Developed Countries

Pharma stock profits have moved in lockstep with consumer spending on pharmaceuticals and both have roughly doubled over the past decade. However, relative pharma consumer outlays have crested recently, causing a significant pharma profit underperformance (third panel). If our cautious drug pricing power thesis pans out as we portrayed in this week's Weekly Report, then pharma earnings will suffer and exert downward pressure on relative share prices (top panel). Industry balance sheet deterioration represents another warning signal. Net debt/EBITDA is skyrocketing at a time when the broad non-financial corporate (NFC) sector has been in balance sheet rebuilding mode (bottom panel). While this metric does not suggest that pharma stocks are in deep financial trouble, the deterioration in finances is undeniable, and, at the margin, a rising interest rate backdrop will likely slow down debt issuance for equity retirement and dividend payout purposes. Bottom Line: Trim the S&P pharmaceuticals index to underweight, which takes the S&P health care index to underweight. For additional details, please see yesterday's Weekly Report. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P pharmaceuticals index are: BLBG: S5PHAR - JNJ, PFE, MRK, BMY, AGN, LLY, ZTS, MYL, PRGO.

Highlights Structural Bond Backdrop: The secular global bond market outlook is slowly deteriorating on the margin. The structural forces that have driven down bond yields over the past few decades are in the process of stabilizing or even slowly reversing. With central banks moving away from "emergency" stimulative monetary policies that were designed to fight imminent deflation risks that are no longer needed, the path of least resistance for global bond yields is up. Central Bank Liquidity & Volatility: The current low volatility backdrop is a function of solid global economic growth and accommodative (and predictable) central banks. The growth momentum is likely to persist for at least the next 3-6 months, but monetary policies will continue to shift in a less dovish direction. Stay below-benchmark overall portfolio duration and favor corporate credit over government bonds for the rest of 2017. Feature The End Of The Bond Bull Market, One Year Later In July of last year, BCA put its flag in the ground and declared the end of the 35-year global bond bull market.1 This was not a view that a new fixed income bear market was about to immediately unfold. Rather, we concluded that all the bond-bullish factors of the past few decades - aging populations, anemic productivity growth, structurally declining global inflation rates - were more than fully reflected in the level of bond yields seen after the shocking result of the U.K. Brexit referendum. Even in the most pessimistic of future scenarios for the global economy, a 10-year U.S. Treasury yield at 1.37% or a 10-year German Bund yield at -0.18% (the intraday lows seen immediately after the Brexit vote) discounted an awful lot of bad news. Chart of the WeekA Less Market-Friendly##BR##Backdrop On The Horizon? We believed that central bankers would likely respond to the uncertainties created by the growing wave of political populism evidenced by Brexit (and, later, Trump) by keeping monetary settings as loose as possible for as long as possible. Overly accommodative policy would provide a reflationary tailwind to global growth - especially if governments also looked to placate voter uprisings with looser fiscal policy. Coming at a time when many of the powerful structural factors that have acted to suppress bond yields in recent decades were starting to lose potency, the risks were tilted toward a cyclical rise in yields that could turn into something longer lasting. Roll the tape forward one year, and some parts of our prediction have already come to fruition. The major developed economy central banks have generally leaned on the dovish side. Policy rates have been kept well below "equilibrium" - in some cases, below zero. Only the U.S. Federal Reserve has been able to raise interest rates a handful of times, and even then while still maintaining a bloated balance sheet left over from the QE era. More importantly, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) have continued with asset purchase programs that have added a combined $3.5 trillion in monetary liquidity over the past two years. That massive dose of money printing has helped keep global bond yields low while supporting a coordinated economic recovery that has underwritten equity and credit bull markets worldwide (Chart of the Week). The structural aspects of our long-term call on global bonds are less evident in the current economic data, but we are even more convinced that the tide is turning. This week, we are including a pair of additional Special Reports, recently authored by BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, and Mark McClellan, Chief Strategist for our flagship publication, The Bank Credit Analyst. Mark discusses how many of the secular drivers of the current low level of global bond yields - aging populations; excess global savings, especially from China; the absorption of low-cost labor from the emerging world; globalization of world trade and supply chains - are waning or may even be reaching an inflection point. Peter takes an even more provocative stand in his report, laying out a case for why the current backdrop of low global productivity growth will eventually lead to higher real interest rates and faster inflation. In this Weekly Report, we tackle the more immediate issue of the shifting outlook for central bank policies and what it implies for the current state of low market volatilities. The growth rate of the "G-3" aggregate balance sheet has already peaked which, combined with early warning signs on future growth signaled by measures like our diffusion index of global leading economic indicators, suggests that a turning point in the current low volatility, pro-risk backdrop may start to unfold in the months ahead - but not before government bond yields move higher on the back of rebounding inflation and central bank tightening actions. Are Central Banks To Blame For Low Volatility? Perhaps the hottest topic among investors at the moment is what to make of the exceptionally low levels of market volatility. The so-called "fear gauge" - the U.S. VIX index - fell into single digits last month to the lowest level since 1993. This is not the only measure of market volatility that is probing historic lows, however. In Chart 2, we show the range of realized total return volatilities for major global asset classes dating back to 1999. The current volatilities all sit very close to the low end of the historical range, from bonds to equities to currencies to commodities. Part of this can simply be chalked up to the broad-based acceleration of global growth seen over the past year, which has supported stable earnings-driven equity bull markets. Chart 2It's Not Just The VIX ... All Market Volatilities Are Historically Low The slow response of central banks to this upturn is an even bigger factor, helping keep bond volatility depressed. Low rates of realized inflation, and restrained levels of expected inflation, have allowed policymakers to maintain accommodative monetary policies and not engineer slower growth to cool overheating economies. Corporate profits have enjoyed a cyclical boost as a result, to the benefit of equities and corporate credit. For the VIX index, which is based on option-implied volatilities for the S&P 500, the current low level is consistent with a more stable environment for economic growth and corporate profits. The standard deviations of the growth rates of U.S. real GDP and reported S&P earnings have fallen to the lowest levels seen since 1990 (Chart 3). Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that the realized volatility of the S&P 500 is also depressed (bottom panel). The previous dovish biases of central bankers have also played a role in helping keep volatility low. Interest rates been kept at low levels relative to policymakers' own estimates of "neutral". Asset purchase programs in Europe and Japan have acted as a signaling mechanism to markets to delay expectations of future interest rate increases, helping suppress bond yield levels and bond price volatility. This has acted to boost risk-seeking behavior among investors seeking adequate investment returns given rock-bottom risk-free interest rates. In the U.S., policymakers still have strong memories of the mid-2000s period where predictable monetary policy, even during a tightening cycle, led to an extended period of low market volatility and encouraged risk-taking behavior fueled by excessive leverage. A greater focus on "financial stability" issues has likely played a hand in the timing of the Fed's rate hikes earlier this year, given that growth and inflation data were not rapidly accelerating (especially prior to the June rate hike). In other words, the Fed was seeing soaring equity prices, tightening credit spreads and a weaker U.S. dollar as an easing of financial conditions that could set the stage for more rapid economic growth, and more "frothy" investor behavior, down the road. The Fed can take some comfort in the fact that some signs of speculative excesses in the U.S. corporate bond market are not at levels seen during the credit boom of the prior decade. Our preferred measure of corporate balance sheet leverage, debt less cash relative to the EBITD measure of earnings, is rising but remains below prior peaks despite the current lower level of corporate borrowing rates (Chart 4). Inflows into corporates from foreign buyers are far below the levels seen in the mid-2000s, while domestic retail buying of corporate bond funds is within historic norms (middle panel). Some signs of excess are appearing, however, with the share of leveraged loan issuance taken up by so-called "covenant-lite" deals offering reduced protection for lenders soaring to a record high earlier this year (bottom panel). Chart 3A Low VIX Reflects More Stable Growth & Earnings Chart 4Not At 2000s Credit Bubble Levels...Yet The Fed will never explicitly say that monetary policy is being tightened to cool off booming financial markets. However, numerous Fed officials have mentioned signs of stretched market valuations in their public speeches in recent months. This suggests that there is growing concern about leaving monetary policy too accommodative for too long and potentially fueling future asset bubbles. We remain of the view that faster growth and rebounding inflation will prompt the next wave of Fed rate hikes over the next year - which is not currently discounted in financial markets, leading us to maintain a below-benchmark recommended duration stance in the U.S. Yet the very easy level of financial conditions will also play a role in the Fed's next move. In many ways, the current backdrop is similar to 2014. Realized U.S. inflation was falling rapidly then, but financial conditions were easing and leading economic indicators were rising, even as the Fed was tapering its QE purchases to zero (Chart 5). At the beginning of the Fed's tapering process in the spring of 2014, there was barely one 25bp rate hike priced into the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. As the Fed began to taper its bond buying, even while inflation was falling, investors got the hint that the Fed was serious about becoming less accommodative and began to price in more future rate hikes (bottom panel). Chart 52014 Revisited? Chart 6The ECB Will Taper Next Year We see a similar dynamic playing out in Europe in the coming months as the markets begin to more seriously price in a slower pace of ECB bond purchases in 2018, which the central bank is likely to formally announce next month (Chart 6). In Japan, the BoJ has already been buying bonds at a slower pace this year after shifting to a bond yield target from a quantitative purchase target last September (Chart 7). Combined with the additional Fed hikes that are likely to come, in addition to the Fed beginning to "normalize" the size of its swollen balance sheet (Chart 8), the central bank liquidity backdrop is about to become much less friendly for financial markets. Chart 7The BoJ Has Already Tapered Chart 8Let The Fed Runoff Begin We have seen the lows in market volatility for this business cycle. This will become a bigger issue for risk assets after monetary policy becomes even less accommodative and economic data begins to slow in response, likely sometime in the first half of 2018. Until then, the current healthy pace of global growth will put more upward pressure on bond yields than downward pressure on equity or credit market valuations over the rest of the year. Bottom Line: The current low volatility backdrop is a function of solid global economic growth with accommodative (and predictable) central banks. The growth momentum is likely to persist for at least the next 3-6 months, but the monetary policy backdrop will continue to shift in a less dovish direction. Stay below-benchmark overall portfolio duration and favor corporate credit over government bonds over the rest of 2017. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Third Quarter 2016 Strategy Outlook, "The End Of The 35-Year Global Bond Bull Market", dated July 8th 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Structural Bond Backdrop: The secular global bond market outlook is slowly deteriorating on the margin. The structural forces that have driven down bond yields over the past few decades are in the process of stabilizing or even slowly reversing. With central banks moving away from "emergency" stimulative monetary policies that were designed to fight imminent deflation risks that are no longer needed, the path of least resistance for global bond yields is up. Central Bank Liquidity & Volatility: The current low volatility backdrop is a function of solid global economic growth and accommodative (and predictable) central banks. The growth momentum is likely to persist for at least the next 3-6 months, but monetary policies will continue to shift in a less dovish direction. Stay below-benchmark overall portfolio duration and favor corporate credit over government bonds for the rest of 2017. Feature The End Of The Bond Bull Market, One Year Later In July of last year, BCA put its flag in the ground and declared the end of the 35-year global bond bull market.1 This was not a view that a new fixed income bear market was about to immediately unfold. Rather, we concluded that all the bond-bullish factors of the past few decades - aging populations, anemic productivity growth, structurally declining global inflation rates - were more than fully reflected in the level of bond yields seen after the shocking result of the U.K. Brexit referendum. Even in the most pessimistic of future scenarios for the global economy, a 10-year U.S. Treasury yield at 1.37% or a 10-year German Bund yield at -0.18% (the intraday lows seen immediately after the Brexit vote) discounted an awful lot of bad news. Chart of the WeekA Less Market-Friendly##BR##Backdrop On The Horizon? We believed that central bankers would likely respond to the uncertainties created by the growing wave of political populism evidenced by Brexit (and, later, Trump) by keeping monetary settings as loose as possible for as long as possible. Overly accommodative policy would provide a reflationary tailwind to global growth - especially if governments also looked to placate voter uprisings with looser fiscal policy. Coming at a time when many of the powerful structural factors that have acted to suppress bond yields in recent decades were starting to lose potency, the risks were tilted toward a cyclical rise in yields that could turn into something longer lasting. Roll the tape forward one year, and some parts of our prediction have already come to fruition. The major developed economy central banks have generally leaned on the dovish side. Policy rates have been kept well below "equilibrium" - in some cases, below zero. Only the U.S. Federal Reserve has been able to raise interest rates a handful of times, and even then while still maintaining a bloated balance sheet left over from the QE era. More importantly, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) have continued with asset purchase programs that have added a combined $3.5 trillion in monetary liquidity over the past two years. That massive dose of money printing has helped keep global bond yields low while supporting a coordinated economic recovery that has underwritten equity and credit bull markets worldwide (Chart of the Week). The structural aspects of our long-term call on global bonds are less evident in the current economic data, but we are even more convinced that the tide is turning. This week, we are including a pair of additional Special Reports, recently authored by BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, and Mark McClellan, Chief Strategist for our flagship publication, The Bank Credit Analyst. Mark discusses how many of the secular drivers of the current low level of global bond yields - aging populations; excess global savings, especially from China; the absorption of low-cost labor from the emerging world; globalization of world trade and supply chains - are waning or may even be reaching an inflection point. Peter takes an even more provocative stand in his report, laying out a case for why the current backdrop of low global productivity growth will eventually lead to higher real interest rates and faster inflation. In this Weekly Report, we tackle the more immediate issue of the shifting outlook for central bank policies and what it implies for the current state of low market volatilities. The growth rate of the "G-3" aggregate balance sheet has already peaked which, combined with early warning signs on future growth signaled by measures like our diffusion index of global leading economic indicators, suggests that a turning point in the current low volatility, pro-risk backdrop may start to unfold in the months ahead - but not before government bond yields move higher on the back of rebounding inflation and central bank tightening actions. Are Central Banks To Blame For Low Volatility? Perhaps the hottest topic among investors at the moment is what to make of the exceptionally low levels of market volatility. The so-called "fear gauge" - the U.S. VIX index - fell into single digits last month to the lowest level since 1993. This is not the only measure of market volatility that is probing historic lows, however. In Chart 2, we show the range of realized total return volatilities for major global asset classes dating back to 1999. The current volatilities all sit very close to the low end of the historical range, from bonds to equities to currencies to commodities. Part of this can simply be chalked up to the broad-based acceleration of global growth seen over the past year, which has supported stable earnings-driven equity bull markets. Chart 2It's Not Just The VIX ... All Market Volatilities Are Historically Low The slow response of central banks to this upturn is an even bigger factor, helping keep bond volatility depressed. Low rates of realized inflation, and restrained levels of expected inflation, have allowed policymakers to maintain accommodative monetary policies and not engineer slower growth to cool overheating economies. Corporate profits have enjoyed a cyclical boost as a result, to the benefit of equities and corporate credit. For the VIX index, which is based on option-implied volatilities for the S&P 500, the current low level is consistent with a more stable environment for economic growth and corporate profits. The standard deviations of the growth rates of U.S. real GDP and reported S&P earnings have fallen to the lowest levels seen since 1990 (Chart 3). Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that the realized volatility of the S&P 500 is also depressed (bottom panel). The previous dovish biases of central bankers have also played a role in helping keep volatility low. Interest rates been kept at low levels relative to policymakers' own estimates of "neutral". Asset purchase programs in Europe and Japan have acted as a signaling mechanism to markets to delay expectations of future interest rate increases, helping suppress bond yield levels and bond price volatility. This has acted to boost risk-seeking behavior among investors seeking adequate investment returns given rock-bottom risk-free interest rates. In the U.S., policymakers still have strong memories of the mid-2000s period where predictable monetary policy, even during a tightening cycle, led to an extended period of low market volatility and encouraged risk-taking behavior fueled by excessive leverage. A greater focus on "financial stability" issues has likely played a hand in the timing of the Fed's rate hikes earlier this year, given that growth and inflation data were not rapidly accelerating (especially prior to the June rate hike). In other words, the Fed was seeing soaring equity prices, tightening credit spreads and a weaker U.S. dollar as an easing of financial conditions that could set the stage for more rapid economic growth, and more "frothy" investor behavior, down the road. The Fed can take some comfort in the fact that some signs of speculative excesses in the U.S. corporate bond market are not at levels seen during the credit boom of the prior decade. Our preferred measure of corporate balance sheet leverage, debt less cash relative to the EBITD measure of earnings, is rising but remains below prior peaks despite the current lower level of corporate borrowing rates (Chart 4). Inflows into corporates from foreign buyers are far below the levels seen in the mid-2000s, while domestic retail buying of corporate bond funds is within historic norms (middle panel). Some signs of excess are appearing, however, with the share of leveraged loan issuance taken up by so-called "covenant-lite" deals offering reduced protection for lenders soaring to a record high earlier this year (bottom panel). Chart 3A Low VIX Reflects More Stable Growth & Earnings Chart 4Not At 2000s Credit Bubble Levels...Yet The Fed will never explicitly say that monetary policy is being tightened to cool off booming financial markets. However, numerous Fed officials have mentioned signs of stretched market valuations in their public speeches in recent months. This suggests that there is growing concern about leaving monetary policy too accommodative for too long and potentially fueling future asset bubbles. We remain of the view that faster growth and rebounding inflation will prompt the next wave of Fed rate hikes over the next year - which is not currently discounted in financial markets, leading us to maintain a below-benchmark recommended duration stance in the U.S. Yet the very easy level of financial conditions will also play a role in the Fed's next move. In many ways, the current backdrop is similar to 2014. Realized U.S. inflation was falling rapidly then, but financial conditions were easing and leading economic indicators were rising, even as the Fed was tapering its QE purchases to zero (Chart 5). At the beginning of the Fed's tapering process in the spring of 2014, there was barely one 25bp rate hike priced into the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. As the Fed began to taper its bond buying, even while inflation was falling, investors got the hint that the Fed was serious about becoming less accommodative and began to price in more future rate hikes (bottom panel). Chart 52014 Revisited? Chart 6The ECB Will Taper Next Year We see a similar dynamic playing out in Europe in the coming months as the markets begin to more seriously price in a slower pace of ECB bond purchases in 2018, which the central bank is likely to formally announce next month (Chart 6). In Japan, the BoJ has already been buying bonds at a slower pace this year after shifting to a bond yield target from a quantitative purchase target last September (Chart 7). Combined with the additional Fed hikes that are likely to come, in addition to the Fed beginning to "normalize" the size of its swollen balance sheet (Chart 8), the central bank liquidity backdrop is about to become much less friendly for financial markets. Chart 7The BoJ Has Already Tapered Chart 8Let The Fed Runoff Begin We have seen the lows in market volatility for this business cycle. This will become a bigger issue for risk assets after monetary policy becomes even less accommodative and economic data begins to slow in response, likely sometime in the first half of 2018. Until then, the current healthy pace of global growth will put more upward pressure on bond yields than downward pressure on equity or credit market valuations over the rest of the year. Bottom Line: The current low volatility backdrop is a function of solid global economic growth with accommodative (and predictable) central banks. The growth momentum is likely to persist for at least the next 3-6 months, but the monetary policy backdrop will continue to shift in a less dovish direction. Stay below-benchmark overall portfolio duration and favor corporate credit over government bonds over the rest of 2017. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Third Quarter 2016 Strategy Outlook, "The End Of The 35-Year Global Bond Bull Market", dated July 8th 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Factors are falling into place for an earnings-led underperformance phase in health care stocks. Trim to a below benchmark allocation and execute this downgrade via reducing the heavyweight S&P pharmaceuticals index to a below benchmark allocation. The bearish S&P telecom services narrative is more than discounted in ultra-depressed relative valuations on cyclically quashed profit estimates. Lift to neutral. Recent Changes S&P Health Care - Downgrade to underweight. S&P Pharmaceuticals - Trim to underweight. S&P Telecom Services - Lift to neutral, lock in gains of 12%. Table 1 Feature Equities stayed well bid last week, trading near all-time highs. Broad-based earnings exuberance buttressed stock prices, trumping political uncertainty. The Fed stood pat and signaled a likely September commencement to a balance sheet wind down. Our fixed income strategists do not expect another hike until the December meeting; a less hawkish Fed augments the goldilocks equities backdrop. Three weeks ago1 we posited that earnings will take center stage and serve as a catalyst to sustain the blow off phase in the S&P 500. A mini profit margin expansion phase is taking root as the most cyclical parts of the SPX are flexing their operating leverage muscle. As long as revenues continue to grow, profit margins and profits will expand, especially given muted wage pressures. The lagged effect from a softening U.S. dollar will also likely underpin EPS in the back half of the year. We are surprised that mentions of the greenback are virtually absent from Q2 conference calls; the domestic market appears front of mind for investors and management teams alike. Globally, the dominant market theme is synchronized global growth paving the way to a coordinated G10 Central Bank tightening cycle. In other words, there is a handoff from liquidity to growth. Charts 1 & 2 highlight this fertile equity backdrop: First BCA's Synchronicity Indicator is as good as it gets. In fact in the G20, only Indonesia and South Africa have a manufacturing PMI below the boom/bust line. Second, our global EPS diffusion index is also at an extreme (diffusion index shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 1). In our sample of 44 EM and DM countries, none have declining year-over-year EPS. Third, global export expectations are recovering smartly, suggesting that global trade is on a solid footing and on track to vault to fresh cyclical highs (bottom panel Chart 2). Chart 1Synchronized Global Growth... Chart 2...Is Bullish For Equities While the IMF recently downplayed the U.S.'s importance as a force in global GDP growth contribution, the resurgent ISM new orders-to-inventories ratio signals that U.S. output will recover in the back half of 2017 (second panel, Chart 2). Importantly, not only are cyclical U.S. businesses vibrant but also the most cyclical corner of U.S. PCE is roaring. As consumers are feeling more flush, they tend to spend more on recreational goods and vice versa. According to the BEA, recreational goods & vehicles outlays are expanding at the fastest clip since 2005, near 10% and 15% per annum in nominal and real terms, respectively. Since 1960, this nominal series has been an excellent predictor of the business cycle. Such discretionary outlays have also been moving in tandem with overall nominal PCE growth, easily surpassing it during expansions, and significantly trailing it in times of distress (Chart 3). Currently, recreational goods spending underscores that overall PCE will likely rebound in the coming quarters. Chart 3The U.S. Consumer Is Alright Resurgent global (including U.S.) growth is unambiguously bullish for U.S. equities. This week we are taking down our overall defensive sector exposure another notch by making an intra-defensive sector switch. Health Care: In The ER The health care reform circus is ongoing in Washington, and such uncertainty will likely cast a shadow on health care stocks and reverse recent euphoria. Year-to-date health care stocks have bested the broad market by over 7%, and have retraced roughly 1/3 of the relative losses from the mid-2016 peak to the end-2016 trough. Technicals are extended, with the six month momentum stalling near the upper band of the past eight year range, and breadth is as good as it gets: 70% of health care sub-groups trade above their 40-week moving average (Chart 4). We are using this opportunity to lighten up exposure on this defensive sector and downgrade to a below benchmark allocation. Drug inflation is the biggest risk for the sector. Relative pricing power contracted for the first time in seven years (top panel, Chart 5), warning that the health care top line contraction phase is far from over. This stands in marked contrast to the broad corporate sector that is growing revenues at a healthy clip. Chart 4Sell Into Strength Chart 5Selling Price Pressures Blues While investors appear content to look through this recent weakness as transitory, our sense is that robust pricing power gains of the past are history. Chart 6 shows that since 1982 drug prices have risen fivefold. In fact, since 2011 they have gone parabolic outpacing overall wholesale price inflation by 50%. Importantly, health care sector profits have skyrocketed alongside drug inflation (bottom panel, Chart 6). Such a breakneck pace is unsustainable, especially given recent intense drug price hike scrutiny. Granted, health care spending in the U.S. comprises over 17% of overall consumer outlays, the highest in the world, but it has also likely plateaued (not shown). Real health care spending is decelerating in absolute terms, and contracting compared with overall PCE. This suggests that selling price blues are demand driven and will likely continue to weigh on health care profits (second & third panels, Chart 7). Chart 6Unsustainable Pace Chart 7Even Demand Is Easing Worrisomely, there is no positive offset from international markets. The U.S. dollar has depreciated since the mid-December peak, but health care export growth is hovering around the zero line (bottom panel, Chart 7). News is also grim on the domestic operating front. Not only are selling prices softening, but also our health care sector wage bill is on fire, pushing multi-year highs. Taken together, operating margins will continue to compress, sustaining the recent down drift (Chart 8). Our newly introduced S&P health care sector profit model does an excellent job in capturing all of these forces. Currently, our relative EPS model suggests that the relative profit contraction phase will last into 2018 (Chart 9). Chart 8Margin Trouble Chart 9Heed The Model's Message Factors are falling into place for an earnings led underperformance phase in health care stocks. Downgrade to a below benchmark allocation. We are executing the health care sector downgrade via the heavyweight S&P pharmaceuticals index. Trim Pharma To Underweight Pharma stock profits have moved in lockstep with consumer spending on pharmaceuticals since the mid-1970s, and both have roughly doubled over the past decade (top panel, Chart 10). However, relative pharma consumer outlays have crested recently, causing a significant pharma profit underperformance (bottom panel, Chart 10). Is it also notable that relative spending on pharma soars in times of recession, highlighting the non-discretionary aspect of health care spending. If our cautious drug pricing power thesis pans out as we portrayed above, then pharma earnings will suffer and exert downward pressure on relative share prices (Chart 11). Similarly, BCA's view remains that recession is a 2019 story, thus a knee jerk spike in relative pharma spending and relative EPS is unlikely on a cyclical horizon. Chart 10Cresting Chart 11Soft Prices Are Bearish We doubt capital will chase this long duration group with a stable cash flow profile, especially in a synchronized global growth world. The missing ingredient is consumer price inflation, but the depreciating U.S. dollar suggests that the recent disinflationary backdrop will prove transitory. The NFIB survey of small business planned price hikes is still flirting with cyclical highs (shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 12). That helps explain the positive correlation between the greenback and relative pharma profit estimates. Synchronized global growth is giving way to a coordinated tightening Central Bank (CB) backdrop with G10 CBs taking cover now that the Fed has paved the way. As a result, the U.S. dollar may continue to grind lower, to the benefit of cyclical sectors but detriment of defensives such as pharmaceutical stocks (bottom panel, Chart 12). Worrisomely, the export relief valve has not provided any significant offsets, despite the currency's year-to-date losses (top panel, Chart 12). Taking a closer look at domestic operating conditions is revealing. Not only are relative outlays steadily sinking but pharmaceutical production is contracting. True, whittled down inventories partially explain the letdown in industry output, but contrast the climbing pharma labor footprint. The implication is that declining productivity will continue to weigh on relative valuations (Chart 13). Finally, industry balance sheet deterioration represents another warning signal. Net debt/EBITDA is skyrocketing at a time when the broad non-financial corporate (NFC) sector has been in balance sheet rebuilding mode (middle panel, Chart 14). Similarly, the pharma interest coverage ratio continues to slide, moving in the opposite direction of the NFC sector (bottom panel, Chart 14). While neither of these metrics suggest that pharma stocks are in deep financial trouble, the deterioration in finances is undeniable, and, at the margin, a rising interest rate backdrop will likely slow down debt issuance for equity retirement and dividend payout purposes. Chart 12No Export Relief Chart 13Waning Productivity Chart 14Modest B/S Deterioration Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P health care index to underweight. Trim the S&P pharmaceuticals index to underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P pharmaceuticals index are: BLBG: S5PHAR - JNJ, PFE, MRK, BMY, AGN, LLY, ZTS, MYL, PRGO. Book Profits And Upgrade Telecom Services To Neutral Investors have shunned telecom services stocks vehemently year-to-date (YTD) on the back of an abysmal profit showing. Telecom services stocks are down 9%, while the S&P is up 10% YTD. In fact, in Q1 telecom services stocks were the sole sector to register negative year-over-year EPS growth on trough Q1/2016 earnings comparisons. In Q2, it remains at the bottom of the GICS1 sector EPS growth table, trailing the SPX by 500bps. We have been fortunate enough to be underweight this niche sector since late January, adding alpha to our portfolio. Nevertheless, we do not want to overstay our welcome and are booking profits of 12% and lifting the S&P telecom services sector to the neutral column. Relative valuations just breached the one standard deviation below the mean mark according to our Valuation Indicator (VI), signaling that indiscriminate selling is overdone and nearly exhausted. Historically, such a depressed VI reading has led to a playable reversal. Importantly, the relative forward P/E multiple has fallen below the lows hit in the aftermath of the TMT bubble and is clocking all-time lows. Tack on washed out technicals probing a collapse close to two standard deviations below the long-term average and a reflex rebound is likely in the short-term (Chart 15). Extreme bearishness reigns in the sell-side community. Five year forward profit estimates plumbed all-time lows at a 10% decline rate versus the broad market (Chart 16). Surely the bearish story is baked into such glum readings. Chart 15Washed Out Chart 16Too Much Pessimism Meanwhile, our Cyclical Macro Indicator has arrested its fall giving us comfort that at least a lateral move in relative share prices is likely in coming months (second panel, Chart 15). The steep recalibration of cost structures to the new pricing reality is buttressing our CMI, offsetting the sector's plummeting share of the consumer's wallet (Chart 17). Encouragingly, selling prices cannot contract at 10% per annum indefinitely, and on a three month-rate of change basis, pricing power has staged a V-shaped recovery (Chart 18). Anecdotally, Verizon's first full quarter post the new pricing plans was solid and suggests that the peak deflationary impulse is likely behind the industry. Chart 17Freefalling Chart 18There Is A Ray Of Light Impressive labor cost discipline along with even a modest pricing power rebound signal that a grinding higher margin backdrop is likely in the coming months, in line with our margin proxy reading. This will also stabilize relative profitability (top and bottom panels, Chart 18). While this sector trades as a fixed income proxy and the recent sell off in the bond market has weighed on relative performance, yield hungry and value investors will start bottom fishing in these stable cash flow, high dividend yielding stocks. However, we refrain from becoming overly bullish. Pricing power is still contracting and the cable industry's veering into wireless phone plan offerings has yet to play out. A more constructive sector view would require the following two developments: a trough in our sales model on the back of firming pricing power and a leveling off in relative consumer outlays signaling that demand for telecom services is on the mend. In sum, the bearish S&P telecom services narrative is more than discounted in ultra-depressed relative valuations on cyclically quashed profit estimates. Green shoots on the industry's pricing power front and impressive management focus on cost structures argue against being bearish this niche sector. Bottom Line: Lock in gains of 12% in the S&P telecom services sector and lift exposure to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: T, VZ, LVLT, CTL. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "SPX 3,000?" dated July 10, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Highlights Easier financial conditions will lift U.S. growth in the second half of this year. However, given the Fed's dovish predisposition, aggressive tightening measures are unlikely until next year, when inflation will begin to accelerate. We see little downside for the dollar over the coming months, but think the next major leg of the structural dollar bull market will only come in 2018, as the Fed begrudgingly comes to terms with the fact that it has been behind the curve in raising rates. Even then, the Fed's efforts to tighten monetary policy will not be enough to prevent a secular rebound in inflation from taking root. Structural factors, ranging from population aging to chronically weak productivity growth, will further fuel inflation in the U.S. and around the world. Political populism - historically, an inflationary force - will come roaring back, while globalization, a deflationary force, will remain in retreat. Remain overweight global equities for now, but look to raise cash next summer. A structurally underweight position in government bonds is appropriate. Feature The Fed Stands Pat As expected, the Fed kept rates on hold this week and signaled its intention to start shrinking its balance sheet later this year. The FOMC upgraded its assessment of the state of the labor market to "solid," but sounded a note of caution on the recent weak inflation readings. It was the latter point that caught investors' attention. The dollar promptly sold off. We went long the DXY index in October 2014. We maintained our bullish dollar view going into the U.S. presidential elections, controversially arguing in September 2016 that "Trump will win and the dollar will rally."1 While our long dollar trade is still comfortably in the black, the dollar's recent swoon does imply that we stayed at the party longer than was warranted. Chart 1Investors Dismiss Future Inflation Risk What went wrong this year? The failure of the Trump administration to make progress on tax reform in recent months has hurt the dollar. So has the decline in core inflation. Core PCE inflation registered 1.4% in May, down from a high of 1.8% in January. As a result, the market is now pricing in only 26 basis points of rate hikes over the next 12 months and just a 45% chance that the Fed will raise rates by December. Hawkish comments from the ECB, the Bank of Canada, and several other central banks have added fuel to the dollar selloff. Shifts in speculative positioning haven't helped either. Investors were extremely bullish the dollar going into 2017 while bearish the euro. Today, euro longs are at record highs, while sentiment towards the dollar is in the pits. Looking out, sentiment towards the dollar should normalize, while U.S. growth should surprise to the upside over the next few quarters. U.S. financial conditions have eased sharply this year thanks to the decline in bond yields, narrower credit spreads, higher equity prices, and of course, a weaker dollar. Historically, easier financial conditions have boosted growth with a lag of 6-to-9 months. In contrast, euro area growth may be close to plateauing, as already foreshadowed this week by the decline in the PMI for July. All this should be enough to put a floor under the dollar over the remainder of the year. However, at this point, it looks increasingly likely that the next (and last) leg of the dollar bull market will have to wait until inflation begins to accelerate. This may not happen until 2018, suggesting that the dollar could trade in a range until then. We are maintaining our view that EUR/USD will eventually reach parity, but now see this as most likely to happen in the second half of next year. Many investors are skeptical that inflation will rise even if the unemployment rate continues to trend downwards. They argue that the relationship between economic slack and inflation - epitomized by the so-called Phillips curve - has completely broken down. We disagree with this assessment. As we argue below, not only is inflation likely to accelerate next year, but a number of powerful structural factors will propel inflation higher over a longer-term horizon. In fact, the 2020s could turn out to look a lot like the 1970s. Current market-based inflation expectations do not reflect this risk at all (Chart 1). Cyclical Forces Will Boost Inflation Spare capacity has declined significantly in most economies since 2009 (Chart 2). By many measures, the U.S. is now close to full employment (Table 1). Historically, diminished slack has corresponded with higher inflation (Chart 3). Chart 2Output Gaps Have Narrowed Table 1Comparing Current Labor Market Slack With Past Cycles Chart 3Diminished Slack Has Corresponded With Higher Inflation The fact that decreased spare capacity has not yet translated into higher inflation is not especially surprising. Inflation is a severely lagging indicator. As we noted last week, inflation typically does not peak until well after a recession has begun and does not bottom until well after it has ended (Chart 4).2 Trying to infer the true level of economic slack from today's inflation rate is like trying to read the speedometer of an automobile when there is a 30-second delay between what the dial says and when you step on the accelerator. Chart 4Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator Moreover, the relationship between slack and inflation tends to be highly non-linear. When there is a lot of spare capacity, reducing it modestly tends not to have much of an effect on inflation. However, when there is little or no slack, even a small reduction in spare capacity can lead to a big jump in inflation. The 1960s provide an extreme example of what can happen (Chart 5). The unemployment rate steadily declined between 1960 and 1966. Yet, core inflation remained remarkably stable during this period, consistently hovering between 1.5% and 2%. In early 1966, the unemployment rate finally broke below 4%. Within the span of 12 months, core inflation jumped from 1.5% to 3.7%. Such a rapid burst in inflation is unlikely in the near term. Inflation expectations are better anchored and unions have less power today than in the 1960s. Moreover, unlike then, some of the excess in aggregate demand can be absorbed through a larger trade deficit rather than through higher prices for goods and services. Nevertheless, as slack elsewhere in the world comes down, global inflation will rise. Our "pipeline inflation" indices, comprised of such variables as core PPI inflation and unit labor costs, are already pointing in that direction (Chart 6). The cyclical pressure on inflation will only intensify if crude prices grind higher, as our energy strategists expect they will. Chart 5Inflation In The 1960s Took Off Once ##br##The Unemployment Rate Fell Below 4% Chart 6Pickup In Global Pipeline Measures Of Inflation Structural Trends Are Becoming More Inflationary Meanwhile, several structural forces will slowly lift inflation over a longer-term horizon of five-to-fifteen years. Weaker productivity growth is one of them (Chart 7). We have argued in the past that much of the decline in global productivity growth reflects structural factors.3 As a matter of arithmetic, gross domestic output (GDP) must equal gross domestic income (GDI). If productivity growth stays weak, slow income growth could end up depressing savings by more than it depresses investment. This could push up equilibrium real interest rates. Unless central banks respond by raising policy rates, inflation will rise. The retirement of millions of highly paid baby boomers could also lead to labor shortages and lower aggregate savings. Chart 8 shows the estimated consumption and income profile for a typical U.S. individual over a lifetime. Notice that consumption tends to peak very late in life due to rising health care expenditures. Chart 7Productivity Growth Has Fallen, ##br##Particularly In Developed Economies Chart 8Spending And Saving Over The Lifecycle Using existing demographic projections, we can compute the impact that population aging is likely to have on savings. The effect is substantial. In the U.S., aging will reduce the household saving rate by about four percentage points between now and 2030. In Germany, the saving rate will sink by six points, while in China it will decline by five points. This will reduce the massive current account surpluses in these two countries, which have been major contributors to the global savings glut and the corresponding low level of real interest rates. The Japan Experience Japan's household saving rate will also continue to fall, having already declined from 14% in the late 1980s to 2% today. Amazingly, the decline in Japan's saving rate over the past few decades has occurred even though a larger share of the population is employed today than in 1980 (Chart 9). Rising female participation accounts for this. However, now that Japan's female employment rate has surpassed America's and Europe's, this demographic tailwind will dissipate (Chart 10). As a result, Japan's labor force will begin to shrink in earnest, while spending on health care and pensions will keep rising. What will be left is a large government debt burden. Chart 9Japan: Saving Rate Has Fallen Despite Rising Employment/Population Chart 10Japan: Female Employment-To-Population ##br##Has Surpassed The U.S. And Euro Area Whether debt is inflationary or deflationary depends both on economic and political considerations. On the one hand, a high degree of indebtedness may restrain spending throughout the economy. That is deflationary. On the other hand, high debt levels may provide an incentive for governments to crank up inflation in order to reduce the real value of outstanding debt obligations. Historically at least, the latter factor has often won out. One can debate whether Japan would have welcomed higher inflation even if it had the means to generate it. There are good arguments for both sides of the issue. But, in practice, the Bank of Japan's ability to create inflation was cut off very early into its first lost decade. This is because falling property prices and pervasive corporate deleveraging pushed the neutral nominal interest rate deep into negative territory. This meant that even an interest rate of zero was not enough to boost inflation. Now that property prices appear to be bottoming, corporate balance sheets are in reasonably good shape, and the prospect of significant labor shortages looms on the horizon, Japan may finally be able to gain some traction over monetary policy. Such an outcome would come as a complete surprise to most investors. The Benefits Of Higher Inflation Japan's struggles illustrate the pitfalls of excessively low inflation. Had Japanese inflation been higher in the early 1990s, the Bank of Japan might have been able to bring real rates far enough into negative territory without ever encountering the zero-bound constraint on nominal rates. This may have prevented a vicious circle where falling inflation put upward pressure on real rates, leading to weaker growth and even lower inflation. Fast forward to the present and what was once regarded as a uniquely Japanese problem is now seen as a concern in many countries. It is not surprising, therefore, that a growing chorus of economists is advocating that central banks aim for a higher inflation target than the standard 2%. The logic is straightforward: If inflation is 4% and a deep economic downturn requires that central bankers temporarily bring real rates down to -3%, this can be achieved by cutting nominal rates to 1%. In contrast, if inflation is 2%, it may be difficult to cut nominal rates to -1% since people could choose to hold cash over a negative-yielding asset. Another lesson that central bankers have learned from both the Great Recession and the recession that followed the dotcom boom is that burst asset bubbles can cause significant harm to economies. Here again, a bit more inflation can provide a safety valve of sorts. If the trend rate of inflation had been higher going into the housing bust, nominal home prices would have fallen less for any given change in real prices. This implies that fewer mortgages would have gone underwater. A higher underlying inflation rate would have also made it more difficult for lenders to offer zero-interest mortgages since their funding costs in real terms would have been greater. This would have imposed more discipline on lenders and borrowers alike. Then there is the labor market. The reluctance of workers to accept nominal wage cuts makes it difficult for real wages to adjust downwards in the face of adverse economic shocks when underlying inflation is very low. If inflation is higher, that problem diminishes. This point is especially relevant for the euro area, where labor markets are quite inflexible to begin with and many countries do not have the ability to respond to adverse shocks with either countercyclical fiscal policy or currency depreciation. Inflation As A Political Choice It is sometimes said that low inflation or even outright deflation is the natural state of affairs in capitalist economies. This is arguably true under monetary regimes such as the gold standard, but it is not true in a world of fiat money. Inflation took off in the late sixties because policymakers who grew up during the 1930s were more concerned about propping up aggregate demand than keeping a lid on prices. In contrast, the generation that reached adulthood in the 1970s was more worried about runaway inflation. It is this latter group that has run the world's central banks for the better part of the past few decades. As they step aside, they will be replaced by a younger cohort whose formative years were shaped by the financial crisis and the deflation shock that followed. Things have come full circle again. A recent NBER paper documented that age plays a major role in determining whether central bankers turn out to be dovish or hawkish.4 Those who witnessed stagflation in the 1970s as adults are much more likely to express a hawkish bias than those who were still in diapers back then. The implication is the future generation of central bankers is likely to see the world through a more dovish lens than its predecessors. Globalization In Retreat, Populism Ascendant Globalization has been a strong deflationary force through history. That force is now waning, as evidenced by the stagnation in global trade (Chart 11). In contrast, political populism - historically, a highly inflationary force - is on the rise. Much of the slowdown in globalization can be attributed to structural factors. Tariff rates fell steadily in the second half of the 20th century, helping to boost global trade in the process (Chart 12). Now that most goods cross borders duty free, further efforts at trade liberalization will be subject to diminishing returns. The same goes for outsourcing. In fact, growing evidence suggests that many firms have outsourced too much, leaving them with an unwieldy maze of suppliers around the world. Chart 11Globalization Has Stalled Chart 12Global Trade Was Boosted By Falling Tariffs ##br## In The Second Half Of The 20th Century Likewise, the integration of Eastern Europe and China into the capitalist economy brought a billion additional workers into the global labor force, giving globalization a huge boost (Chart 13). Nothing similar awaits over the horizon. Chart 13The Transition To Capitalism Enlarged The Global Labor Force Politics represents another headwind to globalization. Trade among rich countries tends to have smaller distributional consequences than trade between rich and poor countries. As emerging markets have become larger players in the global trading system, the impact on less-skilled workers in developed countries has grown. People in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania voted for Trumpism, not Trump. The problem is that Trump does not understand this, as his cyberbullying of Attorney General Jeff Sessions this week demonstrates. If Trump deserts his base, his base will find someone more to their liking. Either way, populism will prevail. For their part, the Democrats are also honing their populist message. Their "Better Deal" agenda harkens back to the populist roots of FDR's New Deal. It promises to "raise the wages and incomes of American workers," "crack down on unfair foreign trade and fight back against corporations that outsource American jobs," and root out "monopolies and the concentration of economic power," while also making sure that "Wall Street never endangers Main Street again."5 Bernie Sanders may have lost the Democratic nomination, but he won the soul of the Democratic party. European populists have been on the back foot over the past year, having suffered defeats in the Dutch, Austrian, and French elections. Yet, it would be a mistake to count them out. Populists do best when times are tough. European growth is strong these days and unemployment is falling. When the next recession rolls around, populist parties will gain favor. This will especially be the case if the migrant crisis re-escalates, as seems likely. Investment Conclusions Getting inflation up to 2% - let alone something higher - has seemed like "mission impossible" for most of the past eight years because of elevated levels of economic slack. However, as this slack is absorbed, boosting inflation will become easier. Central banks only need to raise rates by less than standard Taylor rules imply. As we discussed last week, the Fed, the Bank of Canada, the Swedish Riksbank, and the central banks of Australia and New Zealand are all somewhat behind the curve in raising rates.6 As inflation in these economies picks up next year, they will be forced to raise rates more aggressively than what the markets are currently discounting, causing bond yields to rise and their currencies to strengthen. This could sow the seeds of a slowdown or even a recession in 2019. The recession is unlikely to be especially severe since financial and economic imbalances are not as pronounced today as they were a decade ago. Yet, the policy reaction will be disproportionately large: Interest rates will be cut and talk of additional asset purchases will begin to swirl. Inflation will come down, but not all the way back to current levels. Likewise, bond yields will fall, but nowhere close to the secular lows recorded in mid-2016. As in previous inflationary episodes, the path for nominal bond yields over the next 15 years will be marked by higher highs and higher lows. Fixed-income investors should pare back duration and increase exposure to inflation-indexed securities. Gold will become a valuable hedge once the dollar peaks next year. Equities will suffer in a stagflationary environment. We remain cyclically overweight global stocks for now, as reflected in our asset allocation recommendations (Appendix 1). However, we will be looking to reduce exposure significantly next summer. Peter Berezin, Global Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Are Central Banks Behind The Curve Or Ahead Of It?" dated July 21, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?" dated May 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Ulrike Malmendier, Stefan Nagel, and Zhen Yan, "The Making Of Hawks And Doves: Inflation Experiences On The FOMC," NBER Working Paper No. 23228 (March 2017). 5 Chuck Schumer, "A Better Deal for American Workers," The New York Times, July 24, 2017, and "A Better Deal," available at http://www.democraticleader.gov. 6 Please see footnote 2. Appendix 1 Tactical Global Asset Allocation Monthly Update To complement our analysis, we use a variety of time-tested models to assess the global investment outlook. At present, these models generally favor global equities over bonds over a three-month horizon (Appendix Table 1). Our business cycle equity indicators remain firmly in bullish territory, as reflected in strong global growth and rising corporate earnings. The monetary and financial indicators are also flashing green. In contrast, our sentiment readings are sending mixed signals. Low implied equity volatility points to a heightened risk of complacency, while continued investor skepticism towards the rally (especially among retail investors) suggests that stocks have further to run. As has been the case for some time, our valuation measures are saying stocks are expensive, but these are typically useful only for horizons beyond one or two years. Calendar effects are also negative at the moment due to the tendency of stocks to underperform during the summer months. Regionally, we see more upside in more cyclically-exposed, higher-beta equity markets such as those in Europe and Japan. Canada also looks attractive based on our cyclically positive outlook for crude prices. Emerging market equities are fairly valued, although China still appears cheap based on our measures. Within the fixed-income arena, U.S. Treasurys remain overvalued based on the cyclical outlook, as do, to a lesser extent, most European bonds. Japanese bonds are the default winners simply because JGB yields are likely to remain flat on account of the BoJ's interventions. Appendix Table 1BCA's Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations* Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights EUR/USD is likely to correct over the course of the coming weeks, however, the picture remains too murky to be aggressive. The dollar move since 2015 is still in line with previous sideways consolidations. Economic developments suggest that the USD is more likely to break out than breakdown over the next 12 months. Inflation will hold the keys to the next big trend. The RBA is hampered by a high degree of labor underutilization, and the roll-over in the Chinese Keqiang index bodes poorly for the AUD. Feature The euro's recent strength has been nothing short of stunning. Abandoning our "dollar correction" stance at the end of May was clearly a mistake.1 Now that EUR/USD has punched back above its 2015 high, it is time to reflect whether this year's dollar decline was indeed a correction or whether the euro's bear market is over, in which case EUR/USD could move back above its PPP fair value of 1.33. A Dollar Move Chart I-1The Dollar Is Weak Against Everything The rally in EUR/USD has been more than just a period of euro strength: it has been reflective of a broad-based decline in the USD. As Chart I-1 illustrates, the plunge in the dollar's advance/decline line indicates the greenback has been weak against pretty much everything out there. While the White House's failures and its lack of action on the fiscal stimulus front have played a role in explaining the dollar's weakness, the Federal Reserve's absence of credibility among market participants has been an even greater factor. Weak U.S. inflation, with core CPI at 1.7% and core PCE at 1.4%, implies that the Fed is not achieving its 2% inflation target. Thus, the probability of another rate hike in December has now fallen below 50%, and the OIS curve only anticipates one interest rate hike per year for the next two years. We can add color by looking at specific contracts. At the end of 2016, the December 2019 Eurodollar futures sported a nearly 2.6% implied rate. Today, the same contract trades below 2%. This seems too complacent. For one, U.S. financial conditions have massively eased in response to the collapse in the dollar and the rally in risk assets. This suggests U.S. growth should perk up toward 3% for the remainder of 2017 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Financial Conditions Will Support Growth Moreover, this is not happening in a vacuum. The official U.S. output gap is more or less closed, and our Composite Capacity Utilization Gauge - which incorporates both the traditional capacity utilization measure along with the unemployment gap - has now moved decisively into "no slack" territory. Under such circumstances, accelerating growth is likely to put heightened pressures on existing resources, raising the risk of a resumption in inflation. Also, in and of itself, this indicator has historically displayed long leads on inflation. Based on this measure, inflation should bottom during the third quarter of 2017 (Chart I-3). With the narrative that inflation is low forever well-entrenched in the market, an inflation surprise in the fall is a growing threat that would prompt a violent repricing of the Fed's path toward something closer to the "dots." This would support a rebound in the DXY. Would this rebound be playable? Our bias is to say yes. The U.S. labor market is still much tighter than the rest of the G10. The U.S. unemployment remains 2.7 percentage points below its 10-year moving average, versus 0.3 percentage points for the rest of the G10 (Chart I-4). Hence, U.S. rates have more upside relative to other advanced economies. This suggests that peak monetary divergences have yet to be seen. Moreover, from a technical perspective, it is far from clear that the dollar bull market is over. While the dollar A/D line has swooned, it has yet to break down - a pattern reminiscent of the second half of the 1990s, when the dollar bull market also experienced a long pause before powering ahead again (Chart I-5). Chart I-3The Trough In Inflation Is Coming Chart I-4The U.S.: In A Tighter Spot Chart I-5Too Early To Tell If The Greenback Is Dead Bottom Line: The euro's strength has been a reflection of generalized weakness in the USD. So far, the USD's weakness in 2017 continues to look and smell like a correction, similar to the action in the late 1990s. However, we cannot be dogmatic: the USD will remain under the thralls of inflationary dynamics in the U.S. The easing in U.S. financial conditions, along with the elevated level of resource utilization, suggests U.S. inflation will pick up this fall, which should prompt a repricing of the Fed's path by investors. The Euro Specifics When it comes to that specifics of the euro, the economic fundamentals are in favor of the dollar right now. First, it is undeniable the euro area inflation has been surprising to the upside relative to that of the U.S. However, this is principally a reflection of the lagging stimulative impact of the 25% collapse in the euro from April 2014 to March 2015. Its 12% appreciation since then points to a reversal of this dynamic (Chart I-6). Second, aggregate relative financial conditions (FCI) tell a similar story. The tightening in euro area FCI relative to the U.S. also points to a slowdown in relative growth in favor of the U.S. Most crucially though, this tightening in relative FCI also portends a change in relative inflation dynamics. As Chart I-7 illustrates, the change in relative FCI has been a reliable leading indicator of comparative inflation dynamics. At this juncture, it argues that inflation in Europe should slow down relative to the U.S. Chart I-6Inflation Surprises Will Move##br## From Europe To The U.S. Chart I-7FCIs Point To A Reversal ##br##Of Inflation Fortunes This makes sense. The U.S. has had trouble generating much inflation despite the U6 unemployment rate standing at 8.5% - a level at which wages and inflation accelerated in previous cycles. Meanwhile, the euro area's labor underutilization remains very high, especially outside Germany. This suggests that euro area inflation could be vulnerable to the tightening in financial conditions that has materialized in the wake of the euro's rally. In other words, the euro's strength is doing the ECB's job while the dollar's weakness is undoing some of the Fed's tightening. Third, the trading action around the release of the German Ifo survey this past Tuesday was very interesting. The Ifo came in at 116, another record reading and substantially above market expectations, yet the euro fell on the news until it was rescued by the Fed. What is fascinating is that, while the German Ifo is near record highs, the Belgian Business Confidence (BCC) survey has begun to sag (Chart I-8). Because Belgium is a logistical center deeply intertwined within European supply chains, the BCC has been an even better leading indicator of European growth trends than the Ifo. The current extreme gap between the Ifo and the BCC confirms that Europe owes a lot of its current health to Germany's boom - and indicates that the rest of the euro area is already suffering blowbacks from the euro's rally. Fourth, euro area equities have eradicated all of their gains for the year relative to U.S. equities. This is happening exactly as the euro area economic surprise index has rolled over against its U.S. counterpart (Chart I-9). This corroborates the economic risks created by the tightening of FCI in Europe versus the U.S. Fifth, the EUR/USD is trading at its greatest premium to our preferred intermediate-term fair value measure since December 2009 (Chart I-10). This measures incorporate real rate differentials at both the short end and long end of the curve, global risk aversion, and commodity prices, suggesting that the EUR/USD has dissociated from most reasonable guides.2 Chart I-8European Growth Is About Germany Chart I-9Stocks Are Sending A Dark Omen For The Euro Chart I-10Euro And Fair Value Bottom Line: European financial conditions have tightened considerably, especially relative to the U.S. This suggests European inflation will once again lag that of the U.S. Moreover, the pain of tighter FCIs is rearing its head: European stocks are once again underperforming the U.S., and the relative economic surprise index has markedly rolled over. We are thus experiencing a euro overshoot. Timing Chart I-1Skewed Positioning In EUR/USD These fundamental considerations do point to a weaker EUR/USD, but they provide little guidance in terms of timing the end of the euro bull run. Most metrics we follow are in fact pointing to trouble ahead. As we highlighted, euro longs are at all-time highs, while euro shorts have been massively purged. This suggests that chasing any further gains in the euro could be a high-risk proposition (Chart I-11). Additionally, the euro's fractal dimension is fully indicative of massive groupthink, and warns that both short-term and long-term investors are both positioned on the long side of the trade (Chart I-12). While the paucity of willing sellers in the market has been a key ingredient bidding up the euro, this also makes the currency vulnerable to a buying exhaustion phase as potential future buyers are already in the market, and will not be there to support it in the coming months. However, because of this very scarcity of sellers, only a few new buyers are necessary to bid up the euro further. Therefore, with the euro having broken above its 2015 high, a rally toward 1.2 could materialize in the blink of an eye. Because of this risk, we have been shorting the euro through the EUR/SEK, EUR/CAD, and EUR/NOK pairs, a strategy that has paid off. This week, for traders with greater liquidity needs, we recommend a tactical speculative short EUR/USD bet, with a tight stop at 1.182 and a target 1.12. Chart I-12Groupthink In Action Bottom Line: The euro is displaying signs of massive groupthink on the long side. Moreover, speculators are excessively long. Our preferred strategy is still to play a euro correction on its crosses, where the risk reward ratio seems more attractive. However, we are opening a tactical short EUR/USD bet this week with a tight stop. The Almighty AUD In a Special Report published four weeks ago, we positioned Australia in the middle of the pack within G10 central banks in terms of hiking sequence.3 Essentially, while Australia does not suffer from as much slack as the euro area and Switzerland, and from as much uncertainty as the U.K., or as severely entrenched inflation expectations as Japan, it still suffers from much more labor underutilization than Canada, Sweden, or New Zealand. As Chart I-13 illustrates, labor underutilization in Australia is still hovering near 20-year highs, underpinning low wage growth and policy rates. This weakness in wages is likely to continue to weigh on core inflation (Chart I-14). Chart I-13The Root Cause Of The RBA's Dovishness Chart I-14Wages Continue To Weigh On Core CPI Furthermore, while being deeply embedded in the Asian business cycle has helped Australia avoid a recession since 1991, this also means that Australian inflation has been greatly influenced by regional dynamics. Thus, based on recent trends, Aussie headline inflation could endure another down leg, especially as the AUD has rallied 16% since January 2016 (Chart I-15). This means that on all fronts, Australian inflationary pressures will remain muted. The recent speech by Governor Philip Lowe focusing on the flatness of the Australian Philips curve highlights that all these concerns are at the forefront of the Reserve Bank of Australia's mind. As a result, we continue to expect Australian interest rates to lag those in the U.S. As Chart I-16 illustrates, when the unemployment gap - as measured by the difference between unemployment and its 10-year moving average - is greater in Australia than in the U.S., the RBA lags the Fed. This also highlights that the AUD is at risk of a sharp correction once the broad USD rally resumes, especially as its recent strength is completely out of line with policy differentials. Chart I-15The Asian Inflation Anchor Chart I-16The Labour Market Points To A Weaker AUD Beyond the USD's own weakness, the rebound in the Chinese economy has been the main reason behind the Australian dollar's rally - despite the continued dovish bias of the RBA. Australian exports expressed in U.S. dollar terms have surged in response to the Chinese mini boom in late 2016/early 2017 (Chart I-17). However, this positive for the Australian economy and Australian profits is dissipating: the Chinese Keqiang index has rolled over, and Beijing is likely to continue to limit speculative excesses in Chinese real estate - a key source of demand for Australian exports. Chart I-17China's Boost Is Dissipating Moreover, the Australian dollar is trading 10% above its PPP, has moved out of line with interest rate differentials, and investors are massively long this currency; yet Australia still sports a negative international investment position of 60% of GDP. This combination makes the Aussie's strength untenable. When EM stocks break, a view espoused by our Emerging Market Strategy sister service, the AUD should prove the greatest victim within the G10 FX space. Bottom Line: Inflationary pressures in the Australian economy remain muted as labor underutilization remains plentiful. As a result, the RBA is likely to keep a dovish tone at least until the end of the year. The rebound in Chinese activity has been the key factor that has supported the AUD this year. However, the recent rollover in China's Keqiang index indicates this pillar of support to growth and profits is vanishing. The AUD will prove the greatest victim of any EM weakness or risk-off event. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Haaris Aziz, Research Assistant haarisa@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Bloody Potomac", dated May 19, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report titled, "In Search Of A Timing Model", dated July 22, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy and Global Alpha Sector Strategy Special Report titled, "Who Hikes Next?", dated June 30, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. Dollar U.S. data was somewhat mixed recently: Continuing and initial jobless claims both came in higher than expected; New home sales also increased at a lesser-than-anticipated pace, with home prices also fairing worse than investors hoped for; However, durable goods increased by very solid 6.5%; Building permits and housing starts, however, are also growing robustly. The DXY has hit a crucial point. It has given up all of its gains since 2015 and even from mid-2016. The greenback has previously fared well at this level, and a buying opportunity should emerge when U.S. inflation picks up as positioning is skewed against the dollar. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Look Ahead, Not Back - June 9, 2017 Capacity Explosion = Inflation Implosion - June 2, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Data in core Europe is still firm, although it is becoming increasingly mixed: Headline inflation is staying at the consensus figure of 1.3% and core inflation came in higher than expected at 1.2%; PPI is increasing at a 2.4% pace annually; The IFO survey was robust, with the current assessment, business climate and expectations all beating expectations; However, ZEW survey was weaker than expected; PMIs were also weaker across the board. The recent strength in the euro was also compounded by weakness in the U.S. The euro has failed to appreciate nearly as much against commodity currencies due to higher global growth. Given its much lofty momentum, we are reluctant to bet on more euro upside. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Japanese trade balance worsened as exports and imports grew at 9.7% and 15.5% respectively; However, the all-industry activity index declined by 0.9% in May; The Leading Economic Indicator increased by only 0.4 to 104.6; The Coincident Index, however, declined to 115.8 from 117.1; USD/JPY has been declining recently due to softer U.S. data and lower bond yields. However, we remain yen bears as the absence of inflation remains the key challenge facing the Japanese economy. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Data out of the U.K. was mixed: Real retail sales expanded at a 2.9% annual pace, with the 'ex-Fuel' measure expanding at 3%; PPI managed to increase by 2.9%; However, CPI came in at 2.6%, falling short of the 2.9% expected. GBP/USD has managed to appreciate close to 10% since the beginning of the year, while depreciating around 5% against EUR in the same time period. We still believe the pound has more short-term downside against the euro, and longer-term downside against the greenback. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction - April 21, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The economic data flow in Australia saw a somewhat softer patch this week: RBA trimmed-mean CPI increased at a 1.8% pace, in line with consensus but below the previous data point; Headline CPI, however, increased by 1.9%, which was less than expected; Both the export price index and the import price index contracted 5.7% and 0.1% quarterly. Weaker data from the U.S. is helping the AUD sustain its gains, however, external pressures from China are proving to be even more paramount to the Aussie's strength. Domestically, however, the Australian economy remained challenged by persistent underemployment. We therefore believe the RBA is unlikely to follow the Bank of Canada in 2017. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Data out of New Zealand has been mixed: Visitor Arrivals increased at a 17.3% annual pace; The trade balance improved slightly, and both exports and imports also increased; The Global Dairy Trade price index increased by 0.2%; However, CPI came in at 1.7%, disappointing consensus by 0.2%, and falling short of the previous 2.2% figure. While the NZD has strengthened against the USD, it has lagged the euro and the rest of the commodity currency complex. WHile the RBNZ is better placed than the RBA to increase rates, it will continue to lag the BoC and the Fed this year. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The Canadian economy continues to exhibit signs of strength: Wholesale sales increased at a 0.9% monthly pace in May; Manufacturing shipments increased at a 1.1% monthly pace; Foreign portfolio investment in Canadian securities also increased to USD 29.46 bn; The CAD has experienced an unbelievable couple of months, appreciating more than 9% in the process. Weak U.S. data, a hawkish BoC, and somewhat stronger oil, have all added to the CAD's gains. We believe that the BoC will stay hawkish and Saudi Arabia will remain adamant in reducing oil inventories to their 5-year average by the end of the year. While these factors will limit the CAD downside this year, it is now vulnerable to a short-term pullback. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Swiss data has been mixed: Trade balance disappointed at 2,813 mn; UBS Consumption Indicator improved to 1.38 from 1.32; However, the ZEW Survey's Expectations increased to 34.7 from 20.7. EUR/CHF has appreciated more than 2% this past week, while USD/CHF has also been strong. This weakness is welcomed by the SNB, but more softness is needed before durable inflation trend can emerge in the Alpine Confederation. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Norway's recent labor force survey showed that the unemployment rate fell to 4.3%, better than the consensus 4.5%. Along with rebounding oil prices, this has been a key source of support for the NOK. BCA Energy Strategists continue to believe that oil inventories will be reduced to their 5-year average by the end of the year, which should warrant a healthy degree of downside for EUR/NOK. Against the dollar, the picture will become less positive once U.S. inflation picks up again. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 This week's data in Sweden has been somewhat weak: PPI increased at a 4.8% annual pace, less than the previous 7.2%; Consumer confidence decreased to 102.2, below the expected 103.1, and less than the previous 102.6; Unemployment rate increased to 7.4% from 7.2; However, the trade balance increased by 4.2 bn from the previous month. These explain the recent softness in the krona in recent days, however, we doubt that this represents the end of the period of weakness in EUR/SEK. The SEK's appreciation has been the result of an aggregate strengthening in Swedish data, especially on the inflation front, which has prompted a hawkish switch in the Riksbank's rhetoric. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Earlier this year, we posited that excess operating leverage coming out of a mini-manufacturing-recession could deliver near-term earnings surprises.1 We further noted that historically S&P 500 operating leverage added $1.40 of earnings for every incremental $1.00 of revenues. With roughly half of the S&P 500 having reported their Q2 earnings, operating leverage is delivering nearly $2.00 for every $1.00 of revenue growth. Nearly 80% of the index has beat earnings forecasts and operating margins are at their highest level of the last decade. Our expectation is that the S&P 500 will continue to grind higher, but it is a thesis that hinges on continued earnings growth. Current 12-month forward estimates suggest broadly similar margin levels which, on the back of ongoing top line increases, imply solid EPS growth throughout the forecast horizon. While we acknowledge that this margin level and torrid pace of EPS increases is not sustainable, what we have seen so far this quarter suggests the profit expansion cycle is still rolling and will likely run out of steam sometime in late 2018. Accordingly, the overshoot phase in equities should continue for a while longer. 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Operating Leverage To The Rescue?" dated April 17, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

The performance of European stocks relative to the U.S. has been dismal in the post-Lehman period. However, the Eurozone economy is performing impressively, profit growth is accelerating and margins are rising. This points to a period of outperformance for Eurozone stocks, at least in local currency terms. Standard valuation measures based on index data suggest that Eurozone stocks are cheap to the U.S. Nonetheless, the European market almost always trades at a discount, due to persistent lackluster profit performance. In Part II of our series on valuation, we approach the issue from a bottom-up perspective, utilizing the powerful analytics provided by BCA's exciting new Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform. The ETS software allows us to compare U.S. and European companies on a head-to-head basis and rank them based on a wide range of characteristics. The bottom-up approach avoids the problems of index construction. Investors can be confident that they will make money on a 12-month horizon by taking a position when the new bottom-up indicator reaches +/-1 standard deviations over- or under-valued, although technical information should be taken on board to sharpen the timing. The +/-2 sigma level gives clear buy/sell signals irrespective of fundamental or technical factors. Valuation alone does not justify overweight Eurozone positions at the moment, although we like the market for other reasons. The bottom-up valuation indicator will not replace our top-down version that is based on index data, but rather will be considered together when evaluating relative value. Total returns in the European equity market have bounced relative to the U.S. since 2016 in both local-currency and common currency terms (Chart II-1). However, this has offset only a tiny fraction of the dismal underperformance since 2007. In local currencies, the relative EMU/U.S. total return index is still close to its lowest level since the late 1970s. Compared with the pre-Lehman peak, the U.S. total return index is more than 96% higher according to Datastream data, while the Eurozone total return index is only now getting back to the previous high-water mark when expressed in U.S. dollars (Chart II-2). Chart II-1EMU Stocks Lag Massively... Chart II-2...Due To Depressed Earnings The yawning return gap between the two equity markets was almost entirely due to earnings as market multiples have moved largely in sync. Earnings-per-share (EPS) generated by U.S. companies now exceed the pre-Lehman peak by about 19%. In contrast, earnings produced by their Eurozone peers are a whopping 48% below their peak (common currency). This reflects both a slower recovery in sales-per-share growth and lower profit margins. Operating margins in Europe have been on the upswing for a year, but are still depressed by pre-Lehman standards. Margin outperformance in the U.S. is not a sector weighting story; in only 2 of 10 sectors do European operating margins exceed the U.S. The return-on-equity data tell a similar story. Nonetheless, a turning point may be at hand. Chart II-3Europe Trades At A Discount The Eurozone economy has been performing well, especially on a per-capita basis, and forward-looking indicators suggest that growth will remain above-trend for at least the next few quarters. U.S. profit margins have also been (temporarily) rising, but the Eurozone economy has more room to grow because there is still slack in the labor market. There is also more room for margins to rise in the Eurozone corporate sector than is the case in the U.S., where the profit cycle is further advanced. Traditional measures of value based on the MSCI indexes suggest that European stocks are on the cheap side. But are they really that cheap? Based on index data, Eurozone stocks trade at a hefty discount across most of the main valuation measures (Chart II-3). This is the case even for normalized measures such as price-to-book (P/B). However, Eurozone stocks have almost always traded at a discount. There are many possible explanations as to why there is a persistent valuation gap between these two markets, including differences in accounting standards, discount rates and sector weights. The wider use of stock buybacks in the U.S. also favors American stock valuations relative to Europe. But most important are historical differences in underlying corporate fundamentals. U.S. companies on the whole were significantly more profitable even before the Great Financial Crisis (Chart II-3). U.S. companies also tend to have lower leverage and higher interest coverage. Better profitability metrics in the U.S. are not solely an artifact of sector weighting either. RoE and operating margins are lower in Europe even applying U.S. sector weights to the European market.1 Why corporate Europe has been a perennial profit under-achiever is beyond the scope of this paper. U.S. companies reaped most of the benefit from productivity gains over the past 25 years, with the result that the capital share of income soared while the labor share collapsed. European companies were less successful in squeezing down labor costs. Measuring Value In the first part of our two-part Special Report on valuation, published in July 2016, we took a top-down approach to determine whether Eurozone stocks are cheap versus the U.S. after adjusting for different sector weights and persistent differences in the underlying profit fundamentals. A regression approach that factored in various profitability measures performed reasonably well, but the top-down "mechanical" approach that relied on a 5-year moving average provided the most profitable buy/sell signals historically. We approach the issue from a bottom-up perspective in Part II of our series, utilizing the powerful analytics provided by BCA's exciting new Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform. The software allows us to compare U.S. and European companies on a head-to-head basis and rank them based on a wide range of characteristics. The bottom-up approach avoids the problems of index construction when trying to gauge valuation across countries. The web-based platform uses over 24 quantitative factors to rank approximately 10,000 individual stocks in 23 countries, allowing clients to find stocks with winning characteristics at the global level. Users can rank and score individual equities to support a broad set of investment strategies and apply macro and sector views to single-name investments. The ETS approach has an impressive track record. Historically, the top-decile of stocks ranked using the "BCA Score" methodology have outperformed stocks in the bottom decile by over 25% a year.2 The BCA Score includes all 24 factors when ranking stocks, but we are interested in developing a valuation metric that provides valued added on its own and is at least as good as the top-down index-based measure developed in Part I. The five valuation measures in the ETS database are trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-book, price-to-sales and price-to-cash flow. We combine all of the Eurozone and U.S. companies that have total assets of greater than $1 billion into one dataset. The ETS platform then ranks the stocks from best to worst on a daily basis (i.e. cheapest to most expensive), using an equally-weighted average of the five valuation measures. The average score for U.S. stocks is subtracted from the average score for European stocks, and then divided by the standard deviation of the series. This provides a valuation metric that fluctuates roughly between +/- 2 standard deviations. Chart II-4 presents the resulting bottom-up indicator, along with our previously-published top-down valuation measure. A high reading indicates that European stocks are cheap to the U.S., while it is the opposite for low readings. Chart II-4Eurozone Equity Relative Valuation Indicators The underlying bottom-up data extend back to 2000. However, the bursting of the tech bubble in the early 2000's causes major shifts in relative valuation among sectors and between the U.S. and Eurozone that skew the indicator when constructed using the entire data set. We obtain a cleaner indicator when using only the data from 2005. As with any valuation indicator, it is only useful when it reaches extremes. We calculated the historical track record for a trading rule that is based on critical levels of over- and under-valuation. For example, we calculated the (local currency) excess returns over 3, 6, 12 and 24-month horizon generated by (1) overweighting European stocks when that market was one and two standard deviations cheap versus the U.S. market, and (2) overweighting the U.S. when the European market was one and two standard deviations expensive (Table II-1). Table II-1Value Indicator: Trading Rule Returns And Batting Average The trading rule returns were best when the indicator reached two standard deviations cheap or expensive, providing average returns of almost 11 percent over 12 months. The trading rule returns when the indicator reached +/-1 standard deviation were not as good, but still more than 3% on 12- and 24-month horizons. Table II-1 also presents the trading rule's batting average. That is, the number of positive excess returns generated by the trading rule as a percent of the total number of signals. The batting average ranged from 50% on a 3-month horizon to 68% over 24 months when buy/sell signals are triggered at +/- 1 standard deviation. The batting average is much higher (80-100%) using +/- 2 standard deviations as a trigger point, although there were only five months over the entire sample when the indicator reached this level. The charts and tables in the Appendix present the results of the same analysis at the sector level. The results are equally as good as the aggregate valuation indicator, with a couple of exceptions. European stocks are cheap to the U.S. in the Energy, Financials, and Utilities sectors, while U.S. stocks offer better value in Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples, Health Care, Industrials and Technology. Materials, Real Estate, and Telecommunications are close to equally valued. Sharpening The Buy/Sell Signals We then augmented the valuation analysis by adding information on company fundamentals, such as EPS growth and profit margins among others. The ETS software ranked the companies after equally-weighting the valuation and fundamental factors. However, this approach yielded poor results in terms of the trading rule. This is because, for example, when European stocks reach undervalued levels relative to the U.S., it is usually because the European earnings fundamentals have underperformed those of the U.S. companies. Thus, favorable value is offset by poor fundamentals, muddying the message provided by valuation alone. In contrast, adding some information from the technical factors in the ETS model does add value, at least when using +/-1 standard deviations as the trigger point for trades (Chart II-5). Excess returns to the trading rule rise significantly when the medium-term momentum and long-term mean reversion factors are included in the valuation indicator (Table II-2). The batting average also improves. Chart II-5Indicators: Value And Value With Technical Information Table II-2Value And Technical Indicator: Trading Rule Returns And Batting Average Adding technical information does not improve the trading rule performance when +/-2 sigma is used as the trigger point. Investment Conclusions Our new ETS platform provides investors with a unique way of picking stocks by combining top-down macro themes with company-specific information. It also allows us to develop valuation tools that avoid some of the pitfalls of index data by comparing stocks on a head-to-head basis. Historical analysis using a trading rule demonstrates that the new bottom-up valuation indicator provides real value to investors. We would normally evaluate its track record using stretching analysis, where we use only the historical information available at each point in time when determining relative value. However, the relatively short history of the available data precludes this test because we need at least a few cycles to best gauge the underlying volatility in the data. Still, investors can be fairly confident that they will make money on a 12-month horizon by taking a position when the bottom-up indicator reaches +/-1 sigma over- or under-valued, although technical information should be taken on board to sharpen the timing. The +/-2 sigma level gives clear buy/sell signals irrespective of the fundamental or technical factors. The bottom-up valuation indicator will not replace our top-down version that is based on index data, but rather will be considered together when evaluating relative value. At the moment, the top-down version proposes that European stocks are somewhat cheap to the U.S., while the bottom-up indicator points to slight overvaluation. Considering the two together suggests that valuation is close enough to fair value that investors cannot make the decision on value alone. Valuation indicators need to be near extremes to be informative. Our global equity strategists recommend overweighting Eurozone stocks versus the U.S. at the moment, although not because of valuation. Rather, the Eurozone economy and corporate earnings have more room to grow because of lingering labor market slack. This also means that the ECB can keep rates glued to the zero bound for at least the next 18 months while the Fed hikes, which will place upward pressure on the dollar and downward pressure on the euro. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Appendix: Trading Rule Returns By Sector Chart II-6, Chart II-7, Chart II-8, Chart II-9, Chart II-10, Chart II-11, Chart II-12, Chart II-13, Chart II-14, Chart II-15, Chart II-16. Chart II-6Consumer Discretionary Chart II-7Consumer Staples Chart II-8Energy Chart II-9Financials Chart II-10Health Care Chart II-11Industrials Chart II-12Materials Chart II-13Real Estate Chart II-14Utilities Chart II-15Technology Chart II-16Telecommunication 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Are Eurozone Stocks Really That Cheap?" July 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Introducing ETS: A Top Down Approach to Bottom-Up Stock Picking," December 2, 2015, available at ets.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights Return on Equity (ROE) has historically driven bank share performance, with the yield curve being the key driver for earnings growth. Since the 2008-2009 Global Financial Crisis (GFC), however, the recovery in ROE has been anemic, largely due to a sharp reduction in leverage. Now that the Trump administration has moved towards unwinding parts of Dodd-Frank, this could be the start of a deregulation trend for U.S. banks. Return on Assets (ROA), meanwhile, has recovered to close to pre-crisis levels. Profit margin has been the main driver behind the ROA recovery, as asset utilization has been in a downtrend since the 1980s. Profit margins in the U.S. have been making new highs, while they are rolling over in Japan, and improving from low levels in the euro area. Global economic growth together with policy normalization will support banks' profit-making ability and share outperformance in the next nine-to-twelve months. Maintain an overweight stance in global Financials, with particular favor toward European banks. Feature We recently upgraded Financials to overweight from neutral in our global equity portfolio on attractive valuations and improving profit prospects (see GAA Quarterly Portfolio Outlook, July 3, 2017). As the largest sector in the MSCI ACWI, Financials account for 19.5% of the MSCI global equity universe. It is, therefore, a key sector investors need to have a view on. Banks account for 56% of the global Financial sector market cap, and bank share performance has lagged the broader market by 10% since March 2009, when global equities hit their post-GFC bottom. In this report, we delve into the main drivers that have historically supported bank profits and share-price outperformance, with a view to confirming whether now is a good time to overweight. Return On Equity (ROE) Return on equity, the ratio of a bank's earnings to its book value, measures how much profit each dollar of common shareholders' equity generates. Based on Dupont analysis, ROE is linked to a bank's return on assets (ROA) together with leverage, while ROA is linked to profit margins and asset utilization.1 As such, ROE has been a very important target for banks - despite the fact that it does not take into consideration the riskiness of capital, and has therefore received various forms of criticism.2,3 History has shown that ROE has been correlated with bank share performance, especially on a relative-to-the-broad-market basis (Chart 1 and Chart 2). Chart 1Global Bank Share Performance Vs. ROE Chart 2Regional Bank Performance Vs. ROE Chart 1 also shows that global bank ROE has averaged about 11.3% since the fourth quarter of 1980, about 10 basis point higher than that of the overall market. In the two decades before the GFC, bank ROE was mostly higher than that of the broad market. Since the GFC, however, bank ROE has been in a very different regime after an initial sharp rebound. Over the past few years, global bank ROE has been in a range of 8-10%, way lower than the historical average. On a relative basis, bank ROE has rebounded faster than bank stock prices. On a regional basis, Chart 2 shows some very interesting divergences: Unlike banks in the U.S. and euro area, banks in Canada, Australia and emerging markets have consistently outperformed their respective broad markets since the GFC, supported by rising ROE spreads. Even in absolute terms, ROE in these countries/regions are at much higher levels, with a long-term average of 15% in Canada, 14% in Australia and 13.5% in emerging markets. This could be due to 1) a less competitive environment in these countries where a handful of large banks hold the majority of domestic banking assets; 2) less risky mortgage lending practices and a lower share of shadow banking;4 and 3) the dominance of banks in the local equity indices. In Japan, banks have consistently underperformed the broader market, despite relative improvement in ROE. This could be due to the low ROE nature of Japanese banks, with an average of only 5%. So, going forward, how will ROE evolve, and how differently will banks perform in various countries/regions? To determine this, we disaggregate ROE. Return On Assets (ROA) And Leverage ROE is the product of ROA and leverage,1 which is defined as total assets divided by common shareholders' equity. ROA and ROE have historically been closely correlated, though they have diverged in the past few years. (Chart 3, panel 1). ROA has recovered to above its historical average, while ROE has been gradually declining after its initial sharp post-GFC rebound - and is still currently below its historical average (top panel). The culprit behind the anemic ROE recovery is the leverage ratio (panel 2), which has gone through three distinctive phases: It declined from very high levels (over 25 times) in the early 1980s to a two decade-low of 18.5 times during the 2001 recession, which was largely the result of the Basel Accord for minimum capital requirements published in 1988 by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, and fully implemented in 1992. It then started to rise, and hit a high of 20.7 times just ahead of the GFC; since that time, however, it has plummeted to 14.3 times, a historical low since the 1980s, as Basel III came into effect in 2010. In the U.S., the current level of 9.7 times leverage ratio is the lowest in history, and also the lowest compared to other countries. Recently, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board announced the results of the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) of the nation's largest banks, with a 100% pass rate. This is of particular note as it is the largest test (34 financial institutions versus 14 in 2013) and the first perfect score in the CCAR's history, implying that the balance sheets of U.S. banks have been fully repaired. The top panel of Chart 4 shows that U.S. bank leverage has been in a downtrend since the 1980s. Any increase in the leverage ratio would translate into a higher ROE. Now that the Trump administration has moved towards unwinding parts of Dodd-Frank, this could be the start of a deregulation trend for U.S. banks after over 30 years of tough regulation. Chart 3Global Bank ROA, ROE And Leverage Chart 4Regional Dynamics Of Bank ROA And Leverage The euro area bank leverage ratio has oscillated lower over time, currently at 18.2 times, also the lowest in its own history but still in line with that of Japan, Canada and Australia - and a lot higher than the U.S. and emerging markets. With a low and rising ROA - currently at 0.2% - EMU banks' ROA should have further room to improve (Chart 4, panel 2) as the euro area economy continues to recover. On July 4, 2017, the European Commission approved Italy's plan to support a precautionary recapitalization of Italian bank Monte dei Paschi di Siena under EU rules, on the basis of an effective restructuring plan. This will help ensure the bank's long-term viability, while limiting competition distortions. We view this as a very positive development in the European banking sector. Profit Margin And Asset Utilization The recovery in ROA has been impressive, but how sustainable is it going forward? Let's look at the two components that jointly determine ROA: profit margin (defined as net profit divided by revenue) and asset utilization,1 which is defined as total revenue divided by total assets. The correlation between ROA and profit margin has been very close, even though profit margin made new highs after the GFC, while ROA is still lower than its pre-GFC peak. (Chart 5, panel 1). The cause lies in the asset utilization ratio, a ratio that measures how much assets are needed to generate $1 of revenue. As Chart 5 panel 2 shows, asset efficiency has been on a consistent downtrend since the 1980s. Should we be concerned about elevated profit margin levels among global banks? Where are they coming from? Chart 6 shows the regional dynamics of profit margin and asset utilization. Chart 5Net Profit Margin Vs. Asset Utilization Chart 6Regional Profit Margin Vs. Asset Utilization Profit margins have been strong across the board, with the U.S. and Canada making historical new highs and Japanese, Australian and emerging market banks' profit margins near their historical peaks. Only EMU banks' profit margins are slightly above their historical average. In absolute terms, EMU banks also have the lowest profit margins, currently standing at around 6%, versus banks in other regions which have profit margins in the mid-to-high teens. Canadian, Australian and EM banks have high profit margins, supporting their consistent outperformance relative to their respective broader markets. U.S. banks also have comparable profit margins, yet they have underperformed their broader market due to lower ROE (see Chart 2 panel 1 on page 2). How can ROE be lower while profit margins are at similar levels? Because ROE is a function of profit margins, asset utilization and leverage. The U.S. leverage ratio is much lower than those in Canada, Australia and emerging markets (Chart 4 on page 5). Japan is another interesting case where high profit margins have not led to superior share performance - because assets are least efficient in terms of generating revenue. Net Interest Margin, Yield Curve and Earnings Growth Banks obtain fees (such as commitment fees or trust fees) from a vast number of different types of transactions. Interest revenue is generated principally from loans but also from repos, investment securities (bonds), and other products. On the funding side, banks pay interest expenses on bank deposits, Federal Funds, other borrowed funds, and debt. As such, net interest margin (NIM), defined as net interest income divided by interest-bearing assets - is an important driver of a bank's net profit. Chart 7 shows the close relationship between EPS growth and net interest margins. Even though data on NIM globally from the World Bank come annually and with a long time lag, the U.S. data proves the point. Because NIM is a function of the yield curve, it makes sense that the yield curve should be a driving force for earnings growth. In fact, the intuitive relationship between EPS growth and the yield curve is empirically robust across the globe, as shown in Chart 8. BCA's profit models for the global Financial Sector incorporates yield curve, 10-year yield changes and credit impulse (defined as the change in loan growth), as well as earnings revisions. They have a reasonably good correlation with actual earnings growth, both trailing and forward, as shown in Chart 9. Chart 7Bank EPS Growth Vs. Net Interest Margin Chart 8Bank EPS Growth Vs. Yield Curve Chart 9Global Financial Earnings Growth The current readings from our profit growth models are in line with our assessment based on BCA's house view of better economic growth leading to better loan growth, higher interest rates and steeper yield curves. Investment Implications We upgraded global financials in our most recent Quarterly Portfolio Strategy published July 3, 2017 - based on our house view calling for better global growth, higher interest rates and steeper yield curves over the next nine to twelve months, together with attractive valuations and a favorable technical backdrop. This was financed by a reduction in our allocation to the Technology sector, the second-largest in the global universe (Chart 10). Chart 10Remain Overweight Global Financials Chart 11Favor Euro Area Banks Within the Financial sector, we suggest clients favor banks in the euro area, in agreement with the view of BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy dated May 5, 2017. European banks have lost 74% from their peak relative to the MSCI ACWI Index on a U.S. dollar basis (Chart 11, panel 1). Their recent outperformance should be just the start of a more sustainable uptrend because valuations are very attractive, with a 61% discount to the MSCI ACWI based on price to book (Chart 11 panel 4), and economic growth is gaining traction, with better employment prospects (Chart 11, panel 2) and in turn higher demand for loans. An improving loan-performance ratio (Chart 11, panel 3) combined with the prospect for higher interest rates bodes well for bank profits in the region, while profit margins have room to the upside (Chart 6 on page 6). Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com 1 ROE = Net Income (NI) /Common Shareholders' Equity (E) = NI/ Total Assets (TA) * TA/E = Return on Assets (ROA)* leverage; ROA = NI/Sales * Sales/TA = Net Profit Margin * Asset Utilization 2 "Beyond ROE - How to measure bank performance,"European Central Bank, September 2010. 3 "Why Banks Come Back To Return On Equity,"Financial Times, November 15, 2015. 4 Neville Arjani and Graydon Paulin, “Lessons from the Financial Crisis: Bank Performance and Regulatory Reform,” Discussion Paper, Bank Of Canada, 2013.

In what is becoming a familiar refrain, Amazon announced they were entering an established business and the existing competitors saw their share prices tumble. This time it was appliance retail and manufacturers with the deployment of Sears' Kenmore brand and the victims were HD and LOW. We think the stock price declines are an overreaction. First, appliances do not fit the Amazon mold; unit costs are relatively high and features often matter more than price. Second, appliances typically require installation which, in the case of Amazon, would likely be fulfilled by Sears; we think Sears is unlikely to displace HD or LOW and their well-earned installation reputations. Third, appliance sales were 8% and 11% of HD and LOW's 2016 sales, respectively; Kenmore's market share gains would need to be very significant to have a material impact. A more important metric when looking at home improvement retail is lumber prices. Higher prices tend to boost profit margins, given that retailers typically earn a fixed spread such that a high dollar value sold will boost profitability. With lumber pushing against the key $400/1000 board-feet level, we think investors should be treating the Amazon fall as an unexpectedly cheap entry point (middle and bottom panels). Stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOMI - HD, LOW.