. Moreover, they all have their own idiosyncrasies that accentuate these risks. Brazil will soon undergo elections that will likely not result in a market-friendly outcome.3 Chile has an extremely large dollar-debt load, copper prices are tanking and the CLP is very pricey. Finally, South Africa is contemplating the kind of land expropriations reminiscent of those that plunged Zimbabwe into chaos - not a good optic for a still-expensive currency. So, who is most exposed to this potential mess? The answer is the euro area, most specifically, Spain. As Chart 21 shows, the exposure of Spanish banks to the most vulnerable EM markets totals nearly 170% of the banking system's capital and reserves. This means that 30% of the capital and reserves of the banking systems in the euro area's five largest economies is exposed to these markets. Making the risk even more acute, French banks have large exposure to Spain, and German banks to France. This combined exposure dwarfs the exposure of the U.K., Japan or the U.S. to the most vulnerable EM economies. To be fair to Spain, Spanish banks often have set up their foreign affiliates as separate legal entities. This means that the impact on the balance sheets of the Spanish banking system of defaults in vulnerable EM countries may be more limited than seems at face value. Yet, this is far from certain. Chart 20BRL, CLP, ZAR, And MXN Are Too Expensive##br## In Light Of Their Vulnerabilities Chart 21Who Has More Exposure To EM? As a result, we would not be surprised if the European Central Bank is forced by an EM accident to back away from its desire to abandon its extraordinary accommodative stance. The ECB would first use forward guidance to message that a hike will be delayed ever further in the future. The ECB may even be forced to resume government and corporate bonds purchases past 2018. This is a potential nightmare scenario for the euro. In fact, as Chart 22 illustrates, a euro at parity may not be a far stretch. Historically, the euro bottoms when it trades 10% below our fair value model, based on real short rate differentials, relative yield curve slopes and the ratio of copper to lumber prices. Such a discount would correspond to EUR/USD at parity. Because under such circumstances the Fed could be forced to pause its own hiking cycle for a quarter or two, a move to EUR/USD between 1.10 and 1.05 seems more likely than a collapse to parity right now. This also means that in conjunction with BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team, we recommend our clients close overweight positions in Spanish assets. Chart 22The Euro Still Has Downside If EM Go Bust What about the yen? In the late 1990s, the yen fell against the U.S. dollar as Asian currencies were collapsing, but surged once the Fed backtracked and bond yields tanked in 1998. This time could follow a different road map. Japan does not compete against Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Chile and South Africa in the same way as it was competing against industrial companies in countries like Taiwan, Singapore or South Korea. This means that Japan is unlikely to need to competitively devalue to remain afloat if the BRL, COP, MXN, CLP and ZAR collapse further. However, since an EM shock is likely to prove to be a deflationary event, this means that bond yields could experience downside, especially as positioning in the U.S. bond market is massively crowded to the short side (Chart 23). A countertrend bull market in bonds would greatly flatter the yen. As a result, we are maintaining our short EUR/JPY bias over the coming months. The G10 commodity currency complex is also at risk. Not only does tightening dollar liquidity imply further weakness in this group of currencies, so does slowing EM activity and a deflationary scare. Additionally, the CAD and the NZD are not trading at much of a discount to their fair value, and the AUD trades at a premium (Chart 24). This means we would anticipate these currencies to suffer more in the coming quarters, led by the AUD, which is not only the most expensive of the group, but also the most geared to EM economic activity. Being short AUD/CAD still makes sense. Chart 23A Bond Rally Would ##br##Support The Yen Chart 24TDollar-Bloc Currencies Offer Limited Cushion##br## In The Event of An EM Selloff Finally, the pound is its own animal. GBP/USD is now quite cheap, but the U.K.'s large current account deficit of 3.9% of GDP, which is not funded through FDIs anymore, means that Great Britain remains vulnerable to tightening global liquidity conditions. Moreover, Brexit negotiations will heat up in the fall, as the March 2019 deadline for reaching a deal with the EU looms large. This means that political tumult in the U.K. will remain a large source of risk for the pound. We will explore the outlook for the pound in an upcoming report this September. Currently, our long DXY trade is posting an 8.5% profit, with a target at 98. The above picture suggests that the dollar could move well past 98, especially as the momentum factor that is so important to the greenback still plays in favor of the USD.4 As a result, we are upgrading our target on the dollar to 100. However, we are also tightening our stop loss to 94.88. We will update our stop loss to 97 if the DXY hits 98 in the coming weeks, in order to protect gains while still being exposed to the dollar's potential upside. Bottom Line: Beyond Turkey and Argentina, the EMs most vulnerable to tightening global liquidity conditions are Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Chile and South Africa. Spanish banks have outsized exposure to these markets, which means the euro area is at risk if the "Turkish Flu" becomes contagious. As such, the ECB could be forced to remain easier than it wants to. The euro is still at risk. The yen could strengthen if global bond yields suffer. Hence, it still makes sense to be short EUR/JPY. While the CAD, AUD and NZD are also all vulnerable to a deflationary scare, the Aussie is the worst positioned of the three. Shorting AUD/CAD still makes sense. The DXY is likely to experience significant upside from here, with a move to 100 becoming an increasingly probable scenario. Risks To Our View Chart 25A Gauge And A Hedge Against Chinese Stimulus The biggest risk to our view is China. In 2016, a vicious EM selloff was staunched by a large wave of stimulus that put a floor under Chinese economic activity, and caused China to re-lever. The impact was felt around the world, lifting commodity prices and EM assets while plunging the dollar into a vicious selloff in 2017. It is conceivable that such an outcome materializes anew, especially as China is, in fact, injecting stimulus into its economy. However, as we wrote two weeks ago, the current stimulus still pales in comparison to what took place in 2015. Moreover, reforms and deleveraging have much greater primacy now than they did back then.5 BCA believes that the current wave of stimulus is not designed to cause growth to surge again, as was the case in 2015, but is instead aimed at limiting the negative impact of the ongoing trade war with the U.S. Yet, we cannot be dogmatic. Not only is it hard to gauge the actual degree of stimulus currently applied to the Chinese economy, there is a heightened risk that the flow of policy announcements causes a shift in the dominant narrative among market participants. Such a shift in attitudes could easily cause a mass buying of EM assets and commodities, delaying the day of reckoning for vulnerable EM. As a result, we continue to promulgate that investors track the behavior of our China Play Index, introduced two weeks ago (Chart 25).6 Not only does this index provide a live read on how traders are pricing in Chinese developments, but it also provides a great hedge for investors long the dollar, short EM, or short the commodity complex. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 In the panic of 1907, the Knickerbocker Trust Company went bankrupt, threatening the health of the U.S. banking system. The stock market crashed, money markets went into paralysis, and a consortium of bankers led by J.P. Morgan himself ended up acting as a lender of last resort, staunching the crisis. As a consequence of this panic, the Federal Reserve System was born in 1913. 2 For a more detailed discussion of the deflationary risk created by the RMB, please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World", dated June 29, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Brazil: Faceoff Time", dated July 27, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets", dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar And Risk Assets Are Beholden To China's Stimulus", dated August 3, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 6 Ibid. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Dear Client, We had intended to send you the second part of our two-part special report on long-term inflation risks this week, but given the sharp moves in the dollar and emerging market assets, we decided to write this bulletin instead. Barring any further major market turbulence, we will send you the sequel to the inflation report next week. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The dollar rally and EM selloff have further to go. The U.S. economy is firing on all cylinders, while the rest of the world is sputtering. Turkey is not an isolated case. Emerging markets as a whole have feasted on debt over the past decade, and now will be held to account. We remain neutral on global equities, while underweighting EM relative to DM and overweighting defensives relative to deep cyclicals. Brewing EM stresses could cause the 10-year Treasury yield to temporarily fall to 2.5%, leading to a further flattening of the yield curve. However, the long-term path for yields is up. Feature King Dollar Reigns Supreme Our expectation going into this year was that the dollar would strengthen, triggering turmoil in emerging markets. This thesis has panned out, raising the question of whether it is time to declare victory and move on. We don't think so. While market positioning has clearly shifted closer towards our own views, we still think that the stronger dollar/weaker EM story has further to run. To understand why, it is useful to review the reasoning behind our thesis. Our bullish dollar view was based on a simple observation, which is that the U.S. had finally reached a point where aggregate demand was starting to outstrip supply. This implied that the dollar would need to strengthen in order to shift demand away from the United States. It is amazing how many commentators still think that the U.S. can divert spending towards imported goods without any change in the value of the dollar. Americans do not care what the CBO's or IMF's estimate of the domestic output gap is when they are deciding whether to buy U.S. or foreign-made goods. They care about relative quality-adjusted prices. Since the U.S. is a fairly closed economy - imports are only 15% of GDP - we reckoned that the dollar would need to strengthen considerably in order to displace a significant amount of domestic production with foreign-made goods. This is exactly what happened. Still More Upside For U.S. Rates Currency values tend to track interest rate differentials (Chart 1). As such, our prediction of a stronger dollar entailed the expectation that investors would increasingly price in a more hawkish path for the fed funds rate. This has indeed occurred. Since the start of the year, the expected fed funds rate has risen by 34 basis points for end-2018 and by 65 basis points for end-2019 (Chart 2). Chart 1Historically, The Dollar Has Moved In Line With Interest Rate Differentials Chart 2Rate Expectations Have Increased, ##br##But There Is Still A Long Way To Go Our sense is that U.S. interest rate expectations can rise further. Faster wage growth will boost consumption. The household savings rate can also fall from its current elevated level, which will give consumer spending an additional boost (Chart 3). Business investment should remain firm. Chart 4 shows that capex intentions are strong, while bank lending standards for commercial and industrial loans, which tend to lead loan growth, continue to ease. Fiscal stimulus will also goose the economy. Chart 3Consumption Could Accelerate As The Savings Rate Drops Chart 4U.S. Capex Investment Going Strong Could interest rate expectations move up more in the rest of the world than in the U.S., causing the dollar to tumble? It is possible, but unlikely. In contrast to most other central banks, the Fed wants to tighten financial conditions in order to keep the economy from overheating. A weaker dollar would entail an easing of financial conditions, and hence would require an even more hawkish response from the Fed. Currency Intervention Is Unlikely To Succeed Some have speculated that the Trump administration will intervene in the foreign exchange market in order to drive down the value of the dollar. We doubt this will happen, but even if such interventions were to take place, they would not be successful. Presumably, currency interventions would take the form of purchases of foreign exchange, financed through the issuance of Treasurys. The purchase of foreign currency would release U.S. dollars into the financial system, but the sale of Treasury securities would suck out those dollars from the financial system. The net result would be no change in the volume of U.S. dollars in circulation - what economists call a "sterilized" intervention. Both economic theory and years of history show that sterilized interventions do not have lasting effects on currency values. The Fed could, of course, provide funding for the Treasury's purchases of foreign exchange, leading to an increase in the monetary base. This would be tantamount to an unsterilized intervention. However, such a deliberate attempt to weaken the dollar by expanding the money supply would fly in the face of the Fed's efforts to cool growth by tightening financial conditions. We highly doubt the Fed's current leadership would go along with this. Emerging Markets In The Crosshairs This brings us to emerging markets. EM equities almost always fall when U.S. financial conditions are tightening (Chart 5). One can believe that emerging market stocks will go up; one can also believe, as we do, that the Fed will do its job and tighten financial conditions. But one cannot believe that both of these things will happen at the same time. Some pundits think that the plunge in the Turkish lira is not emblematic of the problems facing emerging markets. We are skeptical of this sanguine conclusion. Chart 6 shows that as a share of both GDP and exports, EM dollar-denominated debt is now as high as it was in the late 1990s. Turkey may be the worst of the lot, but it is hardly an isolated case. Chart 5Tightening U.S. Financial Conditions Do Not Bode Well For EM Stocks Chart 6EM Dollar Debt Is High Chart 7 presents a vulnerability heat map for a number of key emerging markets.1 We consider fourteen variables (expressed as a share of GDP, unless otherwise noted): 1) Current account balance; 2) Net international investment position; 3) External debt; 4) Change in external debt during the past five years; 5) External debt-servicing obligations coming due over the next 12 months as a share of exports; 6) External funding requirements over the next 12 months as a share of foreign exchange reserves; 7) Private sector savings-investment balance; 8) Private-sector debt; 9) Change in private-sector debt over the past five years; 10) Government budget balance; 11) Government debt; 12) Change in government debt over the past five years; 13) Share of domestic debt held by overseas investors; and 14) Inflation. Our analysis suggests that Turkey, Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, South Africa, and Indonesia are all vulnerable to balance of payments stresses. Chart 7Vulnerability Heat Map For Key EM Markets Of course, asset markets in some of these economies have already moved quite a bit over the past few months, so it is useful to benchmark their stock markets and currencies to the underlying macro risks they face. For stock markets, we do this by comparing the heat map score with a composite valuation measure that incorporates price-to-book, price-to-sales, price-to-forward earnings, price-to-cash flow, and the dividend yield. Our analysis suggests that stocks in Russia and Korea are rather cheap, while equities in Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, and Argentina are still quite expensive (Chart 8, top panel). Chart 8Some EM Stock Markets And Currencies Have Not Fully Priced In Macro Risks For currencies, we compare the heat map score with the level of the real effective exchange rate relative to its ten-year average. The Mexican peso, Brazilian real, Chilean peso, Indonesian rupiah, and South African rand still look pricey on this basis (Chart 8, bottom panel). In contrast, the Turkish lira and the Argentine peso are starting to look fairly cheap, although they could still get quite a bit cheaper before finding a floor. The China Wildcard The last time emerging markets seemed at risk of melting down was in 2015. Fortunately for them, China came to the rescue, delivering a massive double dose of fiscal and credit easing. Things may not be so straightforward this time around. China does not want to let its economy falter, but high debt levels and an overvalued housing market have made the usual policy prescriptions less appealing. As such, we would not necessarily conclude that the recent decline in the Chinese three-month interbank rate is a signal that the authorities want to see much faster credit growth (Chart 9). They may simply want to see a weaker currency. This is an important distinction because while faster credit growth would boost demand for EM exports, a weaker yuan would hurt other emerging markets by giving China a leg up in competitiveness. A weaker yuan would also make it more expensive for Chinese companies to import natural resources, thus putting downward pressure on commodity prices. It is too soon to know what policy mix the Chinese authorities will choose to pursue. Investors should pay close attention to the monthly data on the growth rates of social financing and local government bond issuance. So far, the combined credit and fiscal impulse has continued to weaken, suggesting that the authorities are in no hurry to open the stimulus floodgate (Chart 10). Chart 9Is China Trying To Stimulate Credit ##br##Growth Or Weaken The Yuan? Chart 10China Has Been Slow To Open The Credit And Fiscal Spigots Worries About The Euro Area Slower EM growth is likely to take a bigger toll on the euro area than the United States. Exports to emerging markets account for only 3.6% of GDP for the U.S., compared to 9.7% of GDP for the euro area. Euro area banks also have more exposure to emerging markets than U.S. banks. Notably, Spanish banks have sizeable exposure to Turkey and other vulnerable emerging markets (Chart 11). Meanwhile, worries about Italy have resurfaced. The 10-year Italian bond yield has moved back above 3%, not far from its May highs. The gap in fiscal policy between what Italy's new populist government has promised voters and what the European Commission is willing to accept remains a mile wide. Italian banks have become increasingly wary of financing their spendthrift government. With the ECB stepping back from asset purchases, two critical buyers of Italian debt are moving to the sidelines. The credit impulse in the euro area turned negative even before concerns about emerging markets and Italian politics came to the fore. As Chart 12 shows, the credit impulse has reliably tracked euro area growth. Right now, there is little reason to think that European banks will open the credit spigots, suggesting that euro area growth will be lackluster. Chart 11Who Has More Exposure To EM? Chart 12Euro Area Credit Impulse Suggests Growth Will Remain Lackluster Investment Conclusions If last year was the year of global growth resynchronization, this year is turning into one of desynchronization. The U.S. economy is outperforming the rest of the world, and the dollar is benefiting in the process. As we go to press, the broad trade-weighted dollar is up 6.1% year-to-date and stands only 2.2% below its December 28, 2016 high (Chart 13). From a long-term perspective, the greenback has become expensive, so we are inclined to close our strategic long DXY trade for a potential carry-adjusted profit of 15.7% if it reaches our target of 98 (as of the time of writing, the DXY is at 96.5). However, even if we were to close this trade, our tactical bias would be to remain long the dollar until clearer evidence emerges that the brewing EM crisis is about to abate. We moved from overweight to neutral on global equities on June 19. The MSCI All-Country World index has fluctuated a lot since then, but is currently up only 0.7% in dollar terms. Developed markets have gained 1.4%, while emerging markets have lost 3.8% (Chart 14). We have yet to reach a capitulation point for EM equities. The number of shares in the iShares MSCI Turkey ETF has almost doubled since August 3rd, as a stampede of bottom fishers have plowed into the fund (Chart 15). Equity investors should maintain our recommendation to underweight emerging markets relative to DM and to favor defensive sectors over deep cyclicals. We expect euro area stocks to perform in line with their U.S. peers in local-currency terms, but to underperform in dollar terms over the remainder of the year. Chart 13The Dollar Is Back Near Its Highs Chart 14Stock Market Performance: Roller Coaster Ride Chart 15Foreign Investors And Turkish Stocks: ##br##Trying To Catch A Falling Knife In the fixed-income realm, the long-term trend in global bond yields remains to the upside, but near-term EM stresses could cause the 10-year Treasury yield to temporarily fall back towards 2.5%. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 We collaborated with our colleague Mathieu Savary and his team at BCA’s Foreign Exchange Strategy to build this heat map. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights It has not been a lot of fun being a corporate bond investor in 2018. Global credit markets have struggled to deliver positive returns, amid a news flow that has been overwhelming at times. Geopolitical uncertainty, shifting monetary policy biases, greater inflation pressures, intensifying trade tensions, a rising U.S. dollar, slowing Chinese growth - all have combined to form a backdrop where investors should require wider risk premiums to own risky assets like corporate debt. Yet are wider spreads justified relative to the underlying financial health of companies? Feature Chart 1Global Corporates: Fading Support From##BR##Growth & Monetary Policy Against this backdrop of more uncertainty in credit markets, we are presenting our latest update of the BCA Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) Chartbook. The CHMs are composite indicators of balance sheet and income statement ratios (using both top-down and bottom-up data) that are designed to assess the financial well-being of the overall non-financial corporate sectors in the major developed economies. A brief overview of the methodology is presented in Appendix 1 on page 16. The broad conclusion from the latest readings on our CHMs is that global credit quality has been enjoying a cyclical improvement across countries, regions and credit tiers. The U.S. has delivered the biggest improvement in corporate health, compared to the recent past and to bearish investor perceptions as well. Much of that can be attributed to the impact of the Trump corporate tax cuts, though. At the same time, there have even been significant improvements in profitability metrics in regions that have lagged during the current global economic expansion, like Peripheral Europe. We recently downgraded our overall global spread product allocation to neutral.1 This reflected the increased concerns of the BCA Strategists that valuations on global risk assets looked rich compared to growing geopolitical risks (U.S.-China trade tensions, U.S.-Iran military tensions). Yet it also was related to the ongoing development of our biggest investment theme for 2018 - the eventual likely collision between tightening global monetary policy and rich valuations on global risk assets. Looking ahead, the tailwinds that have been supportive for corporate health and the performance of global corporate debt in the past couple of years - a coordinated cyclical upturn driving solid earnings growth, with low inflation allowing monetary policies to stay accommodative - are becoming headwinds (Chart 1). The overall OECD leading economic indicator, which is well correlated to the annual excess returns of global high-yield debt, has peaked. Central banks are either delivering rate hikes, talking about rate hikes, or cutting back on the pace of balance sheet expansion. All of these factors will weigh on corporate bond returns over the next 6-12 months. U.S. Corporate Health Monitors: Improving Thanks To Resilient Growth & Tax Cuts Chart 2Top-Down U.S. CHM:##BR##Boosted By Cyclically Strong Profits Our top-down CHM for the U.S. has been in the "deteriorating health" region for fifteen consecutive quarters dating back to the middle of 2014 (Chart 2). That streak appears set to end soon, as the indicator has been falling since peaking in 2016 and now sits just above the zero line. The resilience of the U.S. economy, combined with the positive impact on U.S. profitability from the Trump corporate cuts, has put U.S. companies in a cyclically healthier position, even with relatively high leverage. It is important to note that the top-down CHM uses after-tax earnings measures in several of the ratios the go into the indicator: return on capital, profit margin and debt coverage. All three of those ratios saw significant upticks in the first quarter of 2018, which is the latest available data for the top-down CHM. The Trump tax cuts did take effect at the start of the year, but given the robust results seen in reported second quarter profits reported so far, a bigger impact will likely be visible once we are able to update the CHM for the most recently completed quarter. The ability for U.S. companies to continue expanding margins will be tested in the next 6-12 months. The tight U.S. labor market is pushing up wage growth, which will pressure margins and prompt some firms to try and raise prices to compensate. Firming U.S. inflation is already keeping the Fed on a 25bps-per-quarter pace of rate hikes, and perhaps more if U.S. inflation continues to accelerate without any slowing of U.S. economic growth. If the Fed starts actively targeting a slower pace of U.S. growth to cool off inflation, credit markets will take notice and U.S. corporate debt will underperform. From a fundamental perspective, the top-down U.S. CHM suggests that the U.S. credit cycle is being extended by the stubborn endurance of the U.S. business cycle. There are no imminent domestic pressures on U.S. corporate finances that should require wider credit spreads to compensate for rising default risk. The bottom-up versions of the U.S. CHMs for investment grade (IG) corporates (Chart 3) and high-yield (HY) companies (Chart 4) have also both improved, with the HY indicator now crossing over the zero line into "improving health" territory. This confirms that the signal from our top-down CHM is being reflected in both higher-rated and lower quality companies. Yet the longer-term issues of high leverage and low interest/debt coverage are not going away, suggesting that potential problems are being stored up for the next U.S. economic downturn. What also remains worrying is the fact that IG interest coverage has fallen in recent years, despite high profit margins and historically low corporate borrowing rates. This indicates that the stock of U.S. corporate debt is now so large that the interest expense required to service that debt is eating up a greater share of corporate earnings, even at a time when profit growth is still quite strong. This will raise downgrade risk if corporate borrowing rates were to rise significantly or if U.S. earnings growth slows sharply. We moved our recommended stance on U.S. IG and HY to neutral at the end of June as part of our downgrade of overall global spread product exposure. We may consider a move back to overweight (versus U.S. Treasuries) on any meaningful spread widening given our optimistic view on U.S. economic growth and the positive measure on credit risk signaled by our CHMs. Yet it may be difficult to get such an opportunity. The U.S. is reaching a more challenging point in the monetary policy cycle with the Fed likely to shift to a restrictive stance within the next 6-12 months. At the same time, there are risks to the U.S. economy stemming from the widening U.S.-China trade conflict, a stronger U.S. dollar and, potentially, the growing turmoil in emerging markets. Yet the state of U.S. corporate health has improved substantially, leaving companies less immediately vulnerable to any of those shocks. Given this balance of risks, a neutral stance on U.S. corporates remains appropriate (Chart 5). Chart 3Bottom-Up U.S. Investment Grade CHM:##BR##Stable, But Watch Profit Margins Chart 4Bottom-Up U.S. High-Yield CHM:##BR##Cyclical Improvement Chart 5U.S. Corporates:##BR##Stay Neutral IG & HY Euro Corporate Health Monitors: Strong Economy, Big Improvements Our top-down euro area CHM remains in "improving health" territory, as has been the case for the past decade (Chart 6). The indicator had been worsening towards the zero line during 2016-17, but rebounded in the first quarter of 2018 thanks to a pickup in profit margins and debt coverage. Those positive developments are even more impressive since they occurred during a quarter when there was some cooling from the robust pace of economic growth seen in 2017. Chart 6Top-Down Euro Area CHM: Modestly Improving Interest coverage and liquidity remain in structural uptrends, supported by the super-easy monetary policies of the European Central Bank (ECB) that have lowered corporate borrowing costs (negative short-term interest rates, liquidity programs designed to prompt low-cost bank lending, and asset purchase programs that include buying of corporate bonds). Our bottom-up versions of the CHMs for euro area IG (Chart 7) and HY (Chart 8), which are based on individual company earnings data, both confirm the positive message from the top-down CHM. For IG, a noticeable gap has opened up between domestic and foreign issuers in the euro area corporate bond market. Return on capital, operating margins, interest coverage and debt coverage all ticked higher in the first quarter of this year, while leverage slightly declined. Those developments were not repeated among the foreign issuers in our sample. Within the Euro Area, our bottom-up CHMs show that the gap has closed between IG issuers from the core countries versus the periphery, but both remain in the "improving health" zone. (Chart 9). Somewhat surprisingly, the only ratios where there is a material difference are leverage (150% and falling in the periphery, 100% and stable in the core countries) and interest coverage (rising sharply toward 5x in the periphery, stable just above 6x in the core). Despite the improvement in the CHMs, credit spreads for euro area IG and HY have both widened over the course of 2018, while excess returns have been negative year-to-date (Chart 10). Looking ahead, we see the biggest threat for euro area corporate bond performance to come from a shift in ECB policy. We expect the ECB to follow through on its commitment to fully taper net new government bond purchases by the end of 2018, while continuing to reinvest the proceeds of maturing debt in 2019 and beyond. It is less clear what the ECB will do with its corporate bond buying program, and there has been some speculation that the ECB could leave its corporate program untouched while tapering the government purchases. We doubt that the ECB would want to make such a distinction that would artificially suppress corporate borrowing costs relative to government yields. The ECB is more likely to end both programs concurrently at the end of the year, which will remove a major prop under the euro area corporate bond market. This is a main reason why we are currently recommending an underweight stance on euro area corporates versus U.S. corporates. Chart 7Bottom-Up Euro Area Investment Grade CHMs: Domestic Issuers Looking Better Chart 8Bottom-Up Euro Area High-Yield CHMs: Falling Leverage, Mediocre Profitability Chart 9Bottom-Up Euro Area IG CHMs: Periphery Improving vs Core Yet the bigger reason why we prefer corporates from the U.S. over the euro area is that the relative improvement in corporate health has been bigger in the U.S. The gap between our top-down CHMs for the U.S. and Europe has proven to be an excellent directional indicator for the relative performance of U.S. credit vs Europe (Chart 11). That CHM gap continues to favor U.S. credit, which has been outperforming over the past several months (on a common currency basis compared to euro area debt hedged in USD). Chart 10Euro Area Corporates:##BR##Stay Underweight IG & HY Chart 11Relative Top-Down CHMs:##BR##Continue To Favor U.S. over Europe U.K. Corporate Health Monitor: Deteriorating Amid Rising Domestic Risks The U.K. CHM saw a significant deterioration in the first quarter of 2018, thanks largely to slowing U.K. growth that has impacted all the profit-focused ratios (Chart 12). The CHM is still in the "improving health" zone, but just barely. Seeing the return on capital, profit margin, interest coverage and debt coverage ratios all roll over at historically low levels is a worrying sign for future U.K. credit quality. This is especially true given the extremely stimulative monetary policy run by the Bank of England (BoE) since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. The only ratio in the U.K. CHM that has seen steady improvement over the past decade is short-term liquidity (bottom panel), which has been boosted by steady increases in working capital. The performance of U.K. credit has benefited from the BoE's additional monetary policy measures taken after the shock Brexit vote in 2016. This involved both interest rate cuts and asset purchases, which included buying of U.K. corporate bonds. The BoE has shifted its policy bias from easing to tightening over the past year, even with sluggish U.K. economic growth and still-unresolved uncertainty about the future U.K. trading relationship with the European Union. This has raised the risks that the BoE could commit a policy error through additional interest rate hikes over the next 6-12 months, especially if policymakers focus more on targeting higher real policy rates as we discussed in a recent Weekly Report.2 U.K. corporates have been a laggard among global credit markets throughout 2018 and especially so in the month of July during a generally positive month for global corporate debt (Chart 13). We see the underperformance continuing in the coming months, as wider spreads will be required given the uncertainties surrounding Brexit, economic growth and BoE monetary policy. Stay underweight U.K. corporate debt within an overall neutral allocation to global spread product. Chart 12U.K. Top-Down CHM: Cyclical Deterioration Chart 13U.K. Corporates: Stay Underweight Japan Corporate Health Monitor: No Problems Here We added Japan to our suite of global CHMs earlier this year.3 Although the Japanese corporate bond market is small (the Bloomberg Barclays Japan Corporates index only has a market capitalization of $116bn), the asset class does provide opportunities for investors to pick up a bit of yield versus zero-yielding Japanese government bonds (JGBs) Japanese corporate health has been excellent for the past decade, with the CHM steadily holding in "improving health" territory (Chart 14). The trends in the Japan CHM ratios since 2008 are quite different than those seen in the CHMs for other countries. Leverage has been steadily falling, return on capital has been steadily rising (and has now converged to the 6% level seen in other countries' CHMs), and the interest coverage multiple of 9.6x is by far the largest in our CHM universe. Default risk is non-existent in Japan. Only pre-tax operating margins for our bottom-up Japan CHM have lagged those in other countries, languishing at 6% for the past three years. Yet Japanese corporate profits are at all-time highs, a logical outcome when companies can borrow at less than 50bps and earn a return on capital of 6%. That wide gap should allow Japanese companies to continue to earn steady, strong profits even with wage inflation finally showing life in Japan alongside a 2.3% unemployment rate. Japanese corporate bond spreads have widened a bit in 2018, but remain far more stable compared to corporates in other developed markets (Chart 15). The lack of spread volatility has allowed Japanese corporates to steadily outperform JGBs since 2011, even as all Japanese bond yields have collapsed. That trend is likely to continue, as the Bank of Japan (BoJ) is still a long way from being able to credibly pull off any upward adjustment of the current 0% BoJ yield target on 10-year JGBs. Chart 14Japan Bottom-Up CHM: Still Healthy,##BR##But Has Cyclical Improvement Peaked? Chart 15Japan Corporates:##BR##Stay Overweight vs JGBs Importantly, the BoJ recently introduced new forward guidance that states there will be no interest rate hikes until at least 2020. This will positively affect Japanese corporate health by keeping borrowing costs extremely low and preventing any unwanted strength in the yen that could damage Japanese competitiveness. There is a risk that increasing global trade tensions could impact the export-heavy Japanese economy and damage corporate profit growth and corporate bond performance. We do not yet see that as a major risk that could derail the Japanese economy and we continue to recommend an overweight stance on Japanese corporate debt vs JGBs. Canada Corporate Health Monitor: Faster Growth Hiding Structural Warts We introduced both top-down and bottom-up CHMs for Canada in our previous CHM Chartbook in April. As was the case then, both CHMs are in "improving health" territory (Chart 16). These CHMs are typically correlated to the price of oil, as befits Canada's status as a major energy exporter. Yet the strong CHMs also reflect the solid pace of overall Canadian economic growth. Looking at the individual components of the Canada CHMs, the leverage ratios for both measures have been steadily rising and currently sit above 100%. The return on capital has been in a structural downtrend, as is the case for most countries in our CHM universe (excluding Japan), but has ticked up alongside faster economic growth over the past couple of years. There was a noticeable drop in the margin ratio for the bottom-up CHM, coming entirely from the HY firms within our sample group of companies. Interest coverage and debt coverage ratios remain depressed, even with some improvement in corporate profits. This is partially due to rising interest rates as the Bank of Canada (BoC) has been tightening monetary policy - a trend that we expect to continue over the next 6-12 months. Canadian corporate bond spreads have widened slightly since the start of 2018, but remain tight relative to a longer-term history (Chart 17). Excess returns over Canadian government bonds have flattened out after enjoying a very solid period of outperformance in 2016-17. Looking ahead, there are balanced risks to the outlook for Canadian corporate debt. Chart 16Canada CHMs: Cyclically Improving,##BR##But Longer-Term Problems Are Building Chart 17Canadian Corporates:##BR##Stay Neutral Vs Canadian Government Debt We continue to expect the BoC to hike rates because of solid growth and faster inflation in Canada. Yet we do not see the BoC moving rapidly to a restrictive monetary stance that would damage growth expectations and trigger some credit spread widening. At the same time, we also see risks stemming from Canada-U.S. trade disagreements that could hurt Canadian growth and cause investors to demand cheaper valuations for Canadian corporate bonds. Adding it all up, a neutral stance on Canadian corporates versus government debt remains appropriate, largely as a carry trade. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Appendix 1: An Overview Of The BCA Corporate Health Monitors The BCA Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a composite indicator designed to assess the underlying financial strength of the corporate sector for a country. The Monitor is an average of six financial ratios inspired by those used by credit rating agencies to evaluate individual companies. However, we calculate our ratios using top-down (national accounts) data for profits, interest expense, debt levels, etc. The idea is to treat the entire corporate sector as if it were one big company, and then look at the credit metrics that would be used to assign a credit rating to it. Importantly, only data for the non-financial corporate sector is used in the CHM, as the measures that would be used to measure the underlying health of banks and other financial firms are different than those for the typical company. The six ratios used in the CHM are shown in Table 1 below. To construct the CHM, the individual ratios are standardized, added together, and then shown as a deviation from the medium-term trend. That last part is important, as it introduces more cyclicality into the CHM and allows it to better capture major turning points in corporate well-being. Largely because of this construction, the CHM has a very good track record at heralding trend changes in corporate credit spreads (both for Investment Grade and High-Yield) over many cycles. Top-down CHMs are now available for the U.S., euro area, the U.K. and Canada. The CHM methodology was extended in 2016 to look at corporate health by industry and by credit quality.4 The financial data of a broad set of individual U.S. and euro area companies was used to construct individual "bottom-up" CHMs using the same procedure as the more familiar top-down CHM. Some of the ratios differ from those used in the top-down CHM (see Table 1), largely due to definitional differences in data presented in national income accounts versus those from actual individual company financial statements. The bottom-up CHMs analyze the health of individual sectors, and can be aggregated up into broad CHMs for Investment Grade and High-Yield groupings to compare with credit spreads. In 2018, we introduced bottom-up CHMs for Japan and Canada. Table 1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs With the country expansion of our CHM universe, we now have coverage for 92% of the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Corporate Bond Index (Appendix Chart 1). Appendix Chart 1We Now Have CHM Coverage For 92% Of The Developed Market Corporate Bond Universe 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Weekly Report, "Time To Take Some Chips Off The Table; Downgrade Global Corporate Bond Exposure To Neutral", dated June 26 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "An R-Star Is Born", dated August 7th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Sticking With The Plan", dated March 13th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Section II of The Bank Credit Analyst, "U.S. Corporate Health Gets A Failing Grade", dated February 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. Appendix 2: U.S. Bottom-Up CHMs For Selected Sectors Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Without a true banking union it is impossible to have a true monetary union. The result is a fragmented monetary policy. A fragmented monetary policy with an inflexibly rigid fiscal policy is a recipe for economic and political polarization. Until the banking union is complete, policymakers must permit a more fragmented fiscal policy as a crucial economic counterbalance. Expect a multi-year narrowing in core euro area long bond yield spreads versus their counterparts in the U.K. and U.S. Extremely loose monetary policy is inappropriate for Germany and France and ineffective for Italy. If Italy's banking system does recover to full functionality, the best long-term investment play will be Italy's real estate market. The equity play is Covivio. Feature The European Monetary Union is a contradiction because European monetary policy is not united; it is fragmented. Granted, the euro area has one policy interest rate, and one currency. But monetary policy works principally through accelerations and decelerations in the broad money supply, whose main component is bank credit. It follows that when the banking system is fragmented, a genuine monetary union is elusive. Italy Is 'Yin', The Rest Of Europe Is 'Yang' Economist Richard Koo distinguishes two distinct phases of an economy, a 'yin' phase and a 'yang' phase, with the key difference being the financial health of the private sector including the all-important banking system. In a yang economy, the private sector and the banks are solvent and functional. In such an economy, the smaller and less intrusive the government, the better. Fiscal policy is ineffective because it crowds out private investment. But monetary policy is highly effective because a forward-looking private sector generates a demand for bank credit which will accelerate or decelerate according to the policy interest rate. In a yin economy, the opposite is true. The private sector and/or the banks are insolvent and dysfunctional. In such an economy, monetary policy is ineffective. No amount of depressing interest rates, central bank liquidity injections, or bond buying is able to stimulate bank lending. This is because impaired balance sheets prevent the private sector from borrowing and/or the banks from lending. But in a yin economy, fiscal policy is highly effective. Because the private sector is single-mindedly paying down debt, the government can borrow and spend these private sector debt repayments and excess savings with no danger of crowding out. Indeed in a yin economy, if the government consistently applies an appropriately sized fiscal stimulus, the economy can continue to grow at a healthy pace. Chart I-1-Chart I-6 should make it crystal clear that while Germany and France have a yang economy, Italy has a yin economy. Chart I-1Italy Has A 'Yin' Economy: ##br##Monetary Policy Is Not Effective... Chart I-2...But Fiscal Policy##br## Is Effective Chart I-3France Has A 'Yang' Economy: ##br##Monetary Policy Is Effective... Chart I-4...But Fiscal Policy##br## Is Not Effective Chart I-5Germany Has A 'Yang' Economy:##br## Monetary Policy Is Effective... Chart I-6...But Fiscal Policy ##br##Is Not Effective A Monetary Union Needs A Banking Union In Germany and France, bank credit has surged in response to the ECB's ultra-accommodative monetary policy. But in Italy, bank credit growth is almost non-existent. Through the past ten years, no amount of depressing interest rates, central bank liquidity injections, or bond buying has been able to stimulate Italy's money supply (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7Italian Banks Are ##br##Not Lending... Chart I-8...Because The Italian Banking System Has##br## Been Left Undercapitalised For A Decade Furthermore, when the ECB bought Italian government bonds from investors, where did Italian investors deposit the hundreds of billions of euros they received? Not in the local Italian banks, but in German banks, which they deemed to be much safer. Italian banks are not lending, and their depositors are still very wary, because the Italian banking system has been left undercapitalized for a decade. The irony is that the ECB's bond-buying was supposed to help Italy the most, but has probably helped it the least (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The ECB's Bond-Buying Has Exacerbated##br## The Target2 Imbalances Europe's full-fledged banking union is still years away. Europe has established a single supervisor for its 130 largest banks. It has also set up a single resolution fund (SRF) to wind down failing banks in an orderly fashion. Unfortunately, the SRF's coffers will not be full for another six years.1 Until then, the SRF will not be credible to the financial markets without a backstop. A candidate to provide such a backstop would be the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), but this is work in progress. Europe also lacks a common deposit insurance scheme. Knowing that the buck stops with the national government makes depositors wary, as has been the case recently in Italy. The large international banks are keen to implement a pan-European deposit insurance scheme. But this requires a clean-up of bank balance sheets in certain countries, notably Italy. Otherwise, the prudent banks will balk at the prospect of paying for the past mistakes of their less prudent competitors. Again, this is work in progress which may take several years to complete. A Fragmented Monetary Policy Requires A Fragmented Fiscal Policy If the entire euro area economy enters a yin phase, the constituent governments are allowed to use fiscal policy to support growth. For example, when the whole euro area went into a yin phase during the debt crisis, the European Commission relaxed the normal 3% cap on government deficits, and this fiscal stimulus helped the most troubled countries to weather the storm. But what if one country enters a yin phase, while the others are still in a yang phase? For example, a 'no-deal' Brexit would hit Ireland much harder than other euro area economies. The EU budget can help to an extent but, at just 1% of Europe's GDP compared to almost 20% in the U.S., the budget is small. This might still be sufficient to help Ireland, but it is insufficient for a large economy like Italy. The ESM can also help, but the assistance arrives too late - when the troubled country has already lost market access, and thereby is in, or close to, a recession. The unfortunate truth is that without a true banking union it is impossible to have a true monetary union. The result is a fragmented monetary policy, as is the case right now. A fragmented monetary policy with an inflexibly rigid fiscal policy is a recipe for economic polarization and thereby, political polarization. Therefore, until the banking union is complete, policymakers must permit a more fragmented fiscal policy as a crucial economic counterbalance. Because ultimately, a less economically polarized euro area will be a more successful and united euro area. An important test to this thesis has now arrived, as the new government in Italy prepares next year's budget. The government must agree its fiscal plan by September and present a draft to the European Commission by mid-October. Italy was projected to reduce its structural deficit by about 0.8 percent. But given that Italy will have one of the world's lowest structural deficits in the coming years, this reduction seems unnecessarily drastic (Table I-1). Because an increase in the deficit might unnerve the markets, the optimal outcome would be to leave the structural deficit close to its current level. Table 1Italy Will Have One Of The World's Lowest Structural Deficits We end with two brief thoughts for investors. The evidence clearly shows that the ECB's extremely loose monetary policy is wholly inappropriate for the euro area's mostly yang economy and largely ineffective for Italy's yin economy. On this premise, expect a multi-year narrowing in core euro area long bond yield spreads versus their counterparts in the U.K. and U.S. Finally, if Italy's banking system does gradually recover to full health and functionality, the best long-term investment play will be Italy's real estate market, in which prices have been bid down to depressed levels due to a lack of a lack of bank financing. On this premise, the long-term equity play is Covivio. Please note that I am taking a brief summer break, so the next weekly report will come out on August 23. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 The SRF will be gradually built up during 2016-2023 and shall reach the target level of at least 1% of the amount of covered deposits of all credit institutions within the Banking Union by December 31 2023. Fractal Trading Model* We have seven open positions, so we are not adding any new trades this week. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Real Rate "Targeting": Global central bankers are increasingly following the Fed's lead by paying more attention to the appropriate level of real interest rates that will keep inflation stable given low unemployment (r-star). This raises a new potentially bearish element for global bond markets through higher real yields. U.K.: The Bank of England hiked rates last week, despite sluggish growth, slowing inflation and elevated Brexit uncertainties. Additional rate hikes will be difficult to deliver, however, without a change in trend for those factors. Stay overweight Gilts in global hedged bond portfolios. Japan: The conditions for a shift higher in the Bank of Japan's bond yield targets - a weaker yen, core inflation at 1.5% and much higher U.S. bond yields - are still not yet in place. Stay overweight JGBs. Feature Chart Of The WeekA 'New, New Normal' Of Higher Real Rates? Three major central banks met last week and, surprisingly, the most important message did not come from the Federal Reserve. The Bank of England (BoE) and Bank of Japan (BoJ) both delivered policy decisions that appeared more hawkish on the surface, even though the underlying message was far more mixed. The BoE hiked rates by 25bps, while the BoJ tweaked its yield curve control policy by raising the allowable ceiling for the 10-year Japanese Government Bond (JGB) to 0.2%. Yet both central banks signaled - through published research, commentary and outright forward guidance - that the timing of the next policy move is uncertain. This contrasts with the Fed, who continues to signal a slow-but-steady path of U.S. rate hikes over at least the next year. The BoE and BoJ are dealing with the same issues that all the major developed market central banks are facing now - how to reconcile low unemployment and an apparent dearth of spare economic capacity with only modest upward inflation momentum and real interest rates that appear too low (Chart of the Week). Against that backdrop, the communication of central banker strategies to the public, and to the financial markets, is critical to their success, defined by keeping inflation stable around target levels. The Fed has been a leader in introducing nuance into the execution, and communication, of post-crisis policymaking. First, by focusing more on underutilized capacity in the U.S. labor market to justify keeping the funds rate low despite the headline unemployment rate falling below its estimate of "full" employment. Later, by focusing attention on real interest rates and the possibility that the neutral level of that rate (a.k.a. "r-star") can vary cyclically from levels that would previously have been considered consistent with full employment and stable inflation. In both cases, the Fed has provided a framework that allows some wiggle room as it continues to normalize away from crisis-era policy settings. Passionate advocates of the concept like current New York Fed President John Williams have led the Fed's growing focus on r-star. Yet in its latest Inflation Report published last week, the BoE dedicated five full pages to the topic of estimating r-star in the U.K.1 Other central banks have discussed their own estimates of r-star over the past year, as well.2 This is an important point for global bond markets. If other central banks begin to follow the lead of the Fed and elevate the importance of "real rate targeting" into their inflation targeting frameworks, then real bond yields could have significant upside with policy rates still not above realized inflation in the major developed economies. This will especially be true if factors that have kept r-star cyclically depressed in many countries in the post-crisis era - weak productivity growth, fiscal consolidation, excess capacity in labor markets, household deleveraging, among others - continue to slowly dissipate. At the moment, the most important themes for global financial markets relate to the ongoing Fed tightening cycle, the potential for policy stimulus in China in response to slowing domestic growth, and the slowing growth of central bank balance sheets (Chart 2). All three are bond bearish. We could add a fourth item to that list - U.S. protectionism, which can lead to slowing global through diminished trade activity. While there is evidence from many countries that a more uncertain outlook for global trade has negatively affected business confidence, there is also some tentative evidence that the deceleration in global trade activity may be in the process of stabilizing (Chart 3). Yet even if the U.S. - China trade tensions worsen and industrial activity slows further, tariffs and trade barriers represent a supply shock that could result in higher global inflation and prevent a meaningful decline in bond yields. Summing it all up for our government bond investment strategy, we continue to recommend: a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance country allocation (Chart 4) with underweight exposure to countries where central banks can credibly raise interest rates (U.S., Canada) and overweight exposure where rate hikes will be more difficult to deliver (U.K., Japan, Australia) Bottom Line: Global central bankers are increasingly following the Fed's lead by paying more attention to the appropriate level of real interest rates that will keep inflation stable given low unemployment (r-star). This raises a new potentially bearish element for global bond markets through higher real yields. Chart 2The Biggest Market Risks Are Bond Bearish Chart 3Tentative Signs Of Global Trade Stabilization? Chart 4Underweight Countries That Can Credibly ##br##Raise Rates (And Vice Versa) Stay Overweight U.K. Gilts, Even After The BoE Rate Hike The BoE delivered a 25bp rate hike last week, bringing its Bank Rate to 0.75%. The growth and inflation forecasts for the next three years were essentially unchanged, however. The hike was described by BoE Governor Mark Carney as a sign of growing confidence by the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) in its forecast. Thus, another step towards normalizing the Bank Rate from accommodative levels was appropriate. In the press conference following the MPC meeting, Carney noted that the recent pickup in U.K. wage growth was an important development. Carney said that with the economy at full employment,3 the BoE's job is to "manage demand" to control inflation while nominal wage growth expands. Real wage growth has crept back into positive territory in recent months (Chart 5). Numerous indicators were presented in the August 2018 Inflation Report to suggest that U.K. labor markets are growing increasingly tight - including faster wage growth for those switching jobs than those staying in jobs (bottom panel) and survey data showing greater pay increases in sectors facing recruitment and retention difficulties. The BoE did downplay the recent cooling of realized U.K. inflation, which has been more a product of the stability of the pound than an easing of domestic inflation pressures. While this is true, market-based measures of inflation expectation like CPI swaps have also been following the path of the pound, rather than typical forces like oil prices, since the collapse in the pound after the 2016 Brexit vote (Chart 6). On the margin, however, the more stable pound means that U.K. inflation will be more influenced by domestic factors, like tight labor markets and wage pressures. Chart 5Mixed Signals From The U.K. Labor Market Chart 6U.K. Inflation Following The Pound, Not The Labor Market As discussed earlier, the BoE did devote a significant section of the latest Inflation Report to the topic of the neutral real rate or r-star. The BoE noted that there was a longer-term and shorter-term r-star, and that the latter had to be deeply negative in recent years given the shocks from the 2008 Financial Crisis and recession to the 2016 Brexit vote to the fiscal austerity of recent Conservative governments. As the impacts of those shocks fades, the shorter-term r-star increases, requiring faster BoE rate hikes. Or as it was described in the Inflation Report: "The expected rise in r* over coming years, combined with the absorption of spare capacity over the forecast period, means that - even as inflation is projected to fall back toward 2% - the Bank Rate is likely to need to rise gradually to keep inflation at the target. But the persistence of the fall in the trend real rate means that any rises in the Bank Rate are expected to be limited, and interest rates are likely to need to remain low by historical standards for some time to come." That sounds like the BoE wanting to have its cake and eat it too, talking up rate hikes while making the case for rates to stay low for longer. The longer-run r-star estimates shown in the Inflation Report (between 0.5% and 1.5%) when added to the 2% BoE inflation target, suggests that the neutral nominal Bank Rate is between 2.5% and 3.5%. That does imply that there is a lot of scope for additional BoE rate hikes without even reaching a level that could be considered "'neutral' from a longer-term perspective" (Chart 7). It will be difficult for the BoE to deliver on any additional rate hikes, however, while both the economy and inflation are decelerating. The current pricing in the U.K. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve shows that there are only 42bps of hikes discounted by the end of 2020. That represents a very low hurdle to overcome, even if the U.K. economy remains sluggish and the Brexit outcome turns ugly. From a strategy perspective, we think that Gilt yields can rise above the current shallow path of the forward curve over the next 6-12 months, suggesting that a below-benchmark duration stance in the U.K. is appropriate. Yet with U.K. growth slowing and leading indicators suggesting more of that is to come, and with still no resolution to the Brexit negotiations with the March 29, 2019 "Brexit Day" looming in the distance, Gilt yields are likely to stay relatively subdued versus global peers. We continue to recommend an overweight stance on Gilts in hedged global bond portfolios (Chart 8). Chart 7U.K. Real Rates Are WAY Below Longer-Run R-Star Chart 8Stay Overweight U.K. Gilts Bottom Line: The Bank of England hiked rates last week, despite sluggish growth, slowing inflation and elevated Brexit uncertainties. Additional rate hikes will be difficult to deliver, however, without a change in trend for those factors. Stay overweight Gilts in global hedged bond portfolios. Bank of Japan: Zero Pressure On The 0% Target Global bond yields got a bit of a jolt recently from the most unlikely of sources - Japan, the place where bond volatility goes to die. Amid media speculation that the Bank of Japan (BoJ) was considering an upward adjustment to its JGB yield target, the 10-year JGB took several runs at breaching the BoJ's implied pain threshold of 0.10%, resulting in the BoJ intervening with offers of "unlimited" purchases to quell the selloff. Yet at the monetary policy meeting last week, the BoJ only delivered modest changes: The allowable range for the 10-year JGB yield was widened to -0.20% to +0.20% New forward guidance was introduced indicating no rate hikes until at least 2020 A shift in the BoJ's equity ETF purchases to favor ETF's that target a broader index We were not surprised by the outcome, given that there was absolutely no reason why the BoJ should have even considered a change in policy settings. Back in February, we outlined the three things that we believed must ALL occur before the BoJ could plausibly raise its yield target for the 10-year Japanese government bond (JGB).4 Five months later, none of those conditions has been met (Chart 9): 1) The USD/JPY exchange rate must at least get back to the 115-120 range. USD/JPY has struggled to reach even the bottom end of our target range, only getting to an intraday high of 113.17 on July 19th. The starting point for the yen must be weaker than that before the BoJ can deliver any sort of more hawkish policy that would likely send the yen roaring higher. 2) Japanese core CPI inflation and nominal wage inflation must both rise sustainably above 1.5%. The extremely tight Japanese labor market (Chart 10) has finally begun to put upward pressure on wage growth, which now sits at 2.2% on a year-over-year basis. There has been no follow through into core inflation, however, which only got as high at 0.5% in March before sliding back to 0.2% in June. Chart 9None Of Our Conditions For A BoJ Hike Have Been Met Chart 10How Does This Job Market Not Produce Inflation? 3) The 10-year JGB yield must reach an overvalued extreme versus U.S. Treasuries. We judge this by looking at the residual from a fundamental model of the 10-year JGB yield published by the BoJ. The model includes both the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield as the proxy for global yields, and the share of outstanding JGBs owned by the central bank to measure the impact of BoJ buying (Table 1). That model suggests that current JGB yields are only at fair value, and that U.S. Treasury yields have to rise by a lot more (to at least 3.5%) to make the current level of JGB yields look "expensive", thus justifying a higher BoJ yield target (USD/JPY would likely be in the 115-120 range if that happened, as well). Yet despite all these factors arguing against any change in the BoJ's policy settings, the topic was seriously discussed at last week's policy meeting, according to Reuters.5 The renewed weakness of Japanese inflation scuttled any chance that a serious policy change could be delivered. The decision to widen the allowable yield range for the 10-year JGB yield not associated with any signaled change to the 0% yield target. Investors got the hint, and yields have calmed down after the late July turbulence. The BoJ is increasingly backed into a corner with its hyper-easy monetary policy. There is no spare capacity in the economy, with the unemployment rate at a 25-year low of 2.4% and the BoJ estimating that the output gap is closed. Our own Japan Central Bank Monitor is no longer in negative territory, indicating that the next policy move should be a tightening (Chart 11). The BoJ has indeed been "tightening", but only by reducing the pace of its bond buying. BoJ purchases now only matches the pace of new JGB - a far cry from when the BoJ was buying more than all new JGBs issued between 2013 and 2017 (bottom two panels). Table 1JGB Yield Model Chart 11BoJ Has Been Quantitatively Tightening There is a reported disagreement within the BoJ over the impact of the negative interest rate and yield curve control policies on Japanese bank profitability and lending capacity. Yet any sort of rate hike, at either end of the yield curve, would result in a sharp increase in the yen. To have that happen now would harm Japanese exporters' competitiveness at the worst possible time. Economic growth is decelerating in two of Japan's major trading partners, China and South Korea. At the same time, U.S. protectionism risks trade wars that would slow global trade at a time when Japanese export growth, and business confidence, may already be peaking (Chart 12). We continue to recommend an overweight position in Japanese government debt within hedged global government bond portfolios. Admittedly, the idea of overweighting a market where nearly half of all bonds still have a negative yield does not sound like a path to riches. Yet the BoJ stands out as the one major central bank that has virtually no chance at credibly talking about, much less delivering, any sort of monetary tightening with core inflation close to 0%. If non-Japanese yields continue to rise over the next 6-12 months, as we expect, then JGBs will once again be a relative outperformer in a global bond bear market (Chart 13). Chart 12Japan Is Vulnerable To A Global Trade War Chart 13Stay Overweight JGBs In Hedged Global Bond Portfolios Bottom Line: The conditions for a shift higher in the Bank of Japan's bond yield targets - a weaker yen, core inflation at 1.5% and much higher U.S. bond yields - are still not yet in place. Stay overweight JGBs. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 The r-star discussion can be found on pages 39-43 of the August 2018 BoE Inflation Report, which can be found here https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/inflation-report/2018/august/inflation-report-august-2018.pdf 2 For example, the BoJ's estimates of Japan's r-star can be found here, https://www.boj.or.jp/en/research/wps_rev/wps_2018/data/wp18e06.pdf, while the Bank of Canada's estimates for Canadian r-star can be found here https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/boc-review-autumn2017-dorich.pdf 3 The BoE estimates full employment to be around the current unemployment rate of 4.25%, which is well below the OECD's estimate of 5.5% shown in the top panel of Chart 5. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report "What Would It Take For The Bank Of Japan To Raise Its Yield Target?" dated February 13, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 5 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-economy-boj-policy-insight/bojs-architect-of-shock-and-awe-plots-retreat-from-stimulus-idUSKBN1KR0TA Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

According to market lore, one should never say, "It's Different This Time". But every time is always different: there is a never a previous period that perfectly matches the current environment. That is why forecasting is so difficult and why all model-based predictions should be treated with caution. Yet, some basic common sense can go a long way in helping to assess investment risks and potential rewards. As I look at the world, it looks troubled enough to warrant a very conservative investment stance, but that clearly puts me at odds with the majority of investors. In aggregate, investors and market analysts are upbeat. Major equity indexes are close to all-time highs, earnings expectations are ebullient and surveys of investor sentiment do not imply much concern about the outlook. There is a strong consensus that a U.S. recession will not occur before 2020, meaning that risk assets still have decent upside. That may indeed turn out to be true, but I can't shake off my concerns about a number of issues: The consensus may be too complacent about the timing of the next U.S. recession. The dark side of current strong growth is growing capacity pressures that warn of upside surprises for inflation and thus interest rates. Uncertainty about trade wars represents a risk to the global economic outlook beyond the direct impact of tariffs because it also gives companies a good reason to hold back on investment spending. Profit growth in the U.S. has remained much stronger than I expected, but the forces driving this performance are temporary. Rising pressures on wages suggest that labor's share of income will rise, leading to lower margins. The geopolitical environment is ugly, ranging from a shambolic Brexit process to rising populist pressures in Europe, a flaring in U.S./Iran tensions and possible disappointment with North Korea negotiations. The Debt Supercycle may be over, but global debt levels remain worryingly high in several major economies. This could become a problem in the next economic downturn. It would be easier to live with the above concerns if markets were cheap, but that is far from the case - especially in the U.S. Credit spreads in the corporate bond market are below historical averages while equities continue to trade at historically high multiples to earnings. Even if equity prices do move higher, the upside from current levels is likely to be limited. Yes, there could be a final, dramatic blow-off phase similar to that of the late 1990s, but that would be an incredibly risky period and not one that I would want to participate in. Timing The Next Recession Sad to say, economists do a very poor job of forecasting recessions. As I showed in a report published last year, the Fed has missed every recession in the past 60 years (Table 1).1 One could argue that the Fed could never publish a forecast of recession because it would be an admission of policy failure: they generally have to be seen aiming for soft landings. But private forecasters have not done any better. For example, the consensus of almost 50 private forecasters published in mid-November 2007 was that the U.S. economy would grow by 2.5% in the year to 2008 Q4.2 The reality was that the economy was then at the precipice of its worst downturn since the 1930s. Table 1Fed Economic Forecasts Versus Outcome The U.S. economy currently is very strong, but that often is the case just a few quarters before a recession starts. Strong growth today is not a predictor of future strong growth. As has been widely acknowledged, the yield curve has been one of the few indicators to give advance warning of economic trouble ahead. Yet, in the past, its message typically was ignored or downplayed, with the result that most forecasters stayed too bullish on the economy for too long. History is repeating itself with a flurry of reports explaining why the recent flattening of the yield curve is giving a misleading signal. The principal argument is that term premiums have been artificially depressed by the Fed's bond purchases. However, the curve has flattened even as the Fed has pulled back from quantitative easing. As usual, the flattening reflects the tightening in monetary policy and, therefore, should not be discounted. To be fair, there is still a positive slope across the curve, so this indicator is not yet flashing red. But it is headed in that direction (Chart 1). Chart 1Recession Indicators: Not Flashing Red...Yet The other series to watch closely is the Conference Board's Leading Economic Index. Typically, the annual rate of change in this index turns negative ahead of recessions, although once again, there is a history of forecasters ignoring or downplaying the message of this signal. Currently, the growth in the index is firmly in positive territory, so no alarm bells are ringing. Overall, there are no indications that a U.S. recession is imminent. At the same time, late cycle pressures and thus risks are building. Anecdotal evidence abounds of labor shortages and supply bottlenecks in a number of industries. Wage growth has stayed relatively muted given the low unemployment rate, but that is starting to change. My colleague Peter Berezin has shown compelling evidence of a "kinked" relationship between wage growth and unemployment whereby the former accelerates noticeably after the latter drops below its full employment level (Chart 2). We are at the point where wage growth should accelerate and it is significant that the 2.8% rise in the employment cost index in the year to the second quarter was the largest rise in a decade. It also should be noted that the Fed's preferred inflation measure (the core personal consumption deflator) has been running at around a 2% pace in the past three quarters, in line with its target (Chart 3). As capacity pressures build, an overshoot of 2% seems inevitable, forcing the Fed to react. Current market expectations that the funds rate will rise by only 25 basis points over the remainder of this year and by 100 basis points in 2019 are likely to prove too optimistic. Chart 2Faster Wage Growth Ahead Chart 3Core Inflation At The Fed's Target Admittedly, there is huge uncertainty about what interest rate level will be restrictive enough to damage growth. Historically, recessions did not occur until the fed funds rate reached at least the level of potential GDP growth. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that potential GDP growth will average around 4% over the coming year, and the funds rate probably will not reach that level in 2019. However, additional restraint is coming from the strong dollar, and lingering high debt burdens mean that rates are likely to bite at lower levels than past relationships would suggest. Chart 4U.S. Trade Performance: No Major Surprises Trade Wars Etc. President Trump appears to believe that the large U.S. trade deficit is largely a reflection of unfair trade practices. The reality is obviously more complicated, even if there is truth to the claim that the playing field with China is far from level. The key drivers of trade imbalances are relative economic growth rates and relative real exchange rates. The trend in the volume of U.S. non-oil merchandise imports has been exactly in line with that of domestic demand for goods (Chart 4). In other words, there is no indication that the U.S. is being "taken advantage of". The growth in U.S. non-oil exports has been a little on the soft side relative to overseas growth in recent years, but that occurred against the background of a rising real dollar exchange rate. Overall, the trend in the ratio of U.S. real non-oil imports to exports has broadly followed the ratio of U.S. real GDP to that of other OECD economies. The periods where the trade ratio deteriorated somewhat faster than the GDP ratio were times when the real trade-weighted dollar was strong, such as in the past few years. The irony, which seems to escape the administration, is that recent policy actions - tax cuts and efforts to boost private investment spending - are bound to further boost the trade deficit. This may partly explain the clumsy attempt to encourage the Fed to slow down its rate hikes in order to dampen the dollar's ascent. Of course, that will not work - the Fed will not be deflected from its policy course by political interference. Meanwhile, the administration's imposition of tariffs will not change the underlying drivers of the U.S. trade deficit. I have no way of knowing whether current trade skirmishes will degenerate into an all-out war. There are some glimmers of hope with the EU and U.S. promising to engage in talks about reducing trade barriers. But the more important issue is what happens with China. While China has an economic incentive to make concessions, I cannot imagine that President Xi wants to be seen as giving ground in the face of U.S. bullying. My rather unhelpful conclusion is that trade wars are a serious risk that need watching but are unforecastable at this stage. Earnings Galore, But... It's confession time. The performance of U.S. corporate earnings has been far better than I have been predicting during the past few years. In several previous reports, I argued that earnings growth was bound to slow sharply as labor's share of income eventually climbed from its historically low level. I certainly had not expected that the annual growth in S&P 500 operating earnings would average 20% in the two years to 2018 Q2 (Chart 5). In defense, my original argument was not completely wrong. Labor's share of corporate income bottomed in the third quarter of 2014 and that marked the peak in margins, based on national income data of pre-tax profits (Chart 6). Margins have fallen particularly sharply for the national income measure of non-financial profits before interest, taxes and depreciation (EBITD). I believe this is a good measure of the underlying performance of the corporate sector as it is unaffected by policy changes to taxes, depreciation rates and monetary policy. This measure of margins used to be very mean reverting but currently is still far above its historical average. Given the tightness in the labor market, there is still considerable downside in margins as wage costs edge higher. Chart 5Spectacular U.S. Earnings Growth Chart 6Profit Margins Have Peaked An unusually large gap has opened up in recent years between S&P earnings data and the national accounts numbers. While there are several definitional differences between the two datasets, this cannot explain the large divergence shown in Chart 7. The national income data are generally believed to be less susceptible to accounting gimmicks and are thus a better reflection of underlying trends. Analysts remain extraordinarily bullish on future earnings prospects. Not only are S&P 500 earnings forecast to rise a further 14% over the next 12 months, but the current expectation of 16% per annum long-run earnings growth was only exceeded at the peak of the tech bubble (Chart 8). And we know how that episode ended! Chart 7A Strange Divergence in Profit Data Chart 8Insanely Bullish Long-Term Earnings Expectations I am inclined to stick to my view that earnings surprises will disappoint over the next year. The impact of corporate tax cuts will disappear, and both borrowing costs and wage growth are headed higher. A marked slowdown in earnings growth will remove a major prop under the bull market. Brexit As a Brit, I am totally appalled with the Brexit fiasco. It was all so unnecessary. Yes, the EU has an intrusive bureaucracy that imposes some annoying rules and regulations on member countries. However, OECD data show that the U.K. is one of the world's least regulated economies and it scores high in the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business rankings. In other words, there is no compelling evidence that EU bureaucratic meddling has undermined business activity in the U.K. The vote for Brexit probably had more to do with immigration than anything else, and that also makes little sense given that the U.K. has a tight labor market and needs a plentiful supply of immigrant workers. History likely will dictate that former Prime Minister David Cameron's decision to call for the Brexit referendum was the U.K.'s greatest political miscalculation of the post-WWII period. Not only was the decision to hold the referendum a mistake, but it also was foolhardy to base such a momentous vote on a simple majority rather than a super-majority of at least 60%. Adjusting the referendum result by voter turnout, those backing Brexit represented only around 37% of the eligible voting public.3 Clearly, the government was unprepared for the vote result and divorce proceedings have moved ahead with no viable plan to achieve an acceptable separation. Meanwhile, the inevitable confusion has created huge uncertainty for businesses and is doing significant damage to the economy. This is not the place to get into the minutiae of the Brexit morass such as the Northern Ireland border issue and the difficulty of agreeing new trade relationships. Those have been well aired in the press and by many other commentators. My lingering hope is that the enormous challenges of coming up with a mutually acceptable deal with the EU will prove intractable, resulting in a new referendum or election that will consign the whole idea to its grave. We should not have to wait too long to discover whether that is a futile wish. Investment Strategy Chart 9The U.S. Equity Market Is Expensive Equities are still in a bull market and we are thus in a period where investors are biased to be optimistic. Bears have been discredited and the current strength of the economy gives greater credence to the market's cheerleaders. I have been in the forecasting business for long enough (45+ years) to be suitably humble about my ability to forecast where markets are headed. I am very sympathetic to the famous Keynes quote that "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent". Investors will have their own set of preferences and constraints about whether it makes sense to stay heavily invested during times when markets appear to have diverged from fundamentals. The U.S. equity market's price-earnings ratio (PER) currently is about 20% above historical averages, based on both trailing and 12-month forward earnings and more than 30% above based on cyclically-adjusted earnings (Chart 9). Yes, interest rates are low by historical standards, giving scope for higher PERs, but rates are going up and profit margins are at historically elevated levels with lots of downside potential. I fully accept that equity markets can continue to rise over the next year, beating the meagre returns available from cash and bonds. For those investors being measured by quarterly performance, it is difficult to stay on the sidelines while prices march higher. Nevertheless, I believe this is a time for caution. The perfect time for equity investing is when markets are cheap, earnings expectations are overly pessimistic and the monetary environment is highly accommodative. Currently, the opposite conditions exist: valuations are stretched, earnings expectations are euphoric and the Fed is in tightening mode. It does not seem a propitious time to be aggressive. The future is always shrouded in mist, but there currently is an unusually large number of important economic and political questions hanging over the market. These include the timing of the next recession, the related path of monetary policy, the outcome of the U.S. midterm elections, trade wars, U.S.-Sino relations and Brexit, just to name a few. The good news is that our Annual Investment Conference on September 24/25 will be tackling these issues head on with an incredible group of experts. I am looking forward to hearing, among others, from Janet Yellen on monetary policy, Leland Miller and Elizabeth Economy on China, Greg Valliere on U.S. politics, and Stephen King and Stephen Harper on global trade. It promises to be an exceptional event and I hope to see you there. Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com 1 BCA Special Report "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," March 7, 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Survey of Professional Forecasters (www.philadelphiafed.org). 3 The referendum result was 51.9% in favor of Brexit, with a voter turnout of close to 72%.

Highlights Paradox 1: U.S. growth will slow, and this will force the Fed to raise rates MORE quickly. Paradox 2: China will try to stimulate its economy, and this will HURT commodities and other risk assets. Paradox 3: Global rebalancing will require the euro area and Japan to have LARGER current account surpluses. Feature Faulty Assumptions Investors assume that slower U.S. growth will cause the Fed to turn more dovish; efforts by China to stimulate its economy will boost market sentiment towards risk assets; and global rebalancing requires the euro area and Japan to reduce their bloated current account surpluses. In this week's report, we consider the possibility that all three assumptions are wrong. Let's start with the U.S. growth picture. U.S. Growth About To Slow? The U.S. economy grew by 4.1% in the second quarter, the fastest pace since 2014. The composition of growth was reasonably solid. Net exports boosted real GDP by 1.1 percentage points, but this was largely offset by a 1.0 point drag from a slower pace of inventory accumulation. As a result, domestic final demand increased at a robust rate of 3.9%, led by personal consumption (up 4.0%) and business fixed investment (up 7.3%). Unfortunately, the second quarter is probably as good as it gets for growth. We say this not because we expect aggregate demand growth to falter to any great degree. Quite the contrary. Consumer confidence is high and the labor market is strong, with initial unemployment claims near 49-year lows. The Bureau of Economic Analysis' latest revisions revealed a much higher personal savings rate than had been previously estimated (Chart 1). The savings rate is now well above levels that one would expect based on the ratio of household net worth-to-disposable income (Chart 2). This raises the odds that consumer spending will accelerate. Chart 1Households Are Saving More ##br##Than Previously Thought Chart 2Consumption Could Accelerate ##br##As The Savings Rate Drops Rising consumer demand will prompt businesses to expand capacity (Chart 3). Core capital goods orders surprised on the upside in June, with positive revisions made to past months. Capex intention surveys remain at elevated levels. So far, fears of a trade war have not had a major impact on business investment. Fiscal spending is also set to rise. Federal government expenditures increased by only 3.5% in Q2, far short of the 10%-plus growth rate that some forecasters were projecting. The effect of the tax cuts have also yet to make their way fully through the economy. Supply Matters Considering all these positive drivers of demand, why do we worry that growth could slow meaningfully later this year or in early 2019? The answer is that for the first time in over a decade, demand is no longer the binding constraint to growth - supply is. Today, there are fewer unemployed workers than job vacancies (Chart 4). The number of people outside the labor force who want a job is near all-time lows. Businesses are reporting increasing difficulty in finding qualified labor. Chart 3U.S. Companies Plan To Boost Capex Chart 4Companies Are Struggling To Fill Job Openings New business investment will add to the economy's productive capacity over time, but in the near term, the boost to aggregate demand from new investment spending will easily exceed the contribution to aggregate supply.1 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that potential real GDP growth is running at around 2%. What happens when the output gap is fully eliminated, and aggregate demand growth begins to eclipse supply growth? The answer is that inflation will rise. Instead of more output, we will see higher prices (Chart 5). Chart 5Inflationary Pressures Tend To Increase ##br##When Spare Capacity Is Absorbed Rising inflation will force the Fed to engineer an increase in real interest rates, even in the face of slower GDP growth. Such a stagflationary outcome is not good for equities, which is one reason why we downgraded our cyclical recommendation on risk assets from overweight to neutral in June. Higher-than-expected real interest rates will put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. A stronger dollar will hurt U.S. companies with significant foreign exposure more than it hurts their domestically-oriented peers. If history is any guide, a resurgent greenback will also cause credit spreads to widen (Chart 6). Chinese Stimulus: Be Careful What You Wish For Chinese stimulus helped reignite global growth after the Global Financial Crisis and again during the 2015-2016 manufacturing downturn. With global growth slowing anew, will China once again come to the rescue? Not quite. China does not want to let its economy falter, but high debt levels, and an overvalued property market plagued by excess capacity, limit what the authorities can do (Chart 7). Chart 6A Stronger Dollar Usually Corresponds ##br##To Wider Corporate Borrowing Spreads Chart 7China: High Debt Levels Make ##br##Credit-Fueled Stimulus A Risky Proposition Granted, the government has loosened monetary policy at the margin and plans to increase fiscal spending. However, our China strategists feel these actions are more consistent with easing off the brake than pressing down on the accelerator.2 They note that the authorities continue to squeeze the shadow banking system, as evidenced by the continued deceleration in money and credit growth, as well as rising onshore spreads for the riskiest corporate bonds (Chart 8). The Specter Of Currency Wars If Chinese growth continues to decelerate, what options do the authorities have? One possibility is to double down on what they are already doing: letting the RMB slide. Chart 9 shows that the Chinese currency has weakened substantially more over the past six weeks than its prior relationship with the dollar would have suggested. Chart 8Chinese Credit Growth Has Been Slowing Chart 9The Yuan Has Weakened More Than Expected ##br##Based On the Broad Dollar Trend Letting the currency weaken is a risky strategy. Global financial markets went into a tizzy the last time China devalued the yuan in August 2015. The devaluation triggered significant capital outflows, arguably only compounding China's problems. This has led some commentators to conclude that the authorities would not make the same mistake again. But what if the real mistake was not that China devalued its currency, but that it did not devalue it by enough? Standard economic theory says that a country should always devalue its currency by enough to flush out expectations of a further decline. Perhaps China was simply too timid? Capital controls are tighter in China today than they were in 2015. This gives the authorities more room for maneuver. China is also waging a trade war with the United States. The U.S. exported only $188 billion of goods and services to China in 2017, a small fraction of the $524 billion in goods and services that China exported to the United States. China simply cannot win a tit-for-tat trade war with the United States. In contrast, China is better positioned to wage a currency war with the United States. The Chinese simply need to step up their purchases of U.S. Treasurys, which would drive up the value of the dollar. Efforts by China to devalue its currency would invite retaliation from the United States. However, since the Trump Administration seems keen on pursuing a protectionist trade agenda no matter what happens, the Chinese may see their decision to weaken the yuan as the least bad of all possible outcomes. Unlike traditional stimulus in the form of additional infrastructure spending and faster credit growth, a currency devaluation would roil financial markets, causing risk asset prices to plunge. Metal prices would take it on the chin, since a weaker RMB would make it more expensive for Chinese businesses to import commodities. China now consumes close to half of the world's supply of copper, zinc, nickel, aluminum, and iron ore (Chart 10). Investors should remain underweight emerging market equities relative to developed markets and shun the currencies of commodity-exporting economies. We are currently short AUD/CAD on the grounds that a China shock would hurt metal prices more than energy prices. The Canadian dollar is highly levered to the latter, while the Aussie dollar is more levered to the former. Global Rebalancing: It's Not About Getting To Zero We have argued before that China's high savings rate explains why the country has maintained a structural current account surplus, despite the economy's rapid GDP growth rate.3 Both the euro area and Japan also have an excessive savings problem, minus the mitigating effect of rapid trend growth. The euro area's excessive savings problem was masked during the nine years following the introduction of the euro by a massive credit boom across much of the region (Chart 11). Germany did not partake in that boom, but it was still able to export its excess savings to the rest of the euro area via a rising current account balance. Chart 10China Is A More Dominant Consumer ##br##Of Metals Than Oil Chart 11Germany Did Not Take Part ##br##In The Credit Boom Germany Needs A Spender Of Last Resort Chart 12 shows that Germany's current account surplus with other euro area members mirrored the country's increasing competitiveness vis-à-vis the rest of the region. In essence, the spending boom in southern Europe sucked in German exports, with German savings financing the periphery's swelling current account deficits. This is the main reason why German banks were hit so hard during the Global Financial Crisis: They were the ones who underwrote the periphery's spendthrift ways. That party ended in 2008. With the periphery no longer the spender of last resort in Europe, Germany had to find a way to export its savings to the rest of the world. But that required a cheaper currency, which Mario Draghi ultimately delivered in 2014 when he set in motion the ECB's own quantitative easing program. So where do we go from here? Germany's excess savings problem is not about to go away anytime soon. The working-age population is set to decline over the next few decades, which means that most domestically oriented businesses will have little incentive to expand capacity (Chart 13). The peripheral countries remain in belt-tightening mode. This will limit demand for German imports. Meanwhile, countries such as Spain have made significant progress in reducing unit labor costs in an effort to improve competitiveness and shift their current account balances back into surplus. Chart 12Competitiveness Gains In The 2000s Allowed ##br##Germany To Increase Its Current Account Surplus Chart 13Germans Need To Have More Children The ECB And The BOJ Can't Afford To Raise Rates The private sector financial balance in the euro area - effectively, the difference between what the private sector earns and spends - now stands near a record high (Chart 14). Fiscal policy also remains fairly tight. The IMF estimates that the euro area's cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance will be in a surplus of 0.9% of GDP in 2018-19, compared to a deficit of 3.8% of GDP in the United States (Chart 15). Chart 14Euro Area: Private Sector ##br##Balance Remains Elevated Chart 15The Euro Area's Fiscal Policy Is Tight If the public sector is unwilling to absorb the private sector's excess savings by running large fiscal deficits, those savings need to be exported abroad in the form of a current account surplus. Failure to do so will result in higher unemployment, and ultimately, further political upheaval. This means that the ECB has no choice other than to keep rates near rock-bottom levels in order to ensure that the euro remains cheap. Japan has been more willing than Europe to maintain large budget deficits, but the problem is that this has resulted in a huge debt-to-GDP ratio. The Japanese would like to tighten fiscal policy, starting with the consumption tax hike scheduled for October 2019. However, this may require the economy to have an even larger current account surplus, which can only be achieved if the yen weakens further. This, in turn, suggests that the Bank of Japan will not abandon its yield curve control policy anytime soon. We were not in the least bit surprised this week when Governor Kuroda poured cold water on the idea that the BoJ was contemplating raising either its short or long-term interest rate targets. The bottom line is that thinking about global imbalances solely in terms of current account positions is not enough. One should also think about the distribution of aggregate demand across the world. Countries with demand to spare such as the United States can afford to run current account deficits, while economies with insufficient demand such as the euro area and Japan should run current account surpluses. The key market implication is that interest rates will remain structurally higher in the United States, which will keep the dollar well bid. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 This is partly because it can take a while for additional capital spending to raise aggregate supply. For example, it may take a few years to build an office tower or a new factory. Corporate R&D investment may not generate tangible benefits for a long time, especially in cases where the research is focused on something complicated (i.e., the design of new computer chips or pharmaceuticals). And even if investment spending could be transformed into additional productive capacity instantaneously, aggregate demand would still rise more than aggregate supply, at least temporarily. Here is the reason: The nonresidential private-sector capital stock is about 120% of GDP in the United States. As such, a one percent increase in investment spending would raise the capital stock by four-fifths of a percentage point. Assuming a capital share of income of 40% of national income, a one percent increase in the capital stock would lift output by 0.4%. Thus, a one-dollar increase in business investment would boost aggregate demand by one dollar in the year it is undertaken, while increasing supply by only 4/5*0.4 = roughly 32 cents. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China Is Easing Up On The Brake, Not Pressing The Accelerator," dated July 26, 2018. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame?" dated April 6, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades