Developed Countries

Special Report

Highlights We decompose the fed funds rate cycle into four phases based on the interaction between the level of the fed funds rate and its direction to examine monetary policy's impact on equities. The policy backdrop matters for equity returns. All of the S&P 500's price gains over the last six decades have accrued while policy settings have been accommodative. From a policy perspective, equities have been in an extended sweet spot ever since the Fed began aggressively cutting rates to combat the crisis. We estimate that they will remain there for close to another year. The fed funds rate cycle is only one of the variables we consider when calibrating investment strategy. Its bullish message faces resistance from decelerating growth, full valuations, and trade tensions between China and the U.S. The net impact of the individual crosscurrents is subject to spirited debate within BCA. Feature You really can't fight the Fed. As longtime U.S. Investment Strategy readers know, the fed funds rate cycle has been a consistently robust predictor of the direction and magnitude of equity returns. Over nearly six decades, the S&P 500 has risen at a 10% annualized clip when policy is easy; it's scratched out just a percentage point a year when it's tight. Adjusted for inflation, the easy/tight performance disparity has been even wider. In this Special Report, we update and revise the full-scale analysis we first performed nearly five years ago. In this iteration, we evaluate performance for each phase of the cycle on the basis of chained aggregate returns, rather than in terms of means and medians. That tweak expands our sample size to 685 months from 60 cycle phases, and eliminates the individual phases' sensitivity to short-term outliers. We have also revised the demarcation of the cycle phases to correct for a flaw in our historical effective fed funds rate data feed.1 The Fed Funds Rate Cycle We decompose the fed funds rate cycle into four phases based on the interaction between the level of rates and their direction, as follows: Phase I represents the early stage of the withdrawal of monetary stimulus. This phase begins with the first rate hike of a new tightening cycle and ends when the fed funds rate crosses above our estimate of the equilibrium rate2 (shown as a dashed line in Chart 1 and Chart 2). Chart 1It's Easiest To Be Easy Chart 2The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Phase II represents the latter stages of the tightening cycle, when the Fed hikes its target rate above equilibrium in a deliberate effort to cool an overheating economy. Phase III represents the early stage of the easing cycle. It begins with the first rate cut from the peak and lasts until the Fed cuts its target rate below equilibrium. Phase IV represents the late stage of the easing cycle. It encompasses both the period when the fed funds rate breaks below its equilibrium level, and the subsequent adjustment period when the Fed remains on hold at the cycle trough in an effort to kick start an economic recovery. What Is The Equilibrium Fed Funds Rate? The equilibrium fed funds rate is the policy rate that neither encourages nor discourages economic activity. That is a simple enough idea, but we note that the equilibrium rate is just a concept. No one can put a blood pressure cuff around the economy's arm, or stick a thermometer in its mouth, to determine the rate objectively and precisely. Our equilibrium rate, which uses potential GDP growth to adjust a smoothed and filtered long-run series of the actual fed funds rate, is simply the modeled estimate of a concept. Why Bother Pursuing Such Elusive Quarry? 70 years ago, BCA sprang from our founder's insight that investors might be able to intuit a good deal about the future direction of the economy and financial markets by studying the flow of credit through the banking system. The Bank Credit Analyst owes its name and existence to the proposition that money flows matter. Tracking monetary conditions is in our DNA, and the fed funds rate is the foremost input into standard monetary conditions models. The empirical record suggests that the monetary backdrop holds such powerful sway over financial markets that tracking the equilibrium rate's relationship to the actual fed funds rate is worthwhile even if our ability to pin it down in real time is limited. Stocks And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle History convincingly demonstrates that the monetary backdrop matters, and that the level of rates (accommodative or restrictive) exerts far more influence on equity returns than their direction (higher or lower). Table 1 presents annualized price returns for the S&P 500 by fed funds cycle phase for the nearly 60 years covered by our equilibrium fed funds rate estimate. When policy is easy, as in Phases I and IV, the S&P has appreciated at a 10% annual rate; when it's tight, as in Phases II and III, it's barely advanced. Table 2 adjusts the nominal returns for inflation, making the easy/tight policy divide even starker - in real terms, the S&P 500 has lost considerable ground when the fed funds rate has exceeded our estimate of equilibrium. Table 1Tight Policy Is Hazardous To Stocks' Health, ... Table 2... Especially In Real Terms, ... Estimated Earnings And Forward Multiples Although overall equity returns are a function of the level of rates, their underlying components - earnings growth and the multiple investors are willing to pay for future earnings - are more sensitive to rates' direction. Earnings estimates are directly related to rate moves - they rise more when rates rise than they do when rates fall (Table 3). The direct relationship follows from the countercyclical nature of monetary policy. If the Fed is cutting rates, it must anticipate a softer growth environment in which estimates should be revised lower, whereas if it's hiking them, it must foresee such robust growth that it fears the economy could overheat. Table 3... But Earnings Thrive When The Fed Hikes Multiples are inversely related to the direction of rates; they contract in the aggregate when rates rise, and expand when they fall (Table 4). Although multiples are constrained by their mean-reverting properties, their movement around the mean adheres to a tidal pattern: ebbing when the Fed's trying to rein in the economy with rate hikes (and future earnings are subject to an increasing discount factor), and rising when it's trying to give it a boost (and the discount factor is falling). Multiples' action vis-à-vis the rate cycle suggests that they are forward-looking - moving in accordance with the Fed's intentions - while estimates are backward-looking, primarily extrapolating from actual results. In terms of S&P 500 returns, estimates' and multiples' tendency to counter one another when policy is tight has maintained the overall easy/tight dynamic over the four decades covered by forward earnings data (Table 5). Table 4Stocks De-Rate When Rates Rise, ##br##And Re-Rate When They Fall Table 5A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats, But Easy Phases Still Lead The Way Why Does The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Work? For all of its import, monetary policy is a blunt instrument that works with indeterminate lags. Its shortcomings heavily influence the way the Fed deploys it, and impose a predictable pattern on its economic and market impacts. In this analysis we focus on the Fed's inability to make targeted, precise adjustments; its uncertainty over when its effects will take hold; and its mandate's explicit focus on managing inflation, a lagging indicator. All of these factors come into play when the Fed embarks on a rate-hiking campaign, kicking off a new iteration of the policy rate cycle. New rate cycles begin from the previous cycle's trough level, when the Fed's primary concern is to avoid revisiting the adversity that inspired accommodation. It does not want to induce a double-dip by being too aggressive, especially when inflation readings are tame (Table 6). The Fed does not begin Phase I, or proceed very far with it, until it is all but certain that the economy can withstand higher rates. It therefore predictably embarks upon Phase I with a bias to err on the side of being too easy. Table 6Has The Tail Been Wagging The Dog? This bias gives the economy a chance to build up momentum in Phase I, consonant with a cycle peak in earnings growth (Chart 3, third panel). In markets, that momentum helps to feed meaningful excess returns in spread product,3 and sizable outperformance among late-cyclical equity sectors at home and abroad,4 as well as outsized returns in the S&P 500. Left unchecked, the momentum could promote higher inflation. Inflation can move stealthily because of its lagging nature, and the Fed is often compelled to intervene forcefully to counter it. Chart 3Monetary Policy Matters, A Lot Forceful intervention brings about Phase II of the cycle, when economic activity may still be expanding at a good clip, as indicated by double-digit earnings growth. Wielding a blunt instrument that works with a lag, however, the Fed is at risk of going too far, and Phase II hikes often induce a recession. Investors begin to sniff out the looming downturn and de-rate equities. By the time the Fed backs off and initiates a new easing campaign (Phase III), earnings growth has stalled out and measured inflation is peaking (Chart 3, bottom panel). Equities mark time (Chart 3, first and second panels) and spread product generates negative excess returns until, with the recession plainly evident and measured inflation sliding, there is nothing stopping the Fed from full-on accommodation (Phase IV), and it maintains market-friendly settings until the economy begins to look too strong, and the Fed intervenes to hold it back (Phase II). This stylized example focused on the Fed and markets, but monetary policy impacts all aspects of the real economy. Consumer demand for homes and other durable goods that have to be financed, along with businesses' appetite for investment, are keenly sensitive to monetary conditions. There is a powerful self-reinforcing dynamic that joins corporate earnings, business expansion and hiring, and consumption. The links between equity performance and the fed funds rate cycle are real and lasting. Investment Implications In its current setting, the fed funds rate cycle is issuing a risk-friendly signal. Even if it were our only guide to asset allocation and investment strategy, however, we would need to heed a couple of caveats before rushing out to overweight equities and other risk assets. First of all, estimates of the equilibrium fed funds rate are notoriously imprecise - equilibrium is a concept that can only be observed after the fact. Secondly, there is no guarantee that asset returns in this iteration of the fed funds rate cycle will continue to hew closely to the historical record. Following 10-plus years of accommodation, equity valuations are at fairly demanding levels. We continue to have a constructive view of the business, market and policy cycles, but the current environment carries significant risks. Activity is broadly decelerating outside of the U.S., public-market valuations are full nearly everywhere around the world, and the unsettled trade picture has the potential to upend financial markets. BCA is closely monitoring China to see whether or not it will provide monetary or fiscal stimulus that might help mitigate the forces threatening to undermine global trade and the economies that rely upon it. We remain on hold, recommending a benchmark equity allocation, while underweighting bonds and overweighting cash, in line with the house view. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 A bug in our third-party provider's conversion of daily effective fed funds rate data into monthly data slightly skewed our previous phase definitions. 2 Potential GDP growth is the key input to our model estimating the equilibrium policy rate level. 3 Please see the May 27, 2014 U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "Bonds and the Fed Funds Rate Cycle." Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see the July 3, 2017 Global ETF Strategy Model Portfolios Review, "Overhauling the U.S. Equity Exposures," and the May 11, 2018 Global Alpha Sector Strategy Special Report, "Global Equity Sectors and the Fed Funds Rate Cycle."Available at getf.bcaresearch.com and gss.bcaresearch.com.

  Overweight (High-Conviction) The S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals (THSP) index has been an outstanding performer on our high-conviction list, returning more than 15% relative to the S&P 500 in the less than five months since it was added. Importantly, none of the key themes that drove our addition have finished playing out; the U.S. capex indicator remains persistently elevated, S&P THSP profit margins and the resulting cash flow remain robust and leverage ratios continue to lead the market (second & third panels). However, the breadth of the advance has narrowed as much of the outperformance has been due to Apple and the last two quarters of spectacular earnings beats. This adds a degree of specific risk to the exceptional S&P THSP outperformance. On top of this, risk of an escalating trade war with China continues to climb, to which the S&P THSP index is highly exposed. Accordingly, this morning we suggest that clients institute a stop in this high-conviction call at the 10% relative return mark, in line with our late-January introduced risk management policy. Bottom Line: We reiterate our high-conviction overweight status in the S&P THSP index, but recommend a 10% stop. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CMPE - HPQ, WDC, STX, XRX, AAPL, HPE, NTAP.    

  Underweight (Upgrade Alert) Auto components stocks found a rare bit of relief this week on the back of news of a trade deal with Mexico and hopes that a similar deal can be made with Canada. Importantly, the scant details gleaned about Mexico are better than had been feared. Of particular note are the increase in regional value content from 62.5% previously to 75% and a 40-45% auto content made by workers earning at least $16 per hour requirement. Both of these should see a diversion of supply chain from overseas to domestic auto parts companies. This makes us reasonably optimistic on the industry's medium-term growth outlook. However, we caution that the situation is highly fluid and the details of final trade deal may be vastly different from the ones thus far released. Further, industry-operating metrics have been deteriorating; light vehicle sales have flat lined, consumer confidence (at least with respect to making a purchase of a new vehicle) has declined and vehicle pricing has fallen back into deflation. Bottom Line: we remain bearish on the S&P auto components index but are cognizant that NAFTA renegotiations could offer a solid tailwind to a beaten-up sector. Accordingly, we are putting this niche index on upgrade alert. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P auto components index are: BLBG: S5AUTC - APTV, BWA, GT.

Highlights We remain bullish on the dollar, but no longer think that being long the greenback is the "slam-dunk" trade that it was earlier this year. A reacceleration in growth outside the U.S. and an overly dovish Fed represent the biggest risks to our constructive dollar view. China is likely to stimulate its economy, but concerns about high debt levels and malinvestment will limit the scale of any fiscal/credit stimulus. Letting the RMB slide may prove to be the preferable option. Worries about debt sustainability in Italy and EM contagion to European banks will constrain credit growth in the euro area, thus keeping the ECB in a highly dovish mode. For the time being, we favor developed market stocks over their EM peers. At the sector level, we would overweight defensives relative to deep cyclicals. U.S. stocks will outperform European stocks in dollar terms, although the performance is likely to be much more balanced in local-currency terms. The longer-term path for Treasury yields is to the upside. Nevertheless, a stronger dollar, coupled with safe-haven flows into the Treasury market, could temporarily push the 10-year yield down to 2.5% over the next few months. Feature The Dollar At A Crossroads After surging by 10% between February 1st and August 15th, the broad trade-weighted dollar has fallen by 0.9% over the past two weeks. Despite the latest setback, the greenback is still 23.2% above its 2014 lows and only 2.8% below its December 28, 2016 high (Chart 1). BCA continues to maintain a bullish view on the dollar. However, given recent market action, it is useful to stress-test our thesis in order to explore what could go wrong with it. As we discuss below, a key risk to the dollar is that global growth reaccelerates, with the U.S. once again going from leader to laggard in the global growth horserace. Global Growth And The Dollar The dollar tends to strengthen when global growth is deteriorating. Since the U.S. is a "low-beta" economy dominated by services rather than manufacturing and primary industries, an environment in which the global economy is slowing is usually one where the U.S. is outperforming the rest of the world. Chart 2 shows that there is a strong correlation between the value of the trade-weighted dollar and the difference between The Conference Board's U.S. Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) and the non-U.S. LEI. The gap between the U.S. and the non-U.S. LEI is still quite large. However, it has started to shrink recently, reflecting both a dip in the U.S. LEI as well as a small improvement in the non-U.S. LEI. The implication is that the U.S. economy is outshining the rest of the world, but the magnitude of outperformance has begun to narrow. Looking forward, the fate of the dollar will hinge on whether growth in the rest of the world can catch up with the United States. By definition, this can happen either if U.S. growth falls or non-U.S. growth rises. We examine each possibility in turn. Chart 1Despite Recent Pullback, ##br##The Dollar Is Still Close To Its 2016 High Chart 2The U.S. Economy Is Still Outperforming The Rest Of The World, But The Gap Is Starting To Narrow U.S. Growth: As Good As It Gets? The second quarter was probably the high watermark for U.S. growth for the rest of this cycle. Real GDP expanded by 4.2%, more than double most estimates of trend growth. The deceleration in payroll growth in July, a string of weak housing data releases, and the drop in the national ISM surveys alongside declines in a number of regional surveys such as the Philly Fed PMI, all point to a somewhat softer third quarter GDP growth reading. How worried should dollar bulls be? We see three reasons to downplay the negative impact on the dollar from the recent string of softer economic data. While the U.S. economy has slowed, it is still quite strong. The Bloomberg consensus forecast suggests that real GDP will increase by 3% in Q3. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model predicts 4.1% growth, while the New York Fed's Nowcast anticipates a more modest growth rate of 2%. The underlying drivers of aggregate demand remain supportive. U.S. financial conditions have loosened recently, thanks mainly to narrower credit spreads and higher equity prices (Chart 3). The effects of fiscal stimulus have also yet to make their way fully through the economy, especially with respect to government spending. The consumer is in great shape. The unemployment rate is near a 20-year low and the savings rate stands at a comfortable 6.7%, well above the level that the current ratio of household net worth-to-disposable income would predict (Chart 4). The housing vacancy rate is close to all-time lows, which limits the downside risk both to home prices and construction activity (Chart 5). Chart 3U.S. Financial Conditions Have Eased Recently Chart 4The Savings Rate Has Room To Fall Some of the apparent slowdown in U.S. growth appears to be due to intensifying supply-side constraints rather than faltering demand (Chart 6). This is important because slower growth resulting from weaker demand should, in principle, cause the Fed to moderate the pace of rate hikes, whereas slower growth resulting from an overheated economy should prompt the Fed to accelerate the pace of rate hikes. The latter is much better for the dollar than the former. Chart 5Low Housing Inventories Will ##br##Support Home Prices And Construction Chart 6U.S. Economy Is Hitting Supply-Side ##br##Constraints The Fed's Fate Is In The Stars What is true in principle, however, does not always match what happens in practice. In his Jackson Hole address, Jay Powell invoked a Draghi-esque phrase when saying that the FOMC would "do whatever it takes" to keep inflation expectations from becoming unmoored.1 Nevertheless, he also said that "there does not seem to be an elevated risk of overheating" at the moment. This is a curious statement considering the abundant evidence that U.S. firms are struggling to find qualified workers. To his credit, Powell stressed the inherent difficulty of "navigating by the stars," that is, of setting monetary policy based on highly imprecise estimates of the natural rate of unemployment, u*, and the neutral real rate of interest, r*. What he did not say is that the Fed's current estimates of these "stars" stand at record lows, which introduces a dovish bias into monetary policy should these estimates prove to be too low. Our baseline view is that the Federal Reserve will raise rates more than the market is currently discounting. We also doubt the Fed will succumb to President Trump's pressure to keep rates low or to accommodate any effort by the Treasury to intervene in the foreign exchange market with the aim of driving down the value of the dollar. That said, the risk to this view is that the Fed reacts too slowly to rising inflation. This could cause real rates to drift lower, with adverse consequences for the dollar. The China Policy Wildcard The discussion above suggests that the dollar would suffer either if U.S. growth slows significantly or if the Fed falls too far behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. An additional risk to the dollar is that growth outside the U.S. picks up. This would suck capital away from the U.S. and into the rest of the world, with adverse consequences for the greenback. At present, the biggest question mark around the global growth outlook concerns China. The Chinese economy has struggled of late, with trade tensions adding to the misery (Chart 7). The stock market is down in the dumps. On-shore corporate yields for low-quality borrowers continue to rise. Industrial production, retail sales, and fixed asset investment all disappointed in July, following a further drop in the PMIs. The economic surprise index remains in negative territory. Only the housing market is showing renewed vigour, with both starts and sales rebounding (Chart 8). Chart 7China: Some Signs Of A Struggling Economy... Chart 8...With Housing Being The Main Exception The central bank has responded by easing liquidity. Interbank rates fell from a peak of 5.9% in late 2017 to 2.9% today. The authorities have also instructed local governments to expedite their spending plans, while ordering state-owned banks to expand lending to the export sector and for infrastructure-related projects. Fiscal/credit stimulus of the sort the authorities engaged in both 2009 and 2015 carries significant risks, however. Debt levels have reached stratospheric levels and concerns about excess capacity and malinvestment abound. We suspect these facts will cause policymakers to be more guarded than they would otherwise be. What's Next For The RMB? Letting the RMB weaken offers an alternative way to stimulate the economy - and one, crucially, that does not require piling on evermore debt. In contrast to more roads and bridges, a cheaper Chinese currency would not be welcome news for the rest of the world. A weaker RMB makes it more difficult for other economies to compete against China. A weaker currency also increases the costs to Chinese firms of importing raw materials, thus putting downward pressure on commodity prices. Despite efforts by emerging markets to diversify their economies, EM earnings remain highly correlated with industrial metals prices (Chart 9). Despite the presence of capital controls, the USD/CNY exchange rate has broadly tracked the one-year swap differential between the U.S. and China over the past few years (Chart 10). The differential has dropped from close to 300 basis points at the beginning of this year to less than 100 basis points today. Given that prospect of further Fed rate hikes, the only way the Chinese authorities will be able to keep the interest rate differential from falling even more is by tightening monetary policy themselves. This could slow credit growth and thus weaken the economy. The failure to raise rates, however, would probably cause the RMB to fall further. Both outcomes would be problematic for the rest of the world. Chart 9EM Earnings Are Correlated ##br##With Industrial Metal Prices Chart 10USD/CNY Tracks China-U.S. ##br##Interest Rate Differentials Our bet is that the authorities will ultimately choose to keep domestic monetary conditions fairly easy - leading to a weaker RMB - but will use administrative controls to prevent credit growth from accelerating too rapidly. That said, we would not rule out the possibility that the authorities succeed in stimulating the economy in a way that precludes further currency weakness. If this stimulus coincides with a thawing in trade tensions, it could lead to a burst in optimism about China specifically, and global growth in general. Such an outcome would hurt the dollar. The Euro Area: Keeping The Recovery On Track After putting in a strong performance in 2017, the economy in the euro area has struggled to maintain momentum this year. Growth is still above trend, but the overall tone of the data has been lackluster at best, with the risks to growth increasingly tilted to the downside. Weaker growth in China and other emerging markets certainly has not helped. However, much of the problem lies closer to home. The election of a populist government in Italy renewed concerns about debt sustainability in the euro area's third largest economy. The 10-year yield reached a four-year high of 3.2% this week. It is now 150 basis points above its April 2018 lows (Chart 11). The resulting tightening in Italian financial conditions will continue to weigh on growth in the months ahead. Bank credit remains the lifeblood of the euro area economy. Chart 12 shows that the 12-month credit impulse - defined as the change in credit growth from one 12-month period to the next - tends to move closely with GDP growth. Euro area credit began to moderate this year even before the Italian imbroglio and worries about the exposure of European banks to vulnerable emerging markets came on the scene. It will be difficult for euro area GDP growth to accelerate unless credit growth revives. In the absence of faster credit growth, the ECB will have little choice but to remain firmly in dovish mode. Chart 11Italian Populism Meets The Bond Market Chart 12Euro Area Credit Growth Has Flatlined The best-case scenario for the common currency is that EM stresses subside, and the Italian government reaches a friendly agreement with the European Commission over next year's budget. The thawing in Brexit negotiations would also help. We are skeptical that any of these three things will happen, but if one or a number of them did occur, this would benefit the euro at the expense of the dollar. Investment Conclusions We are not as bullish on the dollar as we were earlier this year. Sentiment towards the greenback has clearly improved (Chart 13). The narrative about a "synchronized global growth recovery" that was all the rage last year has also given way to a more sober appreciation of the problems facing emerging markets. In short, markets have moved a long way towards our view of the world. Still, we are not ready to abandon our strong dollar view. Chinese stimulus or not, the structural challenges facing emerging markets - high debt levels, poor productivity growth - will not go away. The same goes for Europe and its litany of political and economic travails. Even if the dollar did manage to weaken again, this would constitute an unwelcome easing in U.S. financial conditions at a time when the Fed wants to tighten financial conditions in order to keep the economy from overheating. From this perspective, a weaker dollar just means that the Fed would need to hike rates even more than it otherwise would. Since more rate hikes will buttress the dollar, the extent to which the dollar can weaken is self-limiting. In short, interest rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners should continue to favor the greenback. Assuming the dollar does strengthen from here, emerging markets will be the main casualties. While EM assets have cheapened considerably, Chart 14 shows that neither EM equities, credit, nor currencies are at levels that have marked past bottoms. Global investors should continue to favor developed market stocks over their EM peers. At the equity sector level, investors should overweight defensives over deep cyclicals. Regionally, this posture implies that U.S. stocks will outperform European stocks in dollar terms, although the performance is likely to be much more balanced in local-currency terms. Chart 13Investors Have Turned More Bullish On The Dollar Chart 14EM Assets Are Not Very Cheap As we recently discussed in a two-part Special Report,2 the longer-term path for Treasury yields is to the upside. Nevertheless, a broad-based appreciation in the value of the dollar, coupled with safe-haven flows into the Treasury market, could temporarily push the 10-year yield down to 2.5% over the next few months. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Jerome H. Powell, "Monetary Policy in a Changing Economy," Speech at "Changing Market Structure and Implications for Monetary Policy," a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, August 24, 2018. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Reports, "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 1)," dated August 10, 2018; "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2)," dated August 24, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights Barring government interference in foreign exchange markets, the path of least resistance for the U.S. dollar is up. The U.S. Treasury has authority to intervene unilaterally in foreign exchange markets. However, conditions for effective interventions to weaken the dollar exist neither within nor outside the U.S. For the time being, central banks in Europe, Japan, and China will not cooperate with the U.S. to depreciate the dollar. The Federal Reserve will effectively team up with the U.S. Treasury to depreciate the greenback only if economic conditions in the U.S. warrant a weaker currency. This is not currently the case. In this context, the dollar will continue to appreciate, but its rally will be accompanied by substantially higher volatility as the U.S. administration aggressively "talks down" the dollar. To capitalize on this theme, traders should consider going long dollar volatility. A firm dollar is consistent with continuous turmoil in EM financial markets. We continue to recommend staying put on EM. Feature Chart I-1U.S. Core Inflation Will Rise Further Economics and politics are set for a major clash in foreign exchange markets. Economic fundamentals and crosscurrents worldwide herald U.S. dollar appreciation. Yet, U.S. President Donald Trump wholeheartedly opposes any dollar strength. The higher the greenback rises, the more forceful Trump's jawboning about the exchange rate and interest rates will become. If the dollar does not halt its advance and overshoots, the odds are material that at a certain point the U.S. Treasury will initiate currency market interventions itself. It would do so by selling dollars and buying foreign assets. What will be the outcome of this battle between economics and politics in financial markets? The conclusion of this report is that for government-led currency market interventions to be effective in reversing the dollar's uptrend, the U.S. administration will have to convince the Federal Reserve to cease rate hikes and balance sheet contraction. Without the Fed recalibrating policy to be more consistent with a weaker dollar, the U.S. Treasury may not succeed in weakening the greenback on a sustainable basis. Given core consumer price inflation in the U.S. will likely surprise to the upside (Chart I-1), the Fed will not be willing to halt its tightening campaign. Hence, it will take time for the U.S. administration to wrestle and convince the Fed to accommodate currency interventions in efforts to weaken the greenback. In the meantime, the dollar will likely continue its volatile ascent. The Dollar Will Rally If Left To Market Forces Based on economic fundamentals, the path of least resistance for the greenback is up - for now. U.S. growth and inflation warrant higher interest rates, and the Fed is willing to continue moving short rates higher. In contrast, the unfolding EM/China slowdown is not only negative for their own respective currencies but is also harmful for commodities currencies in the advanced economies. Besides, the German and Japanese economies are much more vulnerable to a slowdown in EM/China than the U.S. (Chart I-2). Consistently, Chart I-3 illustrates that outperformance by the equal-weighted U.S. stock index versus its global peers in local currency terms - a measure of relative domestic demand - still points to a stronger U.S. dollar. On the whole, the growth and interest rate differentials between the U.S. and the rest of the world will likely continue to move in favor of the former and extend the dollar rally. Chart I-2Germany and Japan Are Much More Exposed ##br##To EM/China Than To The U.S. Chart I-3Relative Share Prices Point ##br##To A Firmer Dollar The dollar is typically a counter-cyclical currency. It depreciates when global trade is improving and appreciates when the global business cycle is slowing (the dollar is shown inverted on this chart) (Chart I-4). Odds are that global trade will continue to decelerate due to the slowdown in EM/China and trade protectionism - even if U.S. domestic demand growth remains robust. Furthermore, U.S. trade protectionism is positive for the dollar. The basis is that exporters to the U.S. could opt for weaker currencies to offset the negative impact of tariffs on their local currency revenues. Financial markets are often self-regulating, and they move to rebalance the global economy and amend economic excesses. A stronger dollar is the right medicine for the global economy for now. A firmer dollar is required to rebalance growth away from the U.S. and towards the rest of the world. In particular, dollar appreciation is needed to cap budding U.S. inflationary pressures. In addition, a stronger greenback will compel unraveling of excesses within the developing economies. While it will cause growth retrenchment and will be painful for EM in the medium term, cheapened currencies and deleveraging (an unwinding of credit excesses) will ultimately create a foundation for stronger and healthier growth in the years ahead. U.S. dollar liquidity is tightening, supporting the greenback (the latter is shown inverted on this chart) (Chart I-5). Continued shrinkage of the Fed's balance sheet entails tighter U.S. dollar liquidity going forward. With respect to currency market technicals, the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar is not yet overbought, and trader sentiment on the U.S. currency is not extremely bullish (Chart I-6). Hence, conditions for an ultimate cyclical top in the dollar do not yet exist. Chart I-4The Global Business Cycle and The Dollar Chart I-5Upside Risks To The Dollar Chart I-6The Dollar: Market Technicals Finally, the U.S. dollar is not expensive. Our favored currency valuation measure - the real effective exchange rate-based on unit labor costs - currently suggests that the greenback is only slightly above its fair value (Chart I-7). This measure is superior to the real effective exchange rate based on consumer and producer prices because it considers both wages and productivity. Ultimately, competitiveness is not a function of wages (or prices) but wages adjusted for productivity.1 Besides, labor costs typically constitute the largest share of business costs. Hence, the unit labor cost-based real effective exchange rate is the best measure of currency competitiveness. This currency valuation yardstick does not corroborate the widely circulating narrative in the investment community that the U.S. currency is very expensive. The greenback is also not expensive according to the real broad trade-weighted dollar index. The latter is only slightly above its historical mean, and well below its previous highs (Chart I-8). Chart I-7AThe Dollar Is Not Expensive Chart I-7BThese Currencies Are Expensive Chart I-8Trade-Weighted Dollar in Real Terms To be sure, we are not implying the dollar is cheap. It is not. Rather, our point is that the greenback is not yet expensive. When valuations are not extreme, they usually do not prevent a rally or selloff. Odds are that the dollar could become more expensive in this cycle before topping out. Bottom Line: Barring government interference in foreign exchange markets, the path of least resistance for the U.S. dollar is up. The Main Risk To The Dollar Is Trump Chart I-9U.S. Monetary Conditions Are ##br##About To Become Tight Will the U.S. administration invoke the "nuclear" option - currency market interventions - to eclipse the dollar's fundamentals and reverse the greenback's rally? President Trump fiercely opposes a stronger dollar. He prefers a structurally weaker currency to bring back manufacturing jobs to the U.S. Besides, from a cyclical perspective, President Trump has been explicit that higher U.S. interest rates and a stronger dollar are negating his economic stimulus. Trump's worry is that tightening monetary conditions, if they persist, will depress growth by late 2019 when the next presidential election season begins in earnest (Chart I-9). President Trump is a genuine economic populist and is ready to cross boundaries that many presidents refused to. This leaves us little doubt that the U.S. administration will escalate its calls both for a weaker currency and a halt in Fed tightening. The U.S. Treasury is in charge of foreign exchange policy, and it can intervene in currency markets. The Fed can, but is not obliged by law, to supplement the Treasury's interventions in foreign exchange markets. In theory, the U.S. Treasury has a special fund (the Exchange Stabilization Fund) and could opt for unilateral currency market interventions even if the Fed does not cooperate. In such a case, a pertinent question is: What are the essential conditions for currency interventions to succeed in reversing the dollar's uptrend? Conditions For Effective Currency Interventions There have been two major interventions conducted by the U.S. authorities to depreciate the dollar: the 1971 Smithsonian Agreement and the 1985 Plaza Accord. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has discussed the political and trade backdrops of these interventions in past reports, and we will not detail them here.2 There was also the Louvre Accord in 1987, but it was aimed at propping up the U.S. dollar, not weakening it. All of these interventions were successful and achieved their objective (Chart I-10). We list below the stipulations that secured the success of these interventions and examine whether conditions for effective interventions are present today. Chart I-10The Smithsonian And Plaza Accords Were Successful Currency interventions accompanied by congruent monetary and fiscal policies tend to be more successful. The previous currency interventions conducted by the U.S. Treasury would not have been successful without the Fed simultaneously adjusting monetary policy. Not only did the Fed join the U.S. Treasury's efforts to depreciate the greenback following the Smithsonian Agreement and the Plaza Accord, but it also altered its monetary policy stance - it pursued a policy of lower-than-otherwise called for real interest rates. Academic literature on this issue is straightforward. Bordo (2010) contends the following about the efficacy of currency interventions: "If intervention were to have anything other than a fleeting, hit-or-miss effect on exchange rates, monetary policy had to support it ... Most of the movements in exchange rates over the Plaza and Louvre period seem attributable to policy changes, not intervention."3 Given current economic conditions in the U.S. economy - a very tight labor market and the prospect of higher inflation - the Fed is unlikely to easily agree to altering its current policy stance to accommodate the Treasury's preferred exchange rate policy. Academic literature finds that sterilized interventions are less effective than non-sterilized ones.4 For the Fed not to sterilize currency interventions aimed at weakening the dollar, it would need to allow commercial banks' reserves to rise. This would conflict with its current explicit objective of reducing commercial banks' reserves and shrinking its balance sheet (Chart I-11). Chart I-11U.S. Banks' Reserves and The Dollar Hence, the bar is presently very high for the Fed to agree to non-sterilized currency interventions to weaken the dollar, as it would go against its current policy objective of tightening and shrinking its balance sheet. Going on the Treasury's leash would substantially damage the Fed's creditability. Bilateral currency interventions are much more effective in achieving the desired objective than unilateral ones. Hence, for interventions to succeed it is critical to involve counterparts in other countries. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. used its hegemonic leadership over Europe and Japan as well as tariffs (in 1971) and the threat of tariffs (1980s) to force its allies to agree to bilateral interventions to weaken the dollar. However, it is difficult to envision either Europe or Japan agreeing to allowing their respective currencies to strengthen a lot at this time. First, both Europe and Japan are actively fighting latent deflationary forces at home. Given the high-beta, export-dependent nature of both economies, a strong currency would negatively impact growth. Geopolitically speaking, Europe is not as dependent on the U.S. today as it was at the height of the Cold War. Russia is a "poor man's" Soviet Union, with the combined defense budget of the EU economies dwarfing its own. Besides, in the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. was "the only market in town." Crossing American policymakers upped the threat of being evicted from the most lucrative global middle class consumer market. This is no longer the case with the rise of emerging markets, China and the common European market. Prominently, Trump's main objective is to depreciate the dollar versus the Chinese RMB. Yet, there is no chance that in the foreseeable future China will agree with the U.S. to engineer considerable yuan appreciation against the dollar. In fact, Beijing has been actively using CNY depreciation to offset the impact of tariffs imposed on its exports by the Trump administration. Chart I-12China: Exchange Rate and Interest Rate##br## Differential Are Correlated Notably, this week there was an article published by China's Xinhua news agency referring to the "... Plaza Accord, in which Tokyo agreed to strengthen the currency against the dollar, as cause of the country's economic woes. ... Rapid and steep yen appreciation and Japan's domestic policy mistakes eventually brought about the nation's "lost decade."5 Chinese policymakers have carefully studied and internalized Japan's mistakes in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The mainland will not accept a considerably stronger yuan at times when deleveraging remains an important policy objective - and the latter is bound to weigh on domestic demand. Amid deleveraging, China requires a weaker - not stronger - currency to mitigate deflationary pressures in the economy. For interventions to be effective, foreign counterparts need to also agree to adjust their monetary and fiscal policy stances to be in sync with exchange rate policy. Presently, both the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan are still conducting QE and expanding their balance sheets. These policies are compatible with weaker - not stronger - currencies. It is highly unlikely these central banks will abruptly reverse their current policies to accommodate President Trump's economic preferences. With time, if the U.S. dollar overshoots on the strong side and the euro and yen plunge substantially, it is probable that the ECB and BoJ will become willing to support the U.S. administration's efforts to depreciate the dollar. However, conditions for bilateral interventions do not exist at the moment. As to China, policymakers are unlikely to push local rates higher to promote a major currency rally. Chart I-12 illustrates the tradeoff between the exchange rate and interest rates in China might be weak but exist - the CNY/USD rate broadly correlates with the China-U.S. interest rate differential. The PBoC may not be able to appreciate the yuan without tolerating higher money market rates. Yet China's corporate debt burden is enormous, and requires low - not high - borrowing costs to smooth the deleveraging process. Bottom Line: Conditions for effective foreign exchange market interventions do not presently exist in the U.S. For the time being, neither the Fed nor central banks in Europe, Japan and China will cooperate with the U.S. Treasury to depreciate the dollar. Can The U.S. Intervene In CNY/USD Market? Chart I-13Trade-Weighted RMB And Dollar Move Together The U.S. can intervene in the euro, yen and other currency markets, but the focus of President Trump is the dollar's exchange rate with the Chinese yuan. Provided China has capital controls, its government decides which foreign institutions/organizations can buy local currency and assets, and how much. It is highly unlikely the Chinese government will grant permission to the U.S. authorities to freely operate in the RMB market. In short, China will not allow the Fed and other U.S. institutions to act on behalf of the government and push around the exchange rate. The ongoing trade confrontation between the U.S. and China has not produced any agreement. There is, at this time, zero chance that China will agree to appreciate its currency considerably under U.S. pressure. In fact, our geopolitical strategy team still expects the Trump administration to impose tariffs on the announced $200 billion of Chinese imports at some point in September. While the ultimate figure may be smaller than $200 billion, the point remains that the trade war between the U.S. and China continues to heat up, not cool off. The only feasible option for the U.S. authorities is to devalue the dollar against the European and Japanese currencies, triggering a broad-based selloff in the dollar. In this scenario, the RMB might appreciate versus the greenback, but only moderately. The CNY/USD rate is tightly controlled by the PBoC, and the yuan typically depreciates (appreciates) in trade-weighted terms when the greenback weakens (strengthens), respectively (Chart I-13). Consequently, U.S. intervention in currency markets that does not directly embrace the yuan will likely lead to a weaker trade-weighted RMB and make China even more competitive versus other nations. In fact, such an effort would be welcomed by Chinese policymakers, as it would stabilize and even lift the yuan versus the dollar (fostering financial stability in China), but allow the renminbi to depreciate in trade-weighted terms (boosting China's overall trade competitiveness). Bottom Line: There is currently no effective way for the U.S. to intervene and achieve material RMB appreciation in trade-weighted terms. Investment Conclusions Chart I-14Go Long U.S. Dollar Volatility The global macro landscape warrants a continued dollar rally. Yet the U.S. administration will use frequent verbal attacks to halt the greenback's ascent. President Trump is likely to continue to publically oppose the Fed and its interest rate policy. At some point, potentially in the near future, his criticism could become a full-on assault. In this context, the U.S. currency will continue to appreciate, but its rally will be accompanied by large dips, i.e., substantially higher volatility. To capitalize on this theme, traders should consider going long dollar volatility (Chart I-14). The trajectory of the U.S. dollar is critical for many financial markets in general and EM in particular. A firm dollar is consistent with continuous turmoil in EM financial markets. We continue to recommend staying put on EM in absolute terms and underweighting EM versus DM for stocks, credit and currencies. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy continues to recommend shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: the Brazilian real, the South African rand, the Chilean peso, the Malaysian ringgit and the Indonesian rupiah. Potential dynamics that would persuade the Fed to arrest its tightening campaign include escalating EM turmoil that spills into U.S. financial markets. An intensifying EM selloff is our baseline view, and the dollar will spike materially in this scenario. Only after this occurs will the Fed likely contemplate halting its tightening, and only then will the dollar peter out. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Unit labor cost = (wage per person per hour) / (productivity per person per hour). 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, and "The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem," dated July 25, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Bordo, M. et al (2010), "U.S. Foreign-Exchange-Market Intervention during the Volcker-Greenspan", NBER Working Paper, September 2010 4 Bordo, M., Humpage, O. & Schwartz, A. (2011), "U.S. Monetary-Policy Evolution and U.S. Intervention", Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Working Paper, October 2011 5 South China Morning Post: Chinese state media cites Japan's 'lost decade' when warning of risks of giving in to US demands; https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2160196/chinese-state-media-cites-japans-lost-decade-when Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

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

  Underweight Since downgrading the insurance group to underweight nearly two years ago, we have been on the lookout for signs the environment had at least moderated; this has not been the case. Pricing power has recently started to accelerate to the downside which, when combined with flattening demand in the key home & auto markets, bodes especially negatively for insurer profits (second & third panels). Critics of our bearish view on insurers may point out that rising interest rates (a key BCA theme for this year) should reinforce sagging stock prices. While there may be some partial offsetting profit benefit to higher rates, the correlation between the S&P insurance index and the UST yield has clearly broken down this year (bottom panel), indicating the market believes the negatives outweigh the positives; we concur, particularly as we enter the historically volatile hurricane season. Stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are BLBG: S5INSU - CB, AIG, MET, MMC, PRU, TRV, AFL, AON, ALL, PGR, WLTW, HIG, PFG, L, CINF, LNC, XL, AJG, UNM, TMK, RE, AIZ, BHF.  

Bank Credit Analyst

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.