Developed Countries

Highlights U.S. Treasury yields should continue to rise as investors price-out doomsday risk; Tensions surrounding North Korea will continue, but there are signs that negotiations have started and that China is playing ball on sanctions; Meanwhile, our view that tax cuts are coming is finally coming to fruition; Fade renewed European risks regarding Brexit and Catalan independence; But the independence push by Kurds in Iraq could have market impact. Feature Early in the second quarter, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy made two predictions. First, we said that summer would be a time to stay invested in U.S. equities and largely ignore domestic politics.1 Second, that North Korea would become an investment-relevant risk and buoy safe-haven plays but would not lead to a full-scale war (and hence not cause a global correction).2 The summer proved lucrative for both risk-on and risk-off trades, best emblemized by solid returns for both the S&P 500 and 10-year U.S. Treasury (Chart 1 A & B). Chart 1ARisk Assets Have Rallied... Chart 1B...At The Same Time As Safe Havens Can this continue? We do not think so. Geopolitics can influence the 10-year Treasury yield via two mechanisms: safe-haven flows and fiscal policy. On both fronts, we see movements that should support a pickup in yields over the rest of the year, a view corroborated by our colleagues on the fixed-income team. First, investors finally have progress on tax legislation that we have been forecasting since President Trump's election. Given the markets' collective pessimism on corporate tax reform (Chart 2), we expect any good news to change the current narrative. While it is still difficult to envision tax legislation that massively stimulates the economy, it is also difficult to imagine tax legislation that is revenue-neutral. As such, fiscal policy in the U.S. should be at least mildly stimulative in 2018, supporting higher yields. Second, we remain concerned that North Korea could escalate the ongoing tensions in East Asia.3 However, Pyongyang is constrained by its military capacity, which limits what it can realistically do to threaten its neighbors. As we discuss below, there are emerging signs of both diplomatic negotiations and Chinese pressure, key signposts that we have passed the peak on our "Arc of Diplomacy." As such, investors should prepare for the bond rally to reverse and the broader risk-on phase to extend through the end of the year. We expect the "Trump reflation trade" - USD appreciation, yield-curve steepening, and small-cap outperformance (Chart 3) - to restart if our views on the U.S. legislative agenda and North Korean tensions hold. Chart 2Investors Remain Pessimistic On Tax Reform... Chart 3...And On Trump's Policy In General U.S. Treasuries: Fade The Doomsday Trade Our colleagues at BCA's fixed-income desk have shown that flows into safe havens over the summer have widened the disconnect between global yields and economic fundamentals (Chart 4).4 Chief Fixed-Income Strategist Rob Robis points out that BCA's own valuation model for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield indicates that "fair value" sits at 2.67%, nearly 55bps higher than current market levels (Chart 5).5 This is a level of overvaluation that even exceeds the extreme levels seen after the U.K. Brexit vote in July of 2016. Rob believes that the summer bond rally is about safe-haven demand, depressed investor sentiment, and underwhelming inflation, in that order. It is certainly not about growth expectations, which remain buoyant (Chart 6). Chart 4Falling Yields Reflect Save Haven Demand,##br## Not Slower Growth Chart 5U.S. Treasuries ##br##Are Overvalued Chart 6Global Growth##br## Remains Buoyant To prove that underwhelming inflation has not spurred the latest rally in Treasuries, Rob decomposes developed market bond yield changes since the July 7 peak in U.S. yields. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has risen 20bps off those September lows as investors have priced out doomsday risk. Table 1 shows that yields declined everywhere but Canada (where the central bank has been hiking interest rates). Yet the vast majority of the yield decline has come from falling real yields and not lower inflation expectations, which have actually stabilized over the summer. This has also occurred via a bull-flattening move in government bond yield curves, which suggests it is risk-aversion that has driven yields lower. Table 1Changes In DM Bond Yields Over The Summer (From July 7th Peak In U.S. Treasury Yields) The conclusion of our fixed-income team is that there is now considerable upside risk in global yields. We agree. While North Korea could retaliate against the just-imposed UN sanctions in various ways, it is difficult to see the market reacting with the same vigor as it did in July and August. Investors are becoming desensitized to North Korean provocations, especially as the latter remain confined to "expected and accepted" forms of belligerence, even in the current context of heightened tensions. Future North Korean safe-haven rallies will be of shorter amplitude and duration. The September 15 missile launch over Japan (the fourth time this has happened) has shown this to be the case. Chart 7Position For A Tactically Wider UST-Bund Spread Bottom Line: BCA's bond team remains short duration, a position that our political analysis supports. We will keep our 2-year/30-year Treasury curve-steepener trade open, despite it being in the red by 34.3bps. In addition, we are closing our short Fed Funds January 2018 futures position (for a gain of 0.51bps) and opening a new short Fed Funds December 2018 position. Any sign of emerging bipartisanship should also favor higher fiscal spending, as policymakers almost always come together to spend money rather than cut spending. In addition, we are recommending that our clients put on a U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread widening trade.6 Rob has pointed out that this is a way to profit directly from higher fiscal spending in the U.S., particularly since there is no sign that Germany will change its government spending following its unremarkable election campaign. The data also supports a tactical widening of the Treasury-Bund spread, which is correlated with the relative data surprises (Chart 7). U.S. Politics: From Impeachable To Ingenious The crucial moment for the Trump presidency was the White House purge of the "Breitbart clique" following the social unrest in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 11-12.7 That move has made headway for upcoming tax legislation and resolution of the debt ceiling imbroglio. While some investors saw the racially motivated rioting in Virginia as a harbinger of a major risk-off episode, we saw it essentially as a "Peak Stupid" moment in U.S. politics. We may not know precisely what goes on in President Trump's mind, but we know that he likes polls. And his polling with Republican voters suffered appreciably following the Charlottesville fiasco (Chart 8). Strong Republican support for President Trump is the main source of his political capital. He can use it to cajole and influence Republicans in Congress via the upcoming Republican primary process ahead of the midterm elections. If he loses that support, his political capital will erode and he could become the earliest "lame duck" president in recent U.S. history. Worse, if support among Republicans were to fall below 70%, Trump could embark upon a Nixonian trajectory that could indeed lead to impeachment (Chart 9). Chart 8Trump's Support With GOP Voters Suffered... Chart 9... But Remains Well Above Nixonian Levels Many clients have asked us about the debt ceiling deal that President Trump made with Democrats and whether it signals a radical shift towards bipartisanship. We do not think so. In fact, we think the deal is mostly irrelevant. As we argued throughout the summer, the idea that there would be another debt ceiling crisis this year was always a figment of the media's imagination. There was never any evidence that a sufficient number of members of the House of Representatives wanted to play brinkmanship with the debt ceiling. First, Democrats in both houses of Congress have been clear throughout the year that they would not play politics with the debt ceiling. Second, investors and the media continuously overestimate the strength of the Freedom Caucus, the fiscally conservative grouping of Tea Party-linked representatives. There are 41 members of the Freedom Caucus, whereas 55 Republicans in the House sit in districts that are at least theoretically vulnerable to a Democratic challenge (Table 2).8 The danger for House Speaker Paul Ryan is not that the Freedom Caucus abandons the establishment line, but that the 55 Republicans listed in Table 2 abandon the Republican line. This, in fact, happened throughout the Obama presidency, with centrist Republicans voting with Democrats in the House on a number of key legislative bills (Chart 10). Table 2Plenty Of Vulnerable Republican Representatives Chart 10The Obama Years: A Governing 'Grand Coalition' This is why Speaker Paul Ryan largely ignored the Freedom Caucus and proposed an eighteen-month extension of the debt ceiling. He was never going to allow the Freedom Caucus to play brinkmanship. That President Trump picked the shorter Democrat version is significant only in so far as it signaled that he was willing to work with Democrats. In other words, the move was a "shot across the bow" of Republicans, a message that they had better get started on tax legislation, or else ... What should investors watch now? There are three main issues to follow: Tax legislation outline: House Speaker Paul Ryan has set the week of September 25 as the deadline for Republicans to outline their tax policy plan. The good news for investors is that the outline will supposedly include an already agreed-upon framework by both the House Ways and Means Committee - Chaired by Representative Kevin Brady (R, TX) - and the Senate Finance Committee - Chaired by Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT). Brady and Hatch are serious players and their comments on tax policy should be followed closely. Both favor legislation that would be retroactively applied to FY 2017, even if the bill is actually passed in 2018. They are also part of the Republican "Big Six" group on tax policy, along with Speaker Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn. Reconciliation instructions: The House Budget Committee passed a FY 2018 budget resolution in late July that included "reconciliation instructions" for tax legislation. These instructions allow Republicans to use the reconciliation procedure - a process that allows the Senate to pass legislation without needing 60 votes.9 However, the House version of the budget resolution also included over $200 billion of spending cuts, which is unlikely to pass in the Senate. As such, investors have to carefully watch for the House and Senate Republicans to pass a final budget resolution in order to kick off the reconciliation process. This process will likely happen in October, after the tax legislation package is presented by the Big Six. At that point, the Freedom Caucus will have the ability to extract concessions from establishment Republicans as their votes are needed to pass the budget resolution. We suspect that no Democrats will support the budget resolution given that they have not been involved in the tax policy process thus far. Trump's involvement: President Ronald Reagan's personal support and lobbying for the 1986 tax reform proved critical in getting the bill through Congress.10 President Trump's focus and energy will have to be on par with that of Reagan's if he plans to accomplish the same. A headwind for Trump is the lack of legislative experience in his White House (Chart 11). However, since the appointment of Chief of Staff General John F. Kelly, there has been a clear shift of focus on the legislative process. Chart 11Trump Administration Is On The Low End Of Congressional Experience Bottom Line: We expect investors to start gleaning the outlines of tax policy by late September, with the budget resolution containing reconciliation instructions being passed by both houses of Congress by the end of November. It may be too much to ask Congress to have an actual bill ready to pass by the end of the year, as we originally expected,11 particularly as there is now a potential immigration deal to negotiate with Democrats and last-minute effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. As such, we still think that it will take until the end of Q1 2018 for tax legislation to pass Congress (Q2 in the worst-case scenario for Republicans). Investors, however, will begin to price in a higher probability of tax policy as soon as the outline of the bill emerges in October. As such, we are reiterating our recommendation that investors go long U.S. small caps relative to large caps. Tax policy should overwhelmingly benefit small caps, which actually pay the 35% corporate tax rate. In addition, we would expect the USD to arrest its decline and rally by the end of the year. North Korea: At The Apogee Of "The Arc Of Diplomacy" To illustrate the current North Korean predicament to readers, we have referred to an "arc of diplomacy" (Chart 12), which we illustrate by referencing the rise and fall of U.S. tensions with Iran from 2010-15. The pattern is for the U.S. to increase tensions deliberately in order to convince its enemy that the military option is "on the table." Only once a "credible threat" of war has been established can the negotiations begin in earnest. Chart 12A Lesson From Iran: Tensions Ramp Up As Nuclear Negotiations Begin We are at or near the peak of this process. First: what is the worst-case scenario for markets if the North causes a crisis short of a devastating war? Using our short list of geopolitical crises (Table 3),12 our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, chief strategist of BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy, notes that while the average peak-to-trough drop of a major crisis is 9%, equity returns also tend to rise 5% within six months and 8% within twelve months after the crisis. To illustrate the trend, Anastasios has constructed an S&P 500 profile of the average geopolitical crisis, and the picture is encouraging (Chart 13). It shows that the market is likely to grind higher even if North Korea does something truly out of the box. Table 3Geopolitical Crises And SPX Returns Nor is a geopolitical incident (again, short of total war) likely to cause a U.S. or global recession. Aside from direct shocks to oil, such as in 1973 and 1990, only the U.S. Civil War (that is, a war waged on U.S. turf) caused a recession at the outset. Other major wars (WWI, WWII, the Korean War) caused recessions when they concluded because of the sharp drop in federal spending as a result of reduced military spending. What makes us think we are at or near the peak of North Korea's belligerent threats? China appears to be enforcing sanctions: at least according to China's official statistics (Chart 14). There is no doubt there are discrepancies and black market activity, but it makes sense for China to dial up the pressure (while never imposing crippling sanctions) and that appears to be occurring. China and Russia agreed to reduce fuel supplies. Both sides agreed to new UN sanctions on September 11 that would partially cut off North Korean fuel. This is a significant step, given that Chart 14 indicates China is already moving in this direction. The U.S. and North Korea have begun diplomatic talks. According to Japan's NHK press on September 14, former U.S. diplomat Evans Revere met with Choe Kang-Il, the deputy director general of the North American bureau of North Korea's foreign ministry in Switzerland over the past week. The U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert all but confirmed that some kind of communication is underway, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has described his diplomatic initiative as highly active. The last efforts at negotiations, via the longstanding New York channel, were discontinued in June after the death of a U.S. prisoner in North Korea. Those were focused on retrieving U.S. citizens, whereas the new talks allegedly centered on the latest UN sanctions, i.e. a crux of the relationship. The implication is that North Korea is responding to pressure now that its critical fuel supplies are at risk. South Korea is offering aid. South Korea's new government is looking to give the North humanitarian aid, as expected, and will decide on September 21 about a special package for pregnant women and infants. It is suggesting that such aid has no conditionality on the North's behavior. At the same time, the U.S. administration is talking down Trump's recent threat to discontinue the U.S.-South Korean free trade agreement - meaning that the U.S. may even condone the South Korean administration's more diplomatic approach to the North. Chart 13Who Is Afraid Of Geopolitical Crises? Chart 14Is China Finally Playing Ball? At the same time, North Korea is running out of options for provocations that it can commit without provoking a costly response from the U.S. and its allies. The September 15 missile test over Japan was essentially the fourth of its kind, and the market shrugged it off. Here are some options, drawn from our list of scenarios and probabilities (Table 4): Table 4North Korean Scenarios Over The Next Year More of the same: Nuclear and missile tests could continue, or be conducted at higher frequencies or simultaneously. While technical advances may become apparent, they will not change the game. U.S. Territory: The North could create a bigger risk-off move than we saw in July-August if it shot ICBMs toward Guam, or other U.S. territories, as it has suggested it might do. This is especially risky because the U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis has repeated Trump's warning to North Korea to not even threaten the United States. However, as long as no such missile actually strikes U.S. territory, the U.S. is unlikely to respond with an attack, and thus such a scare seems likely to fade like the others. Attacking South Koreans: The North has a history of state-backed terrorist actions and military actions. An attack limited to South Korea will cause a shock, in the current context, but the military consequences are still likely to be contained given the extensive history of such attacks. If it is an attack against South Korean civilians in a non-disputed territory, it will leave a bigger mark than it otherwise would, but the South is still likely either to retaliate in strict proportionality, or to refrain from action and use the event as a way of galvanizing international sanctions. Attacking Americans or U.S. allies: The true danger in the current climate is an attack that kills U.S. citizens, or U.S. allies who are not as, shall we say, understanding as the South Koreans (such as the Japanese). This could cause the U.S. or Japan or another ally to take a retaliatory action. Even if limited, this could cause a deep correction in the market. The U.S. response would likely still be limited and proportional. Then the question would be whether the North Koreans can afford to escalate. They can't. The military asymmetry is excessive. This is not the case of the Japanese in 1941, who believed they had the potential of defeating the U.S. if they acted quickly enough and the U.S. was distracted in Europe (Diagram 1). Diagram 1North Korea Crisis: A Decision Tree As the foregoing demonstrates, there could still be big ups and downs between now and the resumption of formal international negotiations, let alone a satisfactory diplomatic accord. The tensions could yet reach another peak. Nevertheless, our sense is that the pieces are falling into place for the North to moderate its behavior, sending the signal that it is ready to engage in real negotiations. Since the U.S. has consistently shown its readiness to talk directly with the North - coming from both Trump and Tillerson - we think we could see shuttle diplomacy taking place as early as this winter. Here are some dates and events to watch: Military exercises: Will the U.S., South Korea, and Japan stop or slow down the pace of military exercises? This could open space for North Korea to offer an olive branch in return. October 10 - anniversary of the Worker's Party of Korea: The North may take an extraordinary action, no action, or familiar actions like missile tests. October 11-25 - China's party congress: The North could fall silent ahead of the big event, or could attempt to disrupt it. China, in turn, could take action around this time (particularly afterwards) to send a signal to the North to tone down the belligerence. In previous periods of tension, China has reputedly drawn a harder line on North Korea in the month of December, when end-of-year quotas made certain trade measures more convenient. Late October - Japanese snap election? Rumor has it that Shinzo Abe is thinking of calling a snap election as early as this month. We normally dismiss such rumors but this time there is a certain logic: two North Korean missiles have flown over Hokkaido in as many months, while the Japanese opposition is in total disarray. If Abe calls early polls, it suggests that he thinks Korean fears are peaking. If he delays, and exploits these fears by pushing constitutional revisions through the Diet (our base case), then he may provoke a North Korean response, given that the revisions pave the way for Japan to "re-militarize." November 1 - APEC and Trump's visit to China: Trump is supposed to head to Vietnam for the APEC summit and to China to visit President Xi Jinping. Xi has recently shown his sensitivity to such summits by concluding the Doklam dispute with India just days ahead of the BRICS summit in Xiamen, China in order to ensure that Indian President Narendra Modi would attend. Xi may have also wanted to advertise his ability to negotiate solutions to international showdowns for the world (and U.S.) to see. Thus, progress on North Korea before or after Trump's arrival could improve Xi's authority both with Trump and the rest of the world. November 23 - U.S. Thanksgiving: North Korea likes to be "cute," so we cannot rule out attempts to unsettle the Americans on Thanksgiving or Christmas Day, as with the July 4 ICBM launch. Trump's visit is very consequential and it is more likely under the circumstances that China will receive him warmly, like Nixon, rather than coldly, like Obama last year. Trump is holding serious trade negotiations (via Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross) and at the same time threatening to sanction Chinese companies and imports (via Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin). There are many reasons for Beijing to cooperate on North Korea in order to get advantageous treatment on the economic front. Bottom Line: The market is already discounting North Korea. We may be wrong temporarily if the North ups the ante yet again, but we are very near the peak of the latest round of tensions. The North is running out of options short of instigating a fight it would lose, while China is enforcing sanctions more seriously (including fuel), and Washington has apparently opened direct talks with Pyongyang. We will maintain our portfolio hedge of Swiss bonds and gold, for now. We are also re-opening our long CBOE China ETF volatility index to account for potential rising political uncertainty surrounding the coming October Party Congress and possibly for further North Korea related risks. However, we are closing our short KRW / THB trade for a gain of 5.33%. Europe: More Red Herrings Brexit is no longer market-relevant. Its economic effect was fully priced in when Prime Minister Theresa May announced on January 17 that the U.K. would not seek membership in the Common Market. Since then, the pound has effectively bottomed against both the dollar and the euro, as we argued it would (Chart 15).13 This does not mean that investors should necessarily go long the pound. Rather, we are pointing out that the moves in the U.K. currency have ceased to be Brexit-related since we called its bottom in January. Going forward, investors should make bets on the pound based on macroeconomic fundamentals, not on the U.K.-EU negotiations. The one political risk to the pound going forward is the potential for the Labour Party, headed by opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, to come to power in the U.K. in the near term. Corbyn is the most left-of-center leader of a developed world economy since French president François Mitterrand in 1981. And he symbolizes a leftward shift on economic policy by the median voter. Nevertheless, the risks to PM May are overstated, for now. A key test for the Prime Minister, the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, passed its first parliamentary hurdle in Westminster on September 12. No Conservatives rebelled, with seven Labour politicians defying Corbyn's instructions to vote against the bill. The bill still faces several days of amendments, but it largely gives May a free hand to negotiate with Europe going forward. Bremain-leaning Tory backbenchers could have posed problems for May had they decided to obstruct the bill. That they did not tells us that nobody wants to challenge May and that she will likely remain the prime minister until the eventual deal with the EU is reached. Our clients often balk at our dismissal of Brexit as an investment-relevant geopolitical event. However, the crucial question post-Brexit was whether any other EU member states would follow the U.K. out of the bloc. We answered this question in the negative, with high conviction, the day of the U.K. referendum.14 Not only did no country follow U.K.'s lead, but the effect of Brexit was in fact the exact opposite of the conventional wisdom, with a slew of defeats for populists around Europe following the referendum. For the U.K. economy and assets, the key two Brexit-related questions were whether the economy's service sector would have unfettered access to the European market via membership in the Common Market (Chart 16); and whether the labor market would have access to the European labor pool (Chart 17). Both questions were answered by May during her January 17 speech in the negative, which is why we continue to cite that moment as the date when U.K. assets fully priced in Brexit. Chart 15Is Brexit##br## Still Relevant? Chart 16U.K. Needs A Free Services Agreement##br## With The EU, Not An FTA! Chart 17Intra-EU Migration Boosts ##br##Labor Force Growth What could change our forecast? We would need to see the negotiations with Europe become a lot more acrimonious. Disputes over the amount of the "exit bill" or the status of the Irish border simply do not count as acrimony. We need to see the threat of a "Brexit cliff" - where the EU-U.K. trade relationship reverts to "WTO rules" - emerge due to a conflict between the two powers. However, this is unlikely to happen as the EU greatly values its trade relationship with the U.K. And London's demand for an FTA actually plays to the EU's strengths, since FTAs normally privilege trade in goods (where Europe is competitive) relative to trade in services (where the U.K. has an advantage). Bear in mind, as well, that the U.K. and EU are negotiating an FTA from a starting point of a high degree of economic integration: this is not the equivalent of two separate economies pursuing an FTA for the first time. Similarly overstated as a risk is the upcoming Catalan independence referendum. As we argued this February, the referendum is a non-event.15 Catalans do not want independence, but rather a renegotiation of the region's relationship with Spain (Chart 18). And as we argued in our net assessment of the issue in 2014, a surge in internal migration since the Second World War has diluted the Catalan share of the total population.16 In fact, only 31% of the population identifies Catalan as their "first language," compared with 55% who identify with Spanish.17 Another 10% identify non-Iberian languages as their first language, suggesting that migrants will further dilute support for sovereignty, as they have done in other places (most recently: Quebec). Chart 18Catalans Do Not Want Independence We expect the turnout of the upcoming referendum to be low. Given that Madrid will not recognize it, the only way for the Catalan referendum to be relevant is if the nationalist government is willing to enforce sovereignty. What does that mean precisely? The globally recognized definition of sovereignty is the "monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a defined territory." To put it bluntly: the Catalan government has to be willing to take up arms in order for its referendum to be relevant to the markets. Without recognition from Spain, and with no support for independence from fellow EU and NATO peers, Catalonia cannot win independence at the ballot box. Bottom Line: Fade Brexit and Catalonia risks. Iraq: An Emergent Risk In 2014, we wrote the following about the future of Iraq:18 "Furthermore, the recent Kurdish occupation of Kirkuk - nominally to secure it from ISIS, in reality to (re)claim it for the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) - will not be acceptable to Baghdad. In our conversations with clients, too much optimism exists over the stability of Kurdistan and its expected oil output. While we are broadly positive on the KRG, there are many challenges. First, three-quarters of Iraqi production is, in fact, located in the Southern part of the country, far from Iraqi Kurdistan. Second, Kirkuk and its associated geography has the potential to boost production, but the Kurds (and their ally Turkey) will eventually have to face-off against Baghdad (and its ally Iran) for control over this territory. Just because the KRG secured Kirkuk today does not mean that it will stay in their control in the future. We are fairly certain that once ISIS is defeated, Baghdad will ask for Kirkuk back." In 2016, we followed up again on the situation in Iraq by pointing out that a series of defeats for the Islamic State were raising the probability that a reckoning was coming between Baghdad and Iraqi Kurds.19 Now that the Islamic State threat is in the rear-view mirror, our forecast is coming to fruition. On September 25, Kurds in Iraq will hold an independence referendum. Opposition to the referendum is uniform across the region, with the U.S. - Kurds' strongest ally - requesting that it not take place. Why should investors care? First, there is the issue of oil production. There are no reliable figures regarding KRG production, but it is thought to be around 550,000 bpd, although KRG officials have themselves downplayed their production. This figure includes production from the Kurdish-controlled Bai Hassan and Avana fields in the Kirkuk province, which is not formally part of the KRG territory but which Kurds nominally control due to their 2014 anti-ISIS intervention. A conflict over Kurdish independence could impact this production, particularly if war breaks out over Kirkuk. However, the bigger risk to global oil supply is what it would do to future efforts to boost Iraqi production. Iraq is the last major oil play on the planet that can cheaply and easily, with 1920s technologies, access significant new production. If a major war breaks out in the country, it is difficult to see how Iraq would sustain the necessary FDI inflows to develop its fields to boost production, even if the majority of production is far from the Kurdish region. Given steady global oil demand, the world is counting on Iraq to fill the gap with cheap oil. If it cannot, higher oil prices will have to incentivize tight-oil and off-shore production. Second, there are problematic regional dynamics. There are about six million Kurds in Iraq, about 20% of the total population. The Kurdish Regional Government controls the northeast corner of Iraq, but fighting against the Islamic State has allowed the Kurds to extend their control further south and almost double their territory (Map 1). Turkey has largely supported the KRG over the years, as the ruling party in the autonomous province is relatively hostile to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which Turkey considers a terrorist organization. However, Turkey is opposed to the independence of the KRG due to fears that it would start the ball rolling on the independence of Kurds in Syria and potentially one day in Turkey as well. Also opposed to KRG secession are Iran (Baghdad's closest ally) and Syria (which is dealing with its own Kurdish question). Map 1Kurdish Gains Threaten Conflicts With Iraqi Government ... And Turkey On the other hand, the KRG does have international support. Russia just recently concluded a major oil deal with KRG, promising to buy Kurdish oil and refine it in Germany. Moscow will also invest US $3 billion in KRG territory. Russia also supplied the KRG Peshmerga - armed forces - with weapons during their fight against the Islamic State. From Russia's perspective, any conflict in the Middle East is a boon. It stalls investment in the region, curbs its oil production, and potentially adds a risk premium to oil prices. In addition, a close alliance with the KRG would allow Russia to gain another ally in the region. Bottom Line: While it is difficult to see how the independence referendum will play out in the short term, we have had a high-conviction view that Iraq's stability will not improve with the fall of the Islamic State. For investors, rising tensions in Iraq are significant because they could curb investment in the long term and potentially even impact production in the short term. Unlike the Islamic State, which never threatened oil production in the Middle East in any significant way, Iraq and the KRG are both oil producers. In fact, their main conflict is over an oil-producing region centered on Kirkuk. Tensions in the region support BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy's bullish view on oil prices.20 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017; "North Korea: No Longer A Red Herring" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was," dated March 8, 2017; and "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No," dated September 12, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy 10-year Treasury yield model only uses the global manufacturing PMI and sentiment towards the U.S. dollar as inputs. 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Global Duration 'Hot Potato' Shifts Back To The U.S.," dated August 8, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The 'Trump Put' Over?" dated August 23, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 We use the Cook Political Report for their assessment of how U.S. electoral districts lean. Charlie Cook is Washington's foremost election handicapper with a long record of accomplishment. Anyone interested in closely following the U.S. midterm elections should consider his research, which is found on http://www.cookpolitical.com/ 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see Joseph A. Pechman, "Tax Reform: Theory and Practice," The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1:1 (1987), pp. 11-28 (15). 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see footnote 3 above. 13 The GBP/USD bottomed then and there. The GBP/EUR has recently hit a new low, for reasons other than Brexit. This bottom is only slightly below its previous lows in October 2016, when May confirmed that her government would seek to leave the EU in accordance with the referendum result, and in January 2017, when May admitted what the GBP/EUR had already reflected, that this meant leaving the Common Market. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World," dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Coming EXITentialist Crisis," dated June 24, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see "Language Use of the Population of Catalonia," Generalitat de Catalunya Institut d'Estadustuca de Catalunya, dated 2013, available at web.gencat.cat 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift (Update)," dated July 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Hurricane Recovery Obscures OPEC 2.0's Forward Guidance," dated September 14, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights EM EPS growth is set to decelerate significantly and will likely turn negative in 2018 based on the China/EM money/credit indicators. All measures of Chinese broad money growth have fallen to a record low signifying a major growth slump. The two pillars of the EM currency rally - strong growth in China that manifests in higher commodities prices and lower U.S. bond yields- are set to reverse. EM equities and credit markets relative performance versus their DM peers is about to relapse. A new fixed-income trade: receive 2-year swap rates in Mexico / pay 2-year swap rates in the U.S. Feature Last week we were on the road, meeting with some of our U.S. East Coast clients. This week we address some of the common questions we received. Q: Why do you think EM profits will relapse in the next six-to-nine months, given both global and EM growth continue to show strength? A: Our reluctance to change our view on EM risk assets in general and equities in particular has to do with EM/China business cycle/corporate profit indicators. Several indicators for EM profits - which have exhibited very good track records - presently forecast a material slowdown and possibly a contraction in EM EPS starting late this year and well into next year. In particular, China's broad and narrow money impulses lead EM EPS by about nine months, and are currently signaling that EPS growth is set to peak and begin to decline in the next nine months (Chart I-1). What's more, a few business cycle indicators from Korea and Taiwan, such as nominal manufacturing production and manufacturing shipments-to-inventory ratios, corroborate a peak in EM EPS growth (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM EPS Is Set to Decelerate ##br##And Probably Contract Chart I-2More Signs Of Relapse##br## In EM EPS Growth Importantly, the EM corporate earnings slowdown will not occur in a vacuum. It will transpire amid a slowdown in Asian trade and lower commodities prices. In particular: China's broad money M3 impulse leads domestic industrial orders, nominal manufacturing production and imports (Chart I-3). Even though Asian export data were strong in August, China's container freight index signals a slowdown in Asian trade lies ahead (Chart I-4). Chart I-3China: M3 Impulse And Domestic Demand Chart I-4Asian Export Growth To Slow The Chinese broad money impulse also points to a rollover in Korean, Taiwanese, other EM as well as DM countries' shipments to the mainland (Chart I-5). This is how the slowdown in China's money/credit will hurt corporate profits in EM as well as in DM sectors with substantial exposure to Chinese growth. Besides, China's broad money impulse leads industrial metals prices in general and iron ore prices in particular (Chart I-6). This signifies downside risks to commodities producers. Finally, China's yield curve suggests that mainland manufacturing PMI will roll over after its recent ascent (Chart I-7). Chart I-5Shipments To China Are At Risk Chart I-6Industrial Metals Prices Have Peaked Chart I-7China: The Yield Curve And Manufacturing PMI In short, China has been gradually tightening monetary policy, which has already manifested in record-low broad money growth. The next phase is evidence of a material deterioration in sales and profits among China-exposed plays. The EM stock markets are unlikely to ignore it. Q: It seems you are putting a lot of emphasis on China's broad money M3 measure. Why do you look at your version of Chinese broad money M3 and not at official M2 and total social financing (TSF)? A: Over the past several months we have done a lot of research and analysis on China's money and credit, and believe that our broad money M3 measure and private and public credit aggregate calculated by BIS are presently better measures of money and credit than official broad money M2 and TSF: First, the TSF data have become distorted because of the local government financing vehicles (LGFV) debt swap program. Specifically, according to the LGFV debt swap mechanics, starting in 2015 provincial governments began issuing bonds that have been purchased by banks. The amount of bonds issued was RMB 3.2 trillion in 2015, RMB 4.9 trillion in 2016 and expected to be RMB 4.8 trillion in 2017. This amounts to total issuance of RMB 12.9 trillion since the commencement of the program. As the next step, local governments were supposed to transfer the proceeds from these bond issuances to their LGFVs, with the latter using the money to pay down their debt. The ultimate goal of the program is to shift the debt from LGFVs to provincial governments, as the latter's creditworthiness is much better than the former. This has also reduced interest rates on the debt as provincial governments borrow at lower interest rates than LGFVs. All that said, it is unclear how much of their debt LGFVs have repaid. The main problem with using TSF data is knowing the amount of proceeds from the issued debt swap bonds that were used to pay down LGFV debt. If the entire amount of these bonds issued by provincial governments was used to pay down LGFV debt, there would not be an impact on economic activity, and only a very short-term impact on money supply. When banks buy bonds from non-banks (including governments), they create new money. When debtors (including governments and their entities) pay down debt to banks, money is destroyed. Nevertheless, both official M1 growth and our measure of broad money (M3) were too strong in 2015 and 2016 – i.e., they remained strong much longer than would have been justified by the LGFV debt swap. Furthermore, private and public credit, M2 and M3 money measures have decoupled from TSF since the middle of 2015 (Chart I-8A). TSF adjusted for the LGFV debt swap – the latter is added to TSF – has also diverged from official M2, our broad money M3 and BIS’s private and public credit measures (Chart I-8B). This corroborates that TSF data can no longer serve as a reliable measure of credit/money origination. Chart I-8AChina: TSF Has Diverged From ##br##Other Money/Credit Measures Chart I-8BChina: TSF Adjusted For LGFV Debt Swap Has Also Decoupled From Money/Credit Measures Markedly, paying down debt by LGFVs should have reduced corporate debt outstanding by RMB 12.9 trillion, which would represent a 12% drop from the RMB 112 trillion outstanding at the end of 2015. However, corporate debt has continued to expand rapidly, even as government debt has surged. Given all of the above, we doubt all of the proceeds from bonds issued within the LGFV debt swap program were immediately used to repay LGFV debt. Instead, we suspect the proceeds from the bond issuance might have been at least partially invested into the economy in 2016, in defiance of the rules of LGFV debt swap operation. We played down the rise in M1 in late 2015 and early 2016 because we regarded it as temporary, reflecting the LGFV debt swap program. In retrospect, it was a mistake - this was one of the main reasons we did not heed the message from recovering money growth in early 2016 to turn cyclically positive on China's growth, and consequently on commodities and broader EM. Provided we do not know what portion of LGFV debt was repaid and when, corporate credit and total social financing data have become difficult to interpret. Chart I-8A and Chart I-8B demonstrate that TSF with and without the LGFV debt swap has diverged from private and public debt since the middle of 2015 when the LGFV debt swap program commenced. Apparently, one no longer can rely on TSF or adjust it by the amount of LGFV debt swap to gauge money and credit creation in China. In this context, the aggregate of private and public credit is a much more appropriate measure of credit provision and debt creation than TSF. The basis is because it includes both private and public debt. Indeed, the reshuffling of debt between local governments and LGFVs (the latter are treated as enterprises in China's banking statistics), does not affect either aggregate borrowing or amount of debt held in the economy. Second, when credit numbers are distorted, one needs to resort to money supply measures to judge credit dynamics. The reason is because financial engineering and, in the case of China, the LGFV debt swap program, can obscure the amount of outstanding credit, but they cannot conceal the amount of money banks create when they lend or purchase bonds or any other asset. Money is created when a bank originates claims on non-banks, and money is destroyed when a debt is paid back to the bank. Accordingly, money traces debt creation by banks. Banks can disguise their assets, and corporations and governments can conceal their liabilities, but none of them can camouflage the amount of money in circulation. In short, we trace money to gauge the amount of private and public sector borrowing from banks. This is why we have calculated various measures of money in China to overcome the shortcomings of the TSF. Specifically, we have calculated broad money M3 (see details of our calculation below) and credit-money. The latter is the sum of commercial banks' assets such as claims on non-financial institutions, claims on other financial institutions, claims on government and claim on other resident sectors and commerical banks' as well as the central bank's foreign currency assets. Chart I-9 demonstrates various measures of broad money and outstanding credit: official M2, our measure of broad money M3, our credit-money measure, and private and public debt (source BIS). Importantly, all measures of money and private and public credit suggest that credit origination/money creation was very strong in 2015 and 2016, and that it has slowed substantially in 2017. In brief, the message from various measures of money/credit is consistent. Chart I-9China: Money/Credit Growth Has Decelerated To New Lows Interestingly, broad money M3 rose by RMB 21 trillion in 2015, RMB 20 trillion in 2016 and by only RMB 16.5 trillion in the past 12 months through end of August. This is why the M3 impulse - a change in money flows - has turned negative since early this year. Third, we prefer our broad money measure M3 to official M2 because it is more consistent with the BIS's measure of private and public credit. It has also served as a better tool in forecasting the 2016-2017 recovery in Chinese growth. As can be seen in Chart 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 on previous pages, the M3 impulse - its second derivative - has a great track record in forecasting China's business cycle dynamics. The acceleration in M2 growth in 2015-16 was milder than one would expect in order to achieve meaningful acceleration in nominal economic activity. M2 growth was more subdued than a rise in both private and public debt (Chart I-9). We suspect that M2 is no longer an encompassing measure of broad money in China, and therefore we have calculated other measures of broad money to gauge true money/credit creation. Chart I-10China: Consumer Price Inflation Is Rising Broad money consists of various liabilities of commercial banks. While the official M2 includes many of their liabilities such as corporate demand deposits, corporate time deposits and personal deposits. It does not include some others. We have added the following commercial banks' liabilities - transferable deposits and other deposits which are not included in M2, liabilities to other financial corporations and other liabilities - to M2 to produce a more all-inclusive measure of broad money M3. Q: Why can't the Chinese authorities stimulate and revive growth again, like they have done many times in the past? A: Of course, they can. However, if the authorities begin easing monetary/credit and fiscal policies now, it will affect growth six to nine months down the road. Based on money and credit indicators shown in the charts above, growth is set to slow over the next nine months because of the time lag that money/credit has on the economy. In the next six to nine months, economic activity and corporate profits are likely to decelerate considerably, based on the monetary/credit tightening that has already occurred in China. Provided China-related financial markets in general and EM risk assets in particular have so far not discounted the slowdown suggested by China's money/credit indicators, they are very vulnerable. Finally, the magnitude of the impending growth slump is likely to be large, as evidenced by the substantial decline in these money and credit indicators that has already occurred. In brief, policymakers have been tightening credit/money creation, and it has not yet impacted financial markets. Furthermore, inflation is rising in China (Chart I-10) and policymakers are unlikely to start easing before they witness a major growth slump. Until the latter becomes visible in economic data and on the ground, financial markets leveraged to mainland growth will sell off notably. Q: There is no indication that the Federal Reserve will turn hawkish. This will be especially true if global growth slows - as you argue it will because of China. Why do you expect the EM currency rally to peter out amid a dovish Fed? Historical empirical evidence suggests that EM currencies are often driven by commodities prices, not the interest rate differential over U.S. rates. Let's take the BRL and the ZAR as examples. Charts I-11A and Chart I-11B illustrate that the BRL and ZAR exchange rates versus the U.S. dollar have historically been closely correlated with commodities prices, not the level of or change in their interest rate differential over the U.S. Chart I-11ABrazil: What Drives The Currency? Chart I-11BSouth Africa: What Drives The Currency? This has also been true over the past 18 months. The rally in EM currencies since early 2016 can be largely attributed to the rise in commodities prices. As and when commodities prices roll over - as we expect to occur - the trade balances of commodities-producing nations will deteriorate, as will their currencies. Remarkably, there are tentative signs that the drop in U.S. bond yields and the greenback's depreciation are late and overdone. Two-year U.S. bond yields have bounced from their 200-day moving average (please refer to the middle panel of Chart II-1 in the Mexican section). Typically, such a technical profile leads to new highs. Our sense is that U.S. bond yields will rebound in the coming months, which will also weigh on EM currencies. Importantly, one of the drivers behind the U.S. dollar selloff since early this year has been the rise in banks' excess reserves at the Fed (Chart I-12). The latter was due to the debt ceiling, as the U.S. Treasury was running down its account at the Fed by issuing less paper. In short, since the beginning of this year the U.S. Treasury did not issue bonds/bills and deposit them at its Treasury General Account (TGA) at the Fed - meaning it was not destroying banking system reserves as it typically does. This boosted the supply of U.S. dollars - banks' excess reserves at the Fed rose by US$ 300 billion. More dollar supply depressed both the exchange rate and U.S. interest rates. Chart I-12 demonstrates that in the post-QE era, banks' excess reserves at the Fed have correlated with the U.S. dollar's exchange rate. The debt ceiling has been resolved for now, and the Treasury will now begin accumulating dollars in its TGA account again. It has already announced that its TGA will rise from $73 billion now to $400 billion at the end of this year. The Treasury will issue more paper, and deposit U.S. dollars in the TGA. This will shrink banks' excesses reserves. This, in tandem with the reduction in the Fed's balance sheet, will diminish banks' excess reserves. The latter will reduce U.S. dollar supply in off-shore markets and will likely trigger a U.S. dollar rebound. On the whole, the two pillars of the EM currency rally - strong growth in China that manifests in higher commodities prices and lower U.S. bond yields - are set to reverse. In turn, a potential EM currency selloff along with deteriorating EM corporate profits will likely weigh on EM equities and EM sovereign and corporate debt. Q: Does this mean EM stocks will relapse in absolute terms, or simply underperform the DM equity markets? Our strongest conviction at the moment is on EM relative equity performance versus DM equity markets. Odds are that a relapse in relative performance is imminent as and if U.S. bond yields rise (Chart I-13). Chart I-12U.S. Banks' Excess Reserves ##br##And The U.S. Dollar Chart I-13U.S. Stocks Outperform EM Ones When ##br##U.S. Bond Yields Are Rising In addition, U.S. stocks' underperformance versus the global equity index in common currency terms is at a technical support (Chart I-14, top panel), and will likely reverse as the dollar firms up. Historically, when U.S. stocks outperform the global benchmark in common currency terms - denoted by shaded periods in Chart I-14, EM stocks typically underperform the global equity index. The dynamics of EM equity absolute performance depends on investor's risk appetite. It will be hard for EM share prices to drop meaningfully as the DM rally persists. Global stocks are still trading well, and it is very difficult to pinpoint any trigger that will lead to a reversal. As our readers well know, we do not forecast triggers for the simple reason that the chances of getting it right are much lower than a coin toss. That said, in the medium term, the reason for a correction in DM stocks could well be EM/China growth, as it was in 2015. In such a scenario, EM risk assets will sell off first. As to timing, it is hard to find indicators that lead share prices, but aggregate EM narrow (M1) money growth has historically been coincident or leading with EM share prices - and it presently points to a considerable drop in EM equity prices (Chart I-15). This EM M1 aggregate is equity market-cap weighted making it relevant to investors. Chart I-14EM And U.S. Equites Typically Do Not Outperform Global Stocks Simultaneously Chart I-15EM M1 Growth And EM Share Prices Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com A New Trade: Receive Mexican / Pay U.S. 2-Year Swap Rates Mexico's 2-year bond yield has recently fallen through a technical support line while the U.S. 2-year bond yield has recently bounced off a major support level (Chart II-1). Our bias is that the 2-year yield in Mexico will fall relative to 2-year U.S. yield (Chart II-1, bottom panel). We recommend a new trade: receive 2-year swap rates in Mexico and pay U.S. 2-year swap rates. Historically, the domestic demand cycle in Mexico was synchronized with the business cycle in the U.S., mainly due to the fact these two economies are heavily integrated. However, the two economies have recently become desynchronized. This is evident by the fact that the Mexican export sector - which is leveraged to U.S. - is booming while the domestic demand in Mexico is slowing down (Chart II-2). Chart II-12-Year Bond Yields: Mexico And U.S. Chart II-2Divergence Within Mexican Economy The culprit behind this desynchronization is the previous collapse in the peso. Falling oil prices and excessive money/credit expansion in Mexico led to a major peso depreciation in 2014 and 2015. The election of Trump pushed it off the cliff in 2016. Inflation in Mexico spiked due to the massive currency depreciation. Consequently, the Mexican central bank has hiked interest rates by 400 basis points since the end of 2015. This, along with fiscal tightening, has choked domestic demand growth in Mexico. At this point, our bias is that the short-term interest rate differential between Mexico and the U.S. is unjustifiably wide and is about to narrow. Going forward, we expect inflation to fall in Mexico and interest rate expectations will at minimum not rise. Inflation in Mexico will roll over soon and moderate because of the following: A large part of the rise in inflation was caused by the depreciation in the peso. The peso's material appreciation this year will reduce the inflation rate (Chart II-3). Consumer spending and capital expenditure are set to continue slumping as the impact of higher interest rates continues filtering through the economy (Chart II-4, top and bottom panel). Chart II-3Mexico: Exchange Rate And Core Inflation Chart II-4Mexico: Domestic Demand To Disappoint Further Domestic vehicle sales are shrinking signifying no revival in interest rate-dependent sectors. Fiscal policy has been tightening and this will continue to be a headwind on economic growth (Chart II-5). Hence, despite flourishing exports to the U.S., very weak domestic demand will dampen inflation in Mexico. Finally, there were several one-off effects to inflation such as the gasoline subsidy removal that took place at the end of last year, and the minimum wage hike that was implemented at the beginning of the year. As the base effect of these fade, the inflation rate will moderate. In the U.S., our bias is that interest rate expectations are too low given the tight labor market, reasonably strong growth, and the U.S. dollar depreciation this year. Odds are that the U.S. interest rate expectations will rise as core inflation moves up (Chart II-6). Chart II-5Mexico: A Major Improvement In Fiscal Position Chart II-6U.S. Core Inflation To Rise Investment Recommendations We recommend fixed-income traders to receive Mexican / pay U.S. 2-year swap rates. The main risk to this trade lies in the event of an abrupt sell-off in the peso against the U.S dollar that could push up the 2-year swap rate differential. While we expect EM currencies, including the peso, to depreciate, this trade is still favorable in terms of risk-reward because of the starting point in interest rate differential and peso valuations: Despite the rally this year, the peso is still cheap (Chart II-7). Furthermore, its current account and fiscal balances have improved dramatically. So, the peso should depreciate less than many other EM currencies. Chart II-7The MXN Is Still Cheap In fact, the interest rate spread between Mexico and the U.S. is already historically high, and the peso depreciation might not push it much higher. We would not be recommending this trade if the peso was fairly or overvalued, or if interest rates in Mexico were not this high. Entering this position under these current circumstances reduces the downside risk and, therefore, makes the risk-reward attractive. As to Mexican financial markets in general, we remain constructive on the peso versus other EM currencies. More specifically, we continue to recommend long positions in MXN versus ZAR and BRL. Mexican local currency bonds and sovereign credit offer good value relative to their EM counterparts. Fixed income investors should continue to overweight Mexican local currency and sovereign credit within their respective EM benchmarks. Finally, the outlook for Mexican stocks in absolute terms is poor as domestic demand will slump, further hampering corporate profits. Within an EM equity portfolio we recommend neutral allocation to this bourse mainly due to our expectations of the peso outperforming other EM currencies. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

The National Association of Home Builders released their housing market index (HMI) which, while still high, took a step downward. Importantly, the softness in the HMI had already commenced earlier in the summer prior to the hurricane season (second panel). Moderating housing starts confirm the weaker industry sentiment (third panel). This is hardly surprising given lumber prices, currently bumping up against five year highs (bottom panel), which will cut materially into profit margins. As a result, the S&P homebuilders index has been tightly range bound since our early summer downgrade to neutral. Conversely, home improvement retailers benefit from high lumber prices as retailers typically earn a fixed spread such that a high dollar value sold will boost profitability. With hurricane-related rebuilding driving lumber demand (and prices) higher in the near-term, the margin spread between home improvement retailers and homebuilders should be amplified in the back half of 2017. Accordingly, we reiterate our neutral homebuilders and high-conviction overweight home improvement retailers recommendations. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P homebuilders index are: BLBG: S5HOME - DHI, LEN, PHM. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P home improvement retailers index are BLBG: S5HOMI - HD, LOW.

Neutral Software stock relative performance has returned to its long-term uptrend, but remains far from the two standard deviations above the mean peak reached during the tech bubble (top panel). The structural pull from the proliferation of cloud computing and software-as-a-service has served as a catalyst to raise the profile of this more defensive and mature tech subsector. Beyond this constructive backdrop, cyclical forces are also painting a brighter picture for software equities. Importantly, there is tentative evidence that a fresh capex upcycle has commenced, and if software commands a larger slice of the overall spending pie, industry profits should enjoy a healthy rebound (middle panel). Supply reduction presents a bullish backdrop for software selling prices that have exited deflation at a time when overall corporate sector inflation is decelerating. The upshot is that revenue growth will likely reaccelerate (bottom panel). Adding it up, enticing structural software forces aside, a cyclical capex recovery is a boon for software outlays and, coupled with reviving animal spirits, signal that it no longer pays to underweight this tech sub-sector. Bottom Line: The S&P software index does not deserve an underweight. Lift exposure to a benchmark allocation, and refer to yesterday's Weekly Report for additional details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT - MSFT, ORCL, ADBE, CRM, ATVI, EA, INTU, ADSK, SYMC, RHT, SNPS, CTXS, ANSS, CA.

Underweight This year has been a good one to be overweight the S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines index which has outperformed the S&P 500 by a wide margin. The index's strength has been most pronounced since the beginning of the summer and, unsurprisingly given the cyclical rotation into highly discretionary stocks, has been exclusive to the cruise line operator segment of the index. Cruise line operators' margins have climbed to 10-year highs (second panel), justifying soaring stock prices. Profit gains have come on the back of improving passenger growth and constrained capacity i.e.: incremental passengers per room come with much higher incremental margin. As cruise lines cannot increase their occupancy ad infinitum further margin gains of this magnitude seem doubtful. The outlook is even less bright for hotels as cutthroat competition is pricing power negative with industry selling prices sinking into outright deflation (third panel). Hoteliers are trying to compensate for low prices with huge capacity additions. Our S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines EPS model does an excellent job encompassing all these moving parts and confirms our bearish industry profit stance, pointing to significant relative declines vis-à-vis the S&P 500 (bottom panel). Putting it together, shrinking margins and increased capital deployment mean lower return on capital and hence lower valuation multiples. Take some chips off the table and reduce exposure to the S&P hotels, resorts & cruise lines index to underweight. Please see yesterday's Weekly Report for additional details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOTL- MAR, CCL, RCL, HLT, WYN.

Highlights Duration: The bond market is quick to react to any signs that inflation might put in a bottom, but Treasuries are still not priced for a resumption of inflation's modest cyclical uptrend. Remain at below-benchmark duration and short the July 2018 fed funds futures contract. Fed Balance Sheet: The Fed will announce the run-off of its balance sheet at tomorrow's FOMC meeting. This decision has implications for Treasury issuance and how monetary policy will be conducted in the future, but we do not envision a large impact on yields. Investors should remain focussed on changes in the expected path of the fed funds rate to assess the outlook for Treasury yields. Feature Yields bounced back strongly last week, driven by a combination of easing flight-to-safety flows and a reasonably strong August CPI report. Even so, the bond market remains priced for an environment where inflation will never return to the Fed's 2% target, no matter the pace of economic growth. It should therefore not be shocking that yields are quick to spring higher on any evidence that core inflation might re-gain its cyclical uptrend (Chart 1). As we have previously written,1 we anticipate that core inflation will soon respond to above-trend growth and resume its modest cyclical uptrend. It is therefore worth considering whether last week's August CPI report represents a step in that direction or whether it should be written off as an outlier. After digging into the report's details we conclude that while it was probably stronger than we should expect going forward, it also suggests that core inflation is poised to put in a bottom. A Bottom In Core Inflation? Month-over-month core CPI increased 0.248% in August, an annualized pace of 3.02%, and the annualized 3-month rate of change rose back above the 12-month growth rate (Chart 2). This often signals a near-term trend reversal. Chart 1Very Sensitive To Inflation Chart 2Core Inflation By Major Component Shelter inflation jumped higher in August from 3.18% year-over-year to 3.30%. But our model suggests that this uptrend will not persist (Chart 2, panel 2). Notably, the increase in shelter inflation was concentrated in the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria area and as such reflects the one-off impact of Hurricane Harvey. The bottom line is that the positive August number should be considered an outlier. The underlying trend remains one of decelerating shelter inflation. Chart 3Ignore CPI Medical Care In contrast, year-over-year core goods prices decelerated in August, but this deceleration is equally unsustainable. The recent depreciation of the U.S. dollar and surge in non-oil import prices suggest that core goods inflation is poised to increase (Chart 2, panel 3). We expect accelerating core goods prices to offset decelerating shelter prices during the next few months. In the longer-run, neither shelter nor core goods will be sustainable drivers of inflation. Shelter has already rolled over, and core goods inflation will do the same once the dollar reverses its downtrend. For overall core inflation to sustainably return to the Fed's 2% target, core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) must be the main source of price pressure. Historically, this component of inflation is the most tightly linked to wage growth (Chart 2, bottom panel), and it has fallen precipitously so far this year. In August, however, year-over-year core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) ticked higher from 1.18% to 1.40%. While this is a positive sign, we will need to see further strength in this component to be certain that the downtrend in core inflation has turned. Some pundits have pointed to the steep decline in medical care CPI inflation as an additional deflationary force, but this is a red herring (Chart 3). In the CPI basket, medical care includes only consumers' out of pocket healthcare expenses. It does not include spending by the government on households' behalf, which is included in the Fed's target PCE inflation measure. Unlike CPI medical care, PCE medical care inflation has seen only a mild downturn and should move higher in August based on the most recent PPI numbers (Chart 3, panel 3). The bottom line is that the downtrend in CPI medical care inflation represents nothing more than a convergence between CPI and PCE inflation. Since the Fed targets PCE inflation, falling CPI medical care inflation can be safely ignored. The Fed's Reaction The Fed has already sent a strong signal that there will be no rate hike at this week's meeting, but that it will announce the run-off of its balance sheet (see next section). Our view has been that if inflation shows some signs of rebounding, the Fed will deliver another rate hike in December. The market appears to have taken a similar view and, on the strength of last week's CPI report, is now discounting a 51% chance of another rate hike this year. Last week's CPI report was probably strong enough to ensure that the median FOMC forecast will still call for one more hike this year when the revised forecasts are released tomorrow. However, we suspect that stronger inflation will need to persist for the next few months in order for that hike to be delivered on time. The reading from our Fed Monitor2 underscores how close a call another rate hike is at the moment (Chart 4). The monitor remains in "tighter money required" territory, but only faintly so. Notably, the economic growth and financial conditions components of the monitor both suggest that higher rates are required, but the inflation component remains below zero. This supports the notion that any sign of stronger inflation makes the case for further rate hikes a slam dunk. Chart 4A Close Call For The Fed Bottom Line: The bond market is quick to react to any signs that inflation might put in a bottom, but Treasuries are still not priced for a resumption of inflation's modest cyclical uptrend. Remain at below-benchmark duration and short the July 2018 fed funds futures contract. Five Questions About The Fed's Balance Sheet As was mentioned above, the Fed appears set to announce that it will cease the reinvestment of its bond holdings, meaning that its balance sheet will finally start to shrink. In all likelihood this announcement will come in tomorrow's FOMC statement. To recap, here is what we already know about how the plan will proceed: The Fed will cease the reinvestment of Treasuries and MBS at the same time. For the first three months the Fed will allow a maximum of $6 billion in Treasuries and $4 billion in MBS to run off each month. These caps will increase in steps of $6 billion and $4 billion, respectively, every three months until they level off at $30 billion per month for Treasuries and $20 billion per month for MBS. Question 1: How Long Will It Take? To answer this question we must first recall that the Fed does not target a specific level of assets on its balance sheet. Rather, it is the amount of bank reserves in the system (a liability on the Fed's balance sheet) that is the crucial variable for the economy. Bank reserves are the single biggest liability on the Fed's balance sheet, but the amount of currency in circulation is the second biggest. As of last Wednesday, bank reserves totaled $2.4 trillion and currency in circulation totaled $1.6 trillion. The amount of currency in circulation also increases as the economy grows. This means that during normal times the Fed must increase its asset holdings in line with the amount of outstanding currency just to keep the level of bank reserves constant. In other words, even if the Fed allows bank reserves to fall all the way to zero, it will still carry a larger balance sheet than it did prior to the start of QE because of the rising amount of currency in circulation. We have received no official guidance on the level of bank reserves the Fed will target for the end of the run-off process. However, New York Fed President William Dudley recently recommended that this level should be higher than during the pre-QE period. Together, as a rough starting point, we have suggested that the necessary amount of excess reserves could be in a range of $400 billion to $1 trillion. Coupled with uncertainty about the likely growth in other factors, such as currency outstanding, this implies a normalized balance sheet size of, perhaps, $2.4 trillion to $3.5 trillion in the early 2020s.3 In our estimates we have assumed that bank reserves will level-off once they reach $650 billion, considerably above levels maintained prior to the financial crisis. Bank reserves averaged $20 billion between 2000 and 2007. There are two main reasons why the Fed will favor a higher level of reserves. The first was also stated in President Dudley's speech: Having managed the System Open Market Account during the financial crisis - a period during which the demand for reserves was very volatile - I very much favor a floor-type system. It is much easier to manage on a day-to-day basis. A "floor system" means that the Fed controls the overnight rate by paying interest on excess reserves and conducting reverse repos with the securities on its balance sheet. This is the system currently in use, and it requires a glut of reserves in the banking system. Prior to the financial crisis, the Fed used a "corridor system" to control interest rates. This system required the Fed to transact in the interbank market to manage interest rates, and it required a dearth of reserves.4 The second reason is that the demand for safe short-maturity investment vehicles has been steadily increasing for at least the past fifteen years, largely due to rising cash balances on corporate balance sheets. Prior to the financial crisis this demand was intermediated through the repo market, but now that repo has mostly gone away, that cash is sitting on deposit at the Fed in the form of reserves (Chart 5). With all this demand, if the Fed tries to remove too many reserves from the banking system it could have difficulty keeping a floor under interest rates. That is, unless some other investment vehicle is supplied to mop up the rising demand for safety. In this regard, T-bills would be the most likely candidate, and fortunately, with T-bills at multi-decade lows as a percentage of the outstanding funding mix (Chart 6), there is ample room for the Treasury to increase bill supply. In short, the secular uptrend in demand for safe short-maturity financial assets means that going forward either: (i) the Fed will have to maintain a greater level of reserves in the banking system, (ii) the Treasury will have to increase the supply of T-bills, or (iii) some combination of the two. With all that in mind, let's answer the initial question of how long the Fed will allow its balance sheet to shrink. Our projections are shown in Chart 7, and make the following assumptions: Chart 5Rising Demand For Safe Short-Dated Assets Chart 6T-Bill Issuance Has Room To Rise Chart 7Fed Balance Sheet Projections Balance sheet run-off begins October 1, 2017 Bank reserves level-off at $650 billion. At that point, the Fed will continue to allow MBS to run off its balance sheet, but will start buying Treasuries to keep reserves stable. MBS will run off at a pace of $15 billion per month, before considering the caps.5 Currency in circulation will grow at a pace of 4.5% per year. Under these assumptions, we estimate that bank reserves will reach the target level of $650 billion in June 2021. At that point, the Fed's securities holdings will total $2.9 trillion - down from the current $4.3 trillion - and the Fed will have to start buying Treasuries to keep reserves stable and compensate for the continued run-off of MBS. Question 2: What Does This Mean For Bond Supply? To compensate for balance sheet run-off, The Treasury will have to increase issuance by $217 billion in 2018, $249 billion in 2019 and $182 billion in 2020 (Chart 8). Then, in 2021 and beyond, the Fed will once again start removing Treasury supply from the market as it stabilizes reserve balances. We estimate that an extra $150 billion of MBS supply will also hit the market in 2018, but we will save a discussion of the impact on MBS spreads for a future report. Chart 8Fed Starts Buying Again In 2021 The form in which this extra issuance will reach the marketplace is a question for the Treasury department. Officially, the Treasury has said: Treasury will likely respond to the additional borrowing needs associated with SOMA redemptions by increasing both Treasury bill and Treasury nominal coupon auction sizes, beginning with bills and then coupons, as appropriate.6 But the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee has recommended both that the Treasury increase the proportion of T-bills in its funding mix and increase the size of future coupon auctions, starting as early as next quarter. We expect these recommendations will be heeded. Question 3: Who Will Buy All These Bonds? A full breakdown of Treasury demand from different financial market actors is beyond the scope of this report. However, there is one sector that will need to greatly increase its holdings of Treasury securities as reserves are drained. That is the banking sector. The relatively new Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) mandates that banks hold high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) in an amount sufficient to cover net cash outflows during a stressed 30-day period. HQLAs consist of Level 1 assets and Level 2 assets. Level 1 assets are bank reserves and Treasury securities, Level 2 assets are other riskier securities such as Agency MBS. A haircut is applied to level 2 assets for the purposes of calculating HQLA. Based on disclosures from the eight U.S. Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs), we calculate that HQLAs total about $2.4 trillion from those 8 banks alone (Table 1). If we assume that required HQLAs increase at a pace of about 4% per year (in line with expected growth in deposits), then that represents close to $100 billion of baseline Treasury demand next year and in 2019. This demand will also have to increase to compensate for the draining of reserves from the system (Chart 9). Table 1Liquidity Coverage Ratios For The 8 U.S. SIFIs Chart 9Bank Balance Sheets Loaded With Reserves At least at present, the eight largest U.S. banks do not have much of a buffer above the 100% mandated LCR. This means they will have to be active buyers of securities in order to compensate for lost reserves and keep their ratios stable. Question 4: What Will Be The Market Impact? It has been our long-standing view that the bulk of the impact on Treasury yields from Federal Reserve asset purchases can be attributed to signaling about the future path of short rates. In fact, throughout the entire QE period, there remained a strong positive correlation between long-maturity real Treasury yields and the number of rate hikes expected during the next 24 months (Chart 10). Chart 10Real Yields Driven By Rate Expectations Even theoretically, as Michael Woodford explained in his seminal Jackson Hole address from 2012,7 there is little reason to expect that central bank asset purchases exert an impact on bond yields beyond signaling about the future path of interest rates: In the representative-household theory, the market price of any asset should be determined by the present value of the random returns to which it is a claim, [...]. Insofar as a mere re-shuffling of assets between the central bank and the private sector should not change the real quantity of resources available for consumption in each state of the world, [...] the market price of one unit of a given asset should not change [...]. A more thorough empirical examination also suggests that the "signaling channel" explains most of the reaction in long-maturity Treasury yields to announcements about Fed asset purchases. We looked at a sample of dates where the Fed either made or teased an announcement related to its asset purchases, and then looked at how different financial markets reacted to those announcements. Chart 11 shows changes in the 10-year Treasury yield on the days in our sample versus changes in our 24-month fed funds discounter - the expected number of rate hikes during the next 24 months as discounted in the overnight index swap (OIS) curve. The chart shows a very strong linear relationship between changes in the 10-year Treasury yield and in expected rate hikes on those days. Chart 1110-Year Treasury Yield Vs. 24-Month Fed Funds Disc Chart 12 uses the same sample of dates, but this time looks at the change in the 10-year Treasury yield versus the change in the 10-year OIS rate. The pay-off on overnight index swaps is directly tied to the level of the fed funds rate. Therefore, if Fed asset purchases exert some impact on Treasuries above and beyond sending a signal about the future path of the fed funds rate, we should expect that impact to show up in Treasury yields but not in OIS rates. However, Chart 12 shows that changes in the 10-year Treasury yield and in the 10-year OIS rate remained tightly linked throughout our sample. Chart 1210-Year Treasury Yield Vs. 10-Year OIS Rate* Following Announcements Related##br## To Federal Reserve Asset Purchases Why is it important that the impact of Fed asset purchases on Treasury yields was mostly about signaling? It is because the Fed is following a "subordination strategy" with respect to the wind-down of its balance sheet. It plans to provide us with the schedule of balance sheet run-off in advance, and then leave that schedule un-touched regardless of economic developments. Put differently, it will respond to deteriorating economic conditions by cutting the fed funds rate before it alters the pace of balance sheet run off. In essence, the link between the Fed's balance sheet and signals about the path of the fed funds rate has been severed. As long as the "subordination strategy" is strictly enforced, we should not expect much of an impact on long-maturity Treasury yields from the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet. Question 5: Are There Any Other Potential Market Impacts? Where Fed asset purchases essentially removed Treasuries (and MBS) from the market and replaced them with bank reserves (cash), the running down of the Fed's balance sheet will reverse this swap. Supplying securities into the market and removing cash. Some have argued that this removal of cash could lead to an appreciation of the U.S. dollar. In particular, Zoltan Pozsar of Credit Suisse has observed a correlation between U.S. bank reserves and FX basis swap spreads.8 There is also a strong correlation between FX swap spreads and the U.S. dollar (Chart 13). Chart 13Basis Swaps, Reserves And The Dollar One possible chain of events is that as the Fed drains cash from the market, there will be less liquidity in the FX swap market. Basis swap spreads will widen as a result, and this will cause the dollar to appreciate. In this framework, the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet will put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. However, it is also possible that the chain of causation runs in the other direction. The BIS has proposed a model9 where a stronger dollar weakens the capital positions of bank balance sheets. This causes them to back away from providing liquidity to the FX swap market, leading to wider basis swap spreads. In this model, a strong dollar leads to wider basis swap spreads and not the reverse. If this is the correct direction of causation, then we should not expect any impact on the dollar from the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet. At the moment it is impossible to tell which of the above two theories are correct. All we can do is monitor the correlation between reserves, FX basis swap spreads and the dollar going forward. Bottom Line: The Fed will announce the run-off of its balance sheet at tomorrow's FOMC meeting. This decision has implications for Treasury issuance and how monetary policy will be conducted in the future, but we do not envision a large impact on yields. Investors should remain focussed on changes in the expected path of the fed funds rate to assess the outlook for Treasury yields. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Open Mouth Operations", dated September 2, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on the monitor please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Back-Up In Junk Spreads", dated March 14, 017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2017/dud170907 4 For a detailed description of the differences between a floor and corridor system please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet", dated February 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For simplicity we assume a constant pace of $1 billion MBS refinancing every month. This is somewhat below recent averages to account for the likelihood that interest rates will rise. 6 https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/current_PolicyPressRelease.aspx 7 http://www.columbia.edu/~mw2230/JHole2012final.pdf 8 https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/04/13/2187317/where-would-you-prefer-your-balance-sheet-banks-or-the-federal-reserve/ 9 http://www.bis.org/publ/work592.pdf Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Fed vs. BoE: U.S. inflation data is stabilizing, while financial conditions continue to ease. The market is underestimating the potential for the Fed to hike rates again, perhaps as soon as December. At the same time, markets have priced in too many rate hikes in the U.K., with the Bank of England's growth and inflation forecasts unlikely to be realized. USTs vs. Gilts: Maintain an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration tilt, while keeping an underweight stance on U.S. Treasuries and a neutral bias towards Gilts. Look to upgrade Gilts on any additional spread widening versus Treasuries or core Europe. Duration Checklists: An update of our Duration Checklists shows that the backdrop for growth, inflation and investor risk appetite remains bearish for U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds. Maintain below-benchmark duration exposure to both markets on a medium-term basis. Feature Inflation: Waking Up In The U.S., Peaking Out In The U.K. The bull market in risk assets remains powerful. Investors have shrugged off the worries about U.S. hurricanes and geopolitical tensions and have returned to focusing on the global growth and inflation backdrop. The fact that the S&P 500 could close at a new all-time high just above 2500 last Friday, shortly after another North Korean missile launch and a terrorist attack on the London Underground, speaks volumes about the renewed confidence (or is it hubris?) of investors. For bond markets, two events stood out - the firming read on August U.S. CPI inflation data and the surprisingly hawkish commentary from the Bank of England (BoE). We advise that investors pay more attention to the former and fade the latter. The U.S. inflation data is far more important, as it showed a decent rise in core inflation after five months of very weak prints (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekUSTs At Risk From A Rebound In Inflation A rebound in inflation is critical to our call for U.S. bond yields to rise over the next 6-12 months, as it would bring Fed rate hikes back into play. Right now, there is still a significant gap between market expectations for the fed funds rate by the end of 2018 and the current FOMC projection ("dot"). If the latest inflation data is the beginning of a sustained period of faster monthly price increases, then there is room for investors to reprice their expectations for both inflation and the funds rate (bottom two panels). There is a risk that the median FOMC rate projection for next year comes down a bit when the new "dots" are released after this week's FOMC meeting. Although with market-based inflation expectations firming, and survey-based measures holding steady near the Fed's 2% target amid easing financial conditions, the FOMC may choose to hold steady and wait to see if the August inflation data is the beginning of a trend - especially with the Fed set to announce the timing and details of the reduction of its balance sheet at this week's meeting. Downgrading interest rate expectations while also starting the unwind of the balance sheet could send a confusing message to markets. At the same time, any shift to a more hawkish or less dovish message from the Fed would be taken negatively by the Treasury market. The experience of Gilts last week is a warning sign about how unprepared investors are for a change in tone from central bankers. The language in the statement released after last week's BoE Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting suggested that a rate hike may come within the next few months if U.K. economic growth evolves along the lines of the MPC's forecasts. That was enough to trigger a bear-flattening move in the Gilt curve, with the markets quickly pricing in one full additional rate hike by the BoE over the next year (Chart 2, second panel). A similar move could happen if the Fed were to send any new hawkish signals, although that is unlikely to occur at this week's FOMC meeting. We see a greater potential for the Fed's forecasts to be realized than the BoE's over the next year. Financial conditions have eased and leading indicators are still pointing to a reacceleration in U.S. growth in the coming months. The impact of the hurricanes in Texas and Florida will be a drag on growth in the 3rd quarter of this year, but this will not be enough to materially impact the Fed's growth forecasts for 2018. Meanwhile, the inflationary backdrop for the U.S. may finally be bottoming out, for a few reasons: 1. Our CPI diffusion index rising back above the 50 line in August (Chart 3, top panel), although additional gains will be necessary to herald a more sustained rise in core inflation. Chart 2Markets Have Bet Heavily##BR##On Central Bank Inaction Chart 3U.S. Inflation##BR##Stabilizing? 2. The U.S. labor market continues to tighten, with the gap between the "jobs plentiful" minus "jobs hard to get" indices from the Conference Board's consumer confidence survey widening to the widest level since 2001 (2nd panel), putting upward pressure on wage growth. 3. One of the biggest sources of the surprising downturn in core inflation seen in 2017, the plunge in wireless phone prices back in the spring, has fully stabilized (3rd panel). That decline alone represented a drag on the rate of inflation for core CPI services (excluding shelter) of 1.2 percentage points (bottom panel), and on overall core CPI inflation of around 35bps - ½ of the total decline in core CPI inflation since January. As the impact of that collapse in wireless charges falls out of the inflation data in the coming months, the drag on core CPI will fade. There is now a much better chance for the Fed's inflation forecasts to be realized next year, especially once the impact of a weaker dollar (and higher energy prices) is taken into account. While some of the doves on the FOMC may downgrade their inflation forecasts this week, a major reduction is unlikely in the absence of signs of a weakening U.S. labor market or renewed strength in the U.S. dollar. The U.S. backdrop contrasts sharply with what is going on in the U.K. While the labor market is even tighter there than in the U.S., the current upturn in U.K. inflation has also occurred alongside a sharp depreciation of the Pound since the 2016 Brexit vote (Chart 4). The currency has stabilized over the course of this year, with the year-over-year change in the BoE's trade-weighted index now nearly flat (bottom panel). Against this backdrop, inflation is more likely to peak out than reaccelerate from current levels. A similar argument can be made for the U.K. economy. Leading economic indicators have rolled over, while actual real GDP growth has decelerated (Chart 5, 3rd panel). Consumer confidence has steadily declined as the currency-driven inflation increase has eroded real income growth. This has created a very odd divergence between falling confidence and an increased market expectation for BoE rate hikes over the next year, which typically move in unison (bottom panel). Add in the ongoing uncertainties over Brexit that continue to weigh on business confidence and investment spending, and it is far more likely that the U.K. economy will lag versus the BoE's forecasts. Chart 4Currency Impact On U.K. Inflation Is Fading Chart 5Why Should The BoE Hike? For now, we are maintaining our recommended neutral allocation on Gilts in our model bond portfolio. Although we would view any additional widening in yield spreads between Gilts and U.S. Treasuries and core European yields as an opportunity to move to overweight. Simply put, the odds are far greater that the Fed's economic and inflation forecasts for the next year will be realized than those of the BoE, suggesting that there is more upside risk for yields in Treasuries than Gilts. Bottom Line: U.S. inflation data is stabilizing, while financial conditions continue to ease. The market is underestimating the potential for the Fed to hike rates again, perhaps as soon as December. At the same time, markets have priced in too many rate hikes in the U.K., with the Bank of England's growth and inflation forecasts unlikely to be realized. Maintain an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration tilt, while keeping an underweight stance on U.S. Treasuries and a neutral bias towards Gilts. Look to upgrade Gilts on any additional spread widening versus Treasuries or core Europe. Duration Checklist Update Back in February of this year, we introduced a list of indicators we need to monitor to determine if our recommended defensive duration stance on U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds was still warranted.1 These "Duration Checklists" combined data on overall global growth, as well as U.S. and Euro Area economic activity, inflation, investor risk-seeking behavior and technical positioning on government bonds. At the time, the Checklists were almost unanimous in pointing to a period of rising bond yields based on an improving growth profile and slowly rising inflation pressures. We updated the Checklists in May and, for the most part, the majority of the indicators were still flagging more upward pressures on yields, although some series on global growth and inflation had softened.2 With the benefit of hindsight, we now know that these factors - especially the pullback in U.S. inflation pressures - were enough to trigger a significant bond rally. With the U.S. inflation downdraft now in the process of stabilizing, as discussed earlier, this is now a good opportunity to revisit our Duration Checklists to assess the current backdrop for bond yields. The broad conclusion is that the majority of the indicators are still pointing to higher bond yields in the months ahead (Table 1). Table 1A Bearish Message From Our Duration Checklists Global economic activity indicators are mixed, but may be bottoming. The global leading economic indicator (LEI) continues to rise, heralding a continuation of the current economic uptrend (Chart 6). The breadth of that advance, however, is fading with our LEI diffusion index having fallen below the 50 line, meaning that there are more countries with a falling LEI. The global ZEW indicator of investor sentiment is also trending downward, another factor weighing on yields. The near-term dynamics on growth are starting to shift more bearishly for bonds, however, with the global data surprise index rising and the latest read on our Global Credit Impulse indicator ticking upward. We are giving a "check" to 3 of the 5 global growth elements in our Duration Checklists (LEI, data surprises, Credit Impulse), which represents a bond-bearish shift from the last update of the Checklists in May when only the LEI warranted a "check". Domestic economic growth in the U.S. and Euro Area is solid. Manufacturing PMIs in both the U.S. (the ISM index) and Europe are rising, as is consumer and business confidence (Charts 7 & 8). The latter is not surprising given the strong growth in corporate profits on both sides of the Atlantic that our models expect will continue. This bodes well for future growth momentum, as firms will not be forced to retrench on hiring and investment spending to protect profitability. We are giving a "check" to all domestic growth components of our Duration Checklists, highlighting that the economic backdrop remains bond bearish. Chart 6Yields Are Exposed To##BR##Improving Global Growth Chart 7A Solid U.S.##BR##Economic Expansion Chart 8European Growth Momentum##BR##Is Bearish For Bunds Realized inflation has dipped, but the worst looks to be over. In our Checklists, we include measures on energy prices, labor market tightness and wage inflation as the primary inflation indicators to monitor. On that front, the story still looks fairly benign for U.S. inflation given the dip in wage inflation measures like Average Hourly Earnings growth and the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker (Chart 9). The unemployment gap (unemployment rate vs. NAIRU) is still negative, and other wage measures like the wage & salaries component Employment Cost Index are steadily expanding, suggesting that the underlying wage dynamics in the U.S. may not be as slow as indicated by Average Hourly Earnings. In the Euro Area, wage growth has accelerated above 2%, occurring alongside a grinding increase in core inflation and an unemployment gap that is almost fully closed (Chart 10). Meanwhile, the downward momentum in the growth of energy prices - denominated in both dollars and euros - has bottomed out after the sharp decline since the beginning of the year, although the rebound has been tepid so far (top panel of Charts 9 & 10). Chart 9Not Much Inflationary##BR##Pressures On UST Yields Chart 10Core Inflation & Wages Are##BR##Grinding Higher In Europe The most significant divergences between the regions exist within the inflation elements of our Checklists. For wage growth, we are giving an "x" to the U.S. but a "check" to Europe. For the unemployment gap, we are giving a "check" to both regions. For energy prices, however, we are not giving any indication (a "?") until we see more decisive evidence of a sustained acceleration that is pressuring headline inflation rates even higher. Both the Fed and ECB are biased to remove monetary accommodation. The Fed is in the midst of a rate-hiking cycle that began in late 2015, and is now about to begin the long process of shrinking its swollen balance sheet. The ECB has been slowly preparing the market for a shift to a slower pace of asset purchases, although rate hikes are still at least a couple of years away. For both central banks, we are giving a "check" for having a more hawkish/less dovish policy bias that is not bullish for bonds. Investors remain in risk-seeking mode. The way that we interpret investor risk aversion in the Checklists is if growth-sensitive risk assets like equities and corporate credit are rallying, then this is bearish for government bonds. The logic here is that private investor demand for Treasuries and Bunds is diminished when risk assets are rallying, as long as equities are not stretched to a point where the risks of a correction are elevated (i.e. indices trading 10% above their 200-day moving average). Also, the easing of financial conditions stemming from rallying stock and credit markets is a boost to growth that central banks will likely respond to by becoming less accommodative. From that perspective, the persistent bull markets in equities and corporate credit on both sides of the Atlantic are bearish for Treasuries (Chart 11) and Bunds (Chart 12). With stocks not looking stretched versus the medium-term trend and with volatility remaining low, all the related elements of our Checklists earn a "check". Chart 11Still A Pro-Risk Bias##BR##Among U.S. Investors Chart 12Still A Pro-Risk Bias##BR##Among Euro Area Investors Bond yields do not look stretched to the upside from a technical perspective. The Treasury sell-off from the 2017 peak back in March has pushed the 10-year yield back below its 200-day moving average, while also boosting the 6-month total return into positive territory (Chart 13). There is also a persistent net long position in 10-year Treasury futures (bottom panel). Add it all up and the technical backdrop for Treasuries is stretched in a way pointing to greater near-term risks of higher yields. In Europe, momentum measures all look neutral (Chart 14) and are no impediment to rising yields. We give all technical elements of our Duration Checklists a "check". Chart 13UST Rally Since March##BR##Is Looking Stretched Chart 14Neutral Technical##BR##Backdrop For Bunds Net-net, the Checklists show that the majority of indicators are still pointing to a bond-bearish backdrop. The only bond-bullish factors are the soft inflation readings in the U.S. although that may be in the process of shifting, as discussed earlier. There is not a major difference in the number of checkmarks for both the U.S. and Euro Area Checklists, thus we see no reason to favor either market from a relative perspective - there is pressure for both Treasury and Bund yields to rise. Thus, we are maintaining our recommended below-benchmark medium-term duration stance in both the U.S. and core Europe within hedged global bond portfolios. Chart 15UST Yields Have More Near-Term Upside From a shorter-term tactical perspective, however, we see more upside for Treasury yields vs Bunds with U.S. economic data surprising to the upside at a faster pace than in Europe (Chart 15). Throw in the potential for U.S. inflation to also rise above depressed expectations and a wider Treasury-Bund spread - a trade that we currently have in our Tactical Overlay portfolio and which goes against the tightening currently priced into the forwards - is the more likely outcome in the next few months. Bottom Line: An update of our Duration Checklists shows that the backdrop for growth, inflation and investor risk appetite remains bearish for U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds. Maintain below-benchmark duration exposure to both markets on a medium-term basis. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "A Duration Checklist For U.S. Treasuries & German Bunds", dated February 15th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Fade The "Trump Fade"", dated May 23rd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Finally, an upside surprise on inflation. Recent significant developments reinforce BCA's bullish view on crude oil. Investors should consider the Monthly Report on personal income and spending, and not the quarterly GDP data, to gauge hurricanes' impact on economy. While the Fed will consider impact of Harvey and Irma, policy will ultimately be made on health of underlying economy. Feature Chart 1Rally For Risk Assets##BR##A Week Before The FOMC Risk assets and oil prices rose last week along with Treasury yields ahead of this week's FOMC meeting. Both the S&P 500 and the Dow hit new highs last week as the dollar moved lower. The stock-to-bond ratio also climbed, approaching the highs it reached earlier this year (Chart 1). All of this occurred amid an absence of any meaningful news on corporate earnings, aside from Apple's launch of the latest iPhone. Q3 earnings season is still a month away. Our base case projects stocks outperforming cash and bonds over the next 6-12 months, but in early September we recommended that clients be prudent, pare back any overweight positions and hold some safe-haven assets within diversified portfolios. The most significant movement in assets prices last week came in the U.S. Treasury market. Aided by hints of some progress on tax cuts in Washington less damage than initially feared from Hurricane Irma's impact on Florida, and despite another rocket launch by North Korea, the 10-year Treasury yield moved from near 2.0% in the first week of September to 2.20% on September 15. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service notes1 that bond markets are priced as though the link between growth and inflation is broken. We expect they will be proven wrong as inflation regains its uptrend during the next few months. Finally A Surprise On Inflation Chart 2Does One Month Make A Trend? After five months of downside surprises, U.S. core CPI met expectations in August. It is still too soon say that this is enough for the Fed to raise rates again this year. To get a better sense of the underlying trends, we like to break core CPI into three sub-groups: shelter, core goods and core services ex-shelter and medical care. Shelter, which accounts for over 40% of core CPI, rose 0.4% m/m in August. This was the biggest contributor to core CPI during the month. Our shelter model suggests that this strength is unlikely to persist. On the flip-side, core goods prices (25% of core CPI) fell 0.1% m/m. Given the weakness in the dollar, core goods prices should soon begin to rise. To some degree, a slowdown in shelter and a pick-up in core goods could offset each other over the coming months (Chart 2). Therefore, a sustained pick-up in overall core inflation requires an upturn in core services ex-shelter and medical. This sub-component of core CPI is the most tightly correlated with wage inflation. There was a slight tick higher in annual core services ex-shelter and medical inflation in August. However, it is still near a 25-year low of just 1.1%. Bottom Line: Following five months of persistent downside surprises, the 0.2% m/m increase in core CPI during August was a welcomed change for the Fed. However, one month does not make a trend and Fed will need to see more evidence of inflation turning the corner before raising interest rates again. Any rise in oil prices would also give inflation a lift, although it would affect the headline more than the core inflation rate. Bullish Oil Supply And Demand Recent significant developments reinforce BCA's bullish view on crude oil. The International Energy Agency (IEA) revised its forecasts for global oil demand. Oil consumption will be 100,000 bpd higher this year than the IEA's previous projection. Furthermore, renewed turmoil in Libya curbed production by 300,000 bpd from a 4-year high of more than 1 million bpd. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service states that while predicting OPEC compliance is tricky, little to no cheating will occur. At worst, Saudi Arabia will step in and curtail production if Libya and/or Iraq begins to pump oil above quota. Finally, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) in the U.S. lowered its estimated shale oil output by 200,000 bpd for this year's third quarter. The decreased estimation confirms BCA's assertion that the EIA has overestimated the pace of the shale production response during 2017. Chart 3Drawdown In Global Oil##BR##Inventories Is Underway Taken together, these factors will help to improve the global net demand/supply balance by 600,000 bpd, if the current situation remains unchanged. As a result, global oil inventories will continue to be drawn down (Chart 3). Severe weather in the U.S. has temporarily distorted the energy markets. Crack spreads have widened in the U.S. as product inventories have declined along with Brent - WTI spreads. Nonetheless, BCA's commodity strategists remain bullish on crude oil, forecasting a rise in WTI to over $55/bbl and Brent to $60/bbl by year-end. Looking to next year, crude prices could go higher with an extension of the OPEC/Russian production cuts beyond March 2018 and continued strong growth in global oil demand. A sudden jump in the U.S. dollar could risk BCA's bullish view. Bottom Line: There is a disagreement between the market's view of the fundamentals of the global oil balance, which is guided by the EIA data, and BCA's view that is driven by the OPEC 2.0 framework.2 Oil prices could spike higher if the market adheres to the OPEC framework. BCA's Equity Trading Strategy service recommends an overweight to the S&P 500 Energy Sector and initiated an overweight in the Oil and Gas Refining and Marketing sub-group on September 11, 2017.3 Hurricane Redux Turning to the U.S. hurricane destruction, history shows that natural disasters have only a passing effect on the U.S. economy, the financial markets and the Fed.4 Ultimately, the macro environment in place before the storm will reassert itself. Nonetheless, it may be a few months before investors determine the long-term impact of the storms on Houston, Florida and nearby southern states. The U.S. data gathering agencies (BEA, BLS and Census) have processes to ensure that the storm's sway is reflected in the economic data. In the past, all three have produced post-disaster evaluations and will likely release the same type of information in the months ahead. Most of the storms' effects will be felt in the September data, but have already affected the initial claims data for the last week in August and the first week of September. The storms will also buffet the Q3 GDP (due out in late October). However, GDP data may not provide a comprehensive picture; GDP is not directly affected by natural disaster losses involving property, plants, equipment and structures. However, GDP can take a direct hit from the loss of productive capacity linked to a storm. The BEA notes that "while GDP may be affected by the actions that consumers, businesses, and governments take in response to a disaster, these responses are generally not separately identifiable, and they may be spread out over a long period of time." Investors should consider the monthly report on personal income and spending, and even more, the regional accounts by state, and not the quarterly GDP data, for details on the storms' economic fallout. Only hurricanes Katrina and Rita warranted a mention in the Q3 2005 GDP release, and none of the other major storms since that time have been noted by the agency. On the other hand, the personal income and spending reports released after all the major hurricanes since 2005 have provided key specifics on incomes. For example, the BEA stated that "work interruptions" linked to Hurricane Sandy reduced wages by $18 billion in October 2012 when the storm hit the northeastern U.S. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) also tends to note a storm's influence on other primary income categories including personal rental incomes, proprietors' incomes, and other current transfer receipts (i.e. insurance payments received). Table 1Total Federal Spending And Total Economic Damage For Selected Hurricanes, 2000 To 2015 A 2016 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report found that federal spending after major hurricanes can add as much as 0.6% to GDP growth (Table 1). CBO notes that most of the economic impact is in the first year after a storm, with most of those expenditures helping victims to obtain food and shelter, fund search and rescue operations, and protect critical infrastructure. Federal outlays for public infrastructure occur after the first year and provide a much smaller lift to GDP (Chart 4). Chart 4Federal Government Outlays For Hurricane Relief The severe weather in the U.S. has raised the odds that the Trump administration and Congress will make progress on fiscal policy this fall. We think that the outlines of a tax bill will emerge in the next month or so, and while the probability of passing legislation this year is still low, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service expects the market to react when it sees the bill. The implication for investors is that the President Trump trades (Chart 5) that have unwound since the start of the year may soon become profitable again. The recent agreement between Trump and the Democrats to extend the debt ceiling and avoid a government shutdown support our stance. Chart 5Trump Trades Making A Comeback? Bottom Line: The hurricanes may have a bearing on the economic data for the next few months. Investors should closely monitor the input data to GDP, but not GDP itself. However, we do not anticipate that any economic disruptions from the storms will have a meaningful influence on near-term Fed monetary policy. Disasters And The Fed The hurricanes will probably play a supporting role in the Fed's outlook on the economy, inflation and labor market at this week's meeting. The FOMC statement will mention the storms and Fed Chair Yellen may include them in her opening remarks. Moreover, the news conference will provide another opportunity to discuss the issue. For example, the FOMC statement released in mid-December 2012, six weeks after Sandy, stated that "economic activity and employment have continued to expand at a moderate pace in recent months, apart from weather-related disruptions". Fed staff noted that manufacturing production was held down by Sandy and that household spending, notably vehicle sales, declined in October due to the storm (Table 2). Similarly, the wrath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita was noted in FOMC statements and minutes in the fall and early winter of 2005. For example, in the statement released at the meeting after Katrina hit in August 2005, the FOMC observed: "The widespread devastation in the Gulf region, the associated dislocation of economic activity, and the boost to energy prices imply that spending, production, and employment will be set back in the near term." Fed policymakers made similar observations in the aftermath of other natural and man-made disasters in the past 25 years (Table 2). Table 2FOMC Reaction To Disasters, Natural And Man Made Bottom Line: Fed officials will consider the disruptions to the economy and economic data caused by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, but ultimately make policy decisions based on the underlying strength of the economy, labor market and inflation. FOMC Preview The FOMC will initiate shrinking its balance sheet at this week's meeting, but neither BCA nor the market anticipate that the Fed will bump up rates. Moreover, the Fed will need more evidence that inflation, inflation expectations and/or inflation surprise has turned higher before resuming its rate hike regime. Furthermore, there is still a significant disconnect between the market and the Fed concerning rates for the next 12 months, and how that gap closes could be crucial for the financial markets, especially the bond market. At 43 basis points, the gap between the June dot plots and the market on the Fed funds rate in the next 12 months remains near its widest level of the year. The market is currently predicting only 30 bps in increases in the next 12 months. However, an uptick in inflation could quickly change that view (Chart 6). Despite the disagreement on rates, the Fed and the market are mostly aligned on the economy, the labor market and inflation, at least in 2017. For the first time, the FOMC will provide projections for 2020 at this week's meeting. At 4.4% in August, the unemployment rate is a mere tenth above the Fed's end-2017 forecast, but it is 0.2% below the central bank's latest estimate of full employment (4.6%). The Fed's measure of full employment has declined in recent years and we would not be shocked to see a drop again this week. The consensus outlook for the unemployment rate matches the Fed's path through the end of 2018 (Chart 7 and Chart 8). Chart 6Big Disagreement Between The Fed ##br##And The Market On Rates Chart 7The Fed Vs. The Market Chart 8The FOMC's "Long Run"##BR##Forecasts Since 2012 The economy is on pace this year to grow at the Fed's 2.2% projection but is running above the FOMCs long-run calculation of 1.8%, which is the low point since the Fed started publishing these long-run projections in 2009. The consensus forecast for GDP in 2018 and 2019 is slightly above the upper end of the Fed's range set in June (Chart 7 and Chart 8). The Fed and the market are relatively close on inflation this year, but there is still a wide gap in 2018 and beyond. In June, the Fed lowered its inflation forecast for 2017 to 1.6% from 1.9% in March. PCE inflation is at only 1.4% (year-to-date in 2017), so there is not much disagreement in this regard. The market does not agree with the Fed's view that inflation will return to 2.0%, and this is a key reason why the 10-year Treasury yield recently touched a new post-election low at 2.0%, although geopolitical tensions also played a role. The central bank's view of inflation in the long run has not deviated from 2.0% since 2012. Bloomberg consensus estimates for core inflation for this year and next are below the low end of the Fed's forecast range (Chart 7 and Chart 8). Market participants and some Fed officials are still concerned that the traditional Phillips curve model may be broken and that inflation may never accelerate even with an unemployment rate that is below the Fed's estimate of full employment. (Please see a BCA Special Report, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?").5 Who Will Be The Next Fed Chair? As some investors consider the Fed's next policy move, others are taking a longer view and thinking about Fed Chair Yellen's replacement. Yellen's term as Chair will end in February 2018, and the markets have not yet shown any concerns about her potential replacement. Until last month, the frontrunner to replace Yellen was Gary Cohn, the Chairman of President Trump's National Economic Committee; his appointment would conform to some historical precedents but violate others.6 Several new names have emerged as possible Fed nominees as Cohn fell out of favor in the White House in early September. Kevin Warsh, Glen Hubbard and John Taylor, are all high-profile economists with links to the GOP, but Warsh stands out because he served on Trump's Strategic and Policy forum before it disbanded in August, and was a Fed Governor in the early 2000s (Table 3). Hubbard, who is currently an academic, was President George W. Bush's chief economist. However, he has not worked with Trump and has no Fed experience. John Taylor is well known in monetary policy circles, but has no Fed or government background, nor has he served with Trump. Taylor advocates for rules-based monetary policy.7 Another possible name, Larry Lindsey, an advisor to George W. Bush's campaign in 2000, a Fed Governor in the 1990s, and worked in the Reagan White House but he has no connection to Trump. He has recently spoken in favor of the House tax plan. Table 3Characteristics Of Fed Chairs Since 1970 The other two names under consideration - Richard Davis and John Allison - may have difficulty winning confirmations by the Senate. Both men were CEOs at major banks although neither have directly served Trump, nor been at the Fed or in government. Allison, a former president of the Libertarian Cato Institute, has argued that the Fed should be abolished and blamed the Fed for the financial crisis. The timing of Trump's announcement on Yellen's replacement may be critical. As a reminder, names floated by the Obama White House in the summer of 2013 were mainly rejected by the markets. Yellen's official announcement came in early October 2013. In August 2009, President Obama reappointed Bernanke for a second four-year term. Bernanke was initially nominated to be Fed Chair by George W. Bush in October 2005. If the appointment comes in October and the nominee is perceived to be hawkish, the risk is that markets may begin to price in the regime change sometime in the next few months. As we noted in the sections above, there is already a wide discrepancy between the Fed and the market over the pace and timing of rate hikes in the coming year. BCA's fair value model for the 10-year Treasury yield (based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) currently places fair value at 2.67%.8 Moreover, our 3-factor version of the model (which includes the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index), puts fair value slightly higher at 2.68%. Investors should continue to position for a steeper curve by favoring the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. Bottom Line: Markets will be increasingly concerned in the next six weeks about the next Fed Chair and his or her policies. While the reappointment of Fed Chair Yellen for another term would please the markets, several other possible successors would not. We anticipate that the President will make a choice within the next month. Taking a longer view, the next Fed chair will oversee the policy response to the next recession and its aftermath. Investors should understand how the next Chair views the Fed's role in the business cycle. Economy Focus: Some Good News From The Quarterly Services Survey Even with the increasingly dominant role of the service sector's contribution to the economy (~69% of GDP), most of the high-frequency data are related to the manufacturing sector (~12% of GDP) (Chart 9, top panel). However, the Quarterly Services Survey (QSS), initiated in 2003-2004 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), measures the services sector of the economy, including companies of all sizes (small- and medium-sized). It produces the most timely revenue data, on a quarterly basis, within the flourishing service sector. The dataset is used primarily by the BEA to estimate a more accurate picture of the national accounts, notably personal consumption and the intellectual property segment of private fixed investment. The survey is also essential for FOMC policymakers as it is very useful to track current economic performance. Even more, during the financial crisis, the BEA "aggressively responded to policymakers' needs for data on financial services". The QSS is a significant source of revisions to real GDP, as about 42% of the quarterly estimates of PCE for services is now based on QSS data. The "key services statistics" include information services; health care services; professional, scientific, and technical services; administrative and support and waste management and remediation services (Chart 9). For the first half of 2017, upward revisions to second and third estimates to real GDP stemmed from revisions to PCE services and nonresidential fixed investment, namely: health care services, financial & insurance services and intellectual property products (specifically software) and other services accounted for by cellular telephone services. The most recent QSS for 2017Q2 showed U.S. selected services total revenue rising by 3.2% over the last quarter and 6.2% over the last four quarters (in nominal terms and non-seasonally adjusted data only available). The strongest growth came from revenues of Other Services (9.4% QoQ% and 18.4% YoY) followed by Arts, Entertainment & Recreation and Administration, Support & Waste Management. Sales in Finance & Insurance and Health Care & Social Assistance, which make up about 50% of total service revenues, are advancing at a sturdy pace, as is revenue in Information services (Chart 9). Chart 9Growth For Service Sector##BR##Industries Is Broad-Based Chart 10QSS Survey Heralds Some##BR##Upward Revision To Real GDP Bottom Line: Given that the majority of service industries from the QSS sample survey continue to show upward momentum, perhaps we will see some upward revision to real consumer spending for services for the third estimate of real GDP next week (Chart 10). We continue to expect U.S. GDP growth to match or exceed the Fed's modest target for 2017. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Jizel Georges, Senior Analyst jizelg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Open Mouth Operations", published September 12, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Hurricane Recovery Obscures OPEC 2.0's Forward Guidance", published September 14, 2017. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Still Goldilocks", published September 11, 2017. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Shelter From The Storm", published September 5, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?", published August 31, 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Global Monetary Policy Recalibration", published July 17, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Trump And The Fed", published March 6, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "The Cyclical Sweet Spot Rolls On", published September 5, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines index will suffer from a profit margin squeeze, which should weigh on valuations. Cut exposure to underweight. A cyclical capex recovery is a boon for software outlays and coupled with reviving animal spirits, signal that it no longer pays to underweight the S&P software index. Augment positions to a benchmark allocation. Recent Changes Downgrade the defensive/cyclical portfolio bias to neutral. Downgrade the S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines index to underweight today. Lift the S&P software index to neutral. Table 1 Feature Chart 1Weak Dollar Positive Contributor##br## To EPS Growth Equities broke out in a bullish fashion last week, as geopolitical fears subsided and the backlash from hurricane Irma was less severe than initially feared. Beneath the surface, non-inflationary synchronized global growth remains the dominant macro theme. While the latest U.S. CPI print was better than anticipated the Fed would have to see a couple more perky inflation reports before an uptrend is established, cementing the December hike. Until then, the path of least resistance is higher for equities. In our last Weekly Report, we noted that our four-factor S&P 500 operating EPS model has recently accelerated.1 This week, Chart 1 isolates the U.S. dollar as the sole regression variable on SPX earnings and the fitted value suggests that profits will likely surprise to the upside in the back half of the year despite difficult comparisons. Importantly, as we posited earlier this summer, irrespective of where the trade-weighted U.S. dollar ends the year, delayed FX translation effects will act as a tonic for S&P 500 profits. Since late-December's peak, the broad trade-weighted dollar has deflated by 9%. Regression analysis shows that a 1% fall in the U.S. dollar boosts operating EPS by 0.98%, with our dataset going back to the early 1970s. If, however, we narrow the interval of estimation starting in 1994 when NAFTA come into effect then the greenback's sensitivity on SPX EPS increases to 1.6%. While every cycle is different, a fresh all-time high in quarterly EPS - driven by a weak dollar - would not surprise us in Q3 and Q4. At some point, the deflating currency should show up in selling price inflation, again as a lagged effect (middle panel, Chart 2). This is encouraging for our firming operating leverage thesis, as a modest inflationary backdrop would reinforce top line growth (bottom panel, Chart 2). The implication of a sustainable revenue growth outlook is a profit margin-led flow through to EPS, especially for high fixed cost businesses. Already, sell side analysts' overall S&P 500 net earnings revisions are benefitting from the U.S. dollar's decline, and so is sector EPS breadth (trade-weighted dollar shown inverted, Chart 3). Chart 2Will The Dollar's Fall Show Up In Inflation? Chart 3EPS Breadth Improvement Moreover, U.S. dollar-based liquidity (defined as the sum of the Fed's balance sheet and foreign central bank U.S. Treasury holdings) has finally arrested its fall and has recently ticked higher above the zero line. This even mild increase in U.S. dollar-based liquidity represents a de facto easing in global monetary conditions, and historically has been synonymous with S&P 500 EPS acceleration (Chart 4). The upshot is that profits are on a solid upward trajectory. Chart 4Dollar Based Liquidity Also On The Rise The equity market's sensitivity to the greenback has been increasing as the percentage of foreign sourced earnings has been rising over the decades. Globally-exposed goods-producers are in the driver's seat. This raises the question: what to do with our long held preference for defensives versus cyclicals? We are taking our cue from the U.S. dollar-induced shifting macro backdrop, and locking in gains of 11% since the mid-2014 inception in our defensive over cyclical sector tilt, and moving to the sidelines. As a reminder, since the beginning of the spring we have been tweaking our portfolio adding cyclical exposure and, at the margin, removing defensive protection.2 Thus, a defensive over cyclical sector preference is no longer in place. Synchronized global growth, reviving emerging markets, a stable China, and a deflating U.S. dollar are all giving us confidence that it no longer pays to play defense (Chart 5). Finally, following a sling shot recovery, relative valuations are on a more even keel, as is our relative Technical Indicator which is hovering in the neutral zone (Chart 6). Chart 5Book Gains And Move##br## To Neutral Chart 6Valuations And Technicals##br## In The Neutral Zone This week we are making an early cyclical downshift and deep cyclical upshift to our portfolio. Hotels Update: Check Out Time This year has been a good one to be overweight the S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines index which has outperformed the S&P 500 by a wide margin. However, earnings expectations have moved broadly in line with the market in 2017, meaning that the index's outperformance has been entirely valuation multiple driven. Normalizing earnings to smooth out profit volatility reveals a more severe picture with valuation multiples at decade highs, above the historical mean and at a 40% premium to the broad market (Chart 7). The index's strength has been most pronounced since the beginning of the summer and, unsurprisingly given the cyclical rotation into highly discretionary stocks, has been exclusive to the cruise line operator segment of the index. The two relevant stocks (RCL and CCL) now represent nearly half of the S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines index's market capitalization. Cruise line operators' margins have climbed to 10-year highs (top panel, Chart 8), justifying soaring stock prices. Profit gains have come on the back of healthy unit revenue as unit costs have remained mostly unchanged (third panel, Chart 8). Chart 7Very Expensive Beneath The Surface Chart 8Cruise Lines Leading The Pack Cruise line occupancy rates corroborate this firm demand backdrop. They have risen in line with margin gains (second panel, Chart 8), a result of improving passenger growth and constrained capacity (bottom panel, Chart 8). This has been the industry's largest margin lever, i.e.: incremental passengers per room come with much higher incremental margin. As cruise lines cannot increase their occupancy ad infinitum (occupancy rates above 100% already imply more than two occupants of a double-occupancy berth), further margin gains of this magnitude seem doubtful. In fact, if cruise operators are to continue growing profits, a capacity growth cycle will eventually have to begin anew, meaning margin contraction rather than expansion. Thus, extrapolating profit growth far into the future is fraught with danger, warning that sky-high valuation multiples are vulnerable to even a modest de-rating. The outlook is even less bright for hotels, an industry that has been losing its share of the consumer's wallet for some time (Chart 9, second panel). Specifically, the low/non-corporate end of the market seems increasingly exposed to competition from Airbnb and other room share competitors; cutthroat competition is pricing power negative with industry selling prices sinking into outright deflation (Chart 9, third panel). Hoteliers are trying to compensate for low prices with huge capacity additions, adding a sense of permanence to recent pricing power declines. However, just as pricing has fallen, the accommodation related employment cost index has gone vertical (bottom panel, Chart 9). The implication of soft pricing power and a rising wage bill is a profit letdown. Our newly introduced S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines EPS model (comprising the U.S. dollar, employment, PCE and confidence measures) does an excellent job encompassing all these moving parts and confirms our bearish industry profit stance. In fact, it is pointing to significant relative declines vis-à-vis the S&P 500 (Chart 10). Chart 9Mind The Deflationary Impulse Chart 10EPS Model Says Rush For The Exits Putting it together, shrinking margins and increased capital deployment mean lower return on capital and hence lower valuation multiples. This implies that the index's relative gains are in the past. Bottom Line: Take some chips off the table and reduce exposure to underweight in the S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOTL - MAR, CCL, RCL, HLT, WYN. Software: A Capex Upcycle Winner? Software stock relative performance has returned to its long-term uptrend, but remains far from the two standard deviations above-the-mean peak reached during the tech bubble (top panel, Chart 11). The structural pull from the proliferation of cloud computing and software-as-a-service has served as a catalyst to raise the profile of this more defensive and mature tech sub-sector. Traditional hardware tech sectors, like communications equipment, are also suffering from the "virtualization" threat as software is making inroads into hardware and blurring the lines between the two. Beyond this constructive backdrop, cyclical forces are also painting a brighter picture for software equities. Importantly, there is tentative evidence that a fresh capex upcycle has commenced (see Chart 3 from last Monday's Weekly Report 3), and if software commands a larger slice of the overall spending pie, industry profits should enjoy a healthy rebound (second panel, Chart 11). Small business sector plans to expand have returned to a level last seen prior to the Great Recession, underscoring that software related outlays will likely follow them higher. Recovering bank loan growth is also corroborating this upbeat spending message: capital outlays on software are poised to accelerate based on rebounding bank loans. The latter signals that businesses are beginning to loosen their purse strings anew (third & fourth panels, Chart 11). Reviving animal spirits also suggest that demand for software upgrades will stay elevated. CEO confidence is pushing decade highs. Such ebullience is positive for a pickup in software investments (second panel, Chart 12). It has also rekindled software M&A activity, with the number of industry deals jumping in recent months (bottom panel, Chart 13). Chart 11Back To Trend Chart 12Capex Upcycle... Chart 13... And Reviving Animal Spirits Are Key Drivers Supply reduction presents a bullish backdrop for software selling prices that have exited deflation at a time when overall corporate sector inflation is decelerating. The upshot is that revenue growth will likely reaccelerate (middle panel, Chart 14). But before getting too carried away, there is some cause for concern. The S&P software index is priced to perfection fully reflecting most, if not all, of the positive drivers (bottom panel, Chart 14), warning that any sales/profit mishaps will likely knock relative performance over. Moreover, productivity dynamics are waving a yellow flag. Business sector productivity growth troughed in early 2017. Historically, this output per hour worked metric has been inversely correlated with software outlays (productivity shown inverted, third panel Chart 15). Importantly, even shown as a deviation from the long-term trend, productivity gains have troughed, suggesting that relative profit growth will likely remain muted (productivity shown inverted, bottom panel Chart 15). Keep in mind that, historically, software spending has been countercyclical (second panel, Chart 15) and given that we are not at the end of the line yet, relative outlays on software may not rebound to the same extent as our other aforementioned indicators suggest. Chart 14Impressive Pricing Power, ##br##But Fully Priced Chart 15Productivity Dynamics##br## Are A Sizable Offset Adding it up, enticing structural software forces aside, a cyclical capex recovery is a boon for software outlays and, coupled with reviving animal spirits, signal that it no longer pays to underweight this tech sub-sector. Bottom Line: The S&P software index does not deserve an underweight. Lift exposure to a benchmark allocation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT - MSFT, ORCL, ADBE, CRM, ATVI, EA, INTU, ADSK, SYMC, RHT, SNPS, CTXS, ANSS, CA. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Chart 5 of the U.S. Equity Strategy Report titled "Still Goldilocks", on September 11, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the August 14, 2017 U.S. Equity Strategy Report titled "Three Risks" for a quick recap of most of our portfolio moves, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see the September 11, 2017 U.S. Equity Strategy Report titled "Still Goldilocks", available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Overweight A neglected aspect of the catastrophe of Hurricane Harvey was the shutdown of nearly 40% of ethylene production, the key ingredient in plastics packaging for foodstuffs, still the largest customer for the containers & packaging index. While production is gradually coming back on line, near-term capacity constraints have driven a 50% spike in ethylene prices (not shown). In the end, we expect Harvey to be a transitory margin blip that is outweighed by the current global economic resurgence driving increasing global exports, particularly U.S. food exports (second & third panels). Moreover, chemical producers have committed capital for approximately 15% more capacity of ethylene production coming on stream in the next two years, meaning this price spike should prove fleeting. We think investors should stay focused on the rebound in containers & packaging pricing power and the industry's disciplined productivity focus (bottom panel). Taken together these factors should generate profit growth that will significantly outlast a hurricane-related dip. Stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CONP - IP, WRK, BLL, PKG, SEE, AVY.