Estados Unidos

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.

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Major central banks outside the U.S. have fired a warning shot across the bow of global bond markets by signaling that "emergency" levels of monetary accommodation are no longer required. Pipeline inflation pressures have yet to show up at the consumer price level outside of the U.K. Most central bankers argue that temporary factors are to blame, but longer-lasting forces could be at work. There are numerous examples of deflationary pressure driven by waves of innovation, cost cutting and changing business models. However, this is not confirmed in the productivity data. Productivity is dismally low and we do not believe it is due to mismeasurement. The Phillips curve is not dead. We expect that inflation will firm by enough to allow central banks to continue scaling back monetary stimulus. The real fed funds rate is not far from the neutral short-term rate, but it is still well below the Fed's estimate of the long-run neutral rate. Market expectations for the Fed are far too complacent; keep duration short. The failure to repeal Obamacare could actually increase the motivation of Republicans to move forward on tax cuts. Expansionary fiscal policy would make life more difficult for the FOMC, given that unemployment is on course to reach the lowest level since 2000. This would force the Fed to act more aggressively, possibly triggering a recession in 2019. The peak Fed/ECB policy divergence is not behind us, implying that recent dollar weakness will reverse. However, the next dollar upleg has been delayed. Fading market hopes for U.S. fiscal stimulus this year have not weighed on equities, in part because of a solid earnings backdrop. Global EPS growth continues to accelerate in line with the recovery in industrial production. In the U.S., results so far suggest that Q2 will see another quarter of margin expansion. Overall earnings growth should peak above our 20% target later this year. It will be tougher sledding in the equity market once profit growth peaks in the U.S. because of poor valuation. Expect to downgrade stocks in the first half of 2018. Corporate bonds are also benefiting from the robust profit backdrop. Balance sheet health continues to deteriorate, but the spark is missing for a sustained corporate bond spread widening. Feature Chart I-1Sell-Off In Global Bond Markets ##br##Triggered By Central Bank Talk Major central banks outside the U.S. fired a warning shot across the bow of global bond markets by signaling a recalibration of monetary policy at the ECB's Forum on Central Banking in late June (Chart I-1). The heads of the Bank of England (BoE), Bank of Canada (BoC) and Swedish Riksbank all took a less dovish tone, warning that the diminished threat of deflation has reduced the need for ultra-stimulative policies. The BoC quickly followed up in July with a rate hike and a warning of more to come. The central bank now expects the economy to reach full employment and hit the inflation target by mid-2018, much earlier than previously expected. The Riksbank also backed away from its easing bias at its most recent policy meeting. The ECB's shift in stance was evident even before its Forum meeting, when President Draghi gave a glowing description of the underlying strength of the Euro Area economy. The labor market is about two percentage points closer to full employment than the U.S. was just before the infamous 2013 Taper Tantrum.1 European core inflation is admittedly below target today, but so was the U.S. rate leading up to the 2013 Tantrum. We have not forgotten about Europe's structural problems or the inherent contradictions of the single currency. Banks are still laden with bad debt (although the recapitalization of Italian banks has gone well so far). Nonetheless, from a cyclical economic standpoint, solid momentum this year will allow Draghi to scale back the ECB's ultra-accommodative monetary stance by tapering its asset purchase program early in 2018. The message that "emergency" levels of monetary accommodation are no longer needed is confirmed by our Central Bank (CB) Monitors, which measure pressure on central bankers to raise or lower interest rates (Chart I-2). The Monitors became less useful when rates hit the zero bound and quantitative easing was the only game in town, but they are becoming relevant again as more policymakers consider their exit strategy. All of our CB Monitors are currently in "tighter policy required" territory except for Japan and the Eurozone (although even those are close to the zero line). The Monitors have been rising due to both their growth and underlying inflation components. Another tick higher in PMI's for the advanced economies in July underscored that the rebound in industrial production is continuing (Chart I-3). Our short-term forecasting models, which include both hard and soft data, point to stronger growth in the major countries in the second half of 2017 (Chart I-4). Chart I-2Most In The "Tighter Policy Required" Zone Chart I-3Industrial Production Recovery Is Intact On the inflation side, our pipeline indicators have all signaled a modest building of underlying inflation pressure over the past year (although they have softened recently in the U.S. and Eurozone; Chart I-5). In terms of the components of these indicators, rising core producer price inflation has been partly offset by slower gains in unit labor costs in some economies. Chart I-4Our Short-Term Growth Models Are Bullish Chart I-5Some Rise In Pipeline Inflation Pressure These pipeline pressures have yet to show up at the consumer level. Most central bankers argue that temporary special factors are to blame, but many investors are wondering if longer-lasting forces are at work. There are numerous examples of deflationary pressure driven by waves of innovation, cost cutting and changing business models. Amazon, Uber, robotics and shale oil production are just a few examples. If this is the main story, then the inability for central banks to reach their inflation targets is a "good thing" because it reflects the adaptation of game-changing new technology. There is no doubt that important strides are being made in certain areas where new technologies are clearly driving prices down. The problem is that, at the macro level, it is not showing up in the productivity data. Productivity is dismally low across the major countries and we do not believe it is simply due to mismeasurement. A Special Report from BCA's Global Investment Strategy2 service makes a convincing case that mismeasurement is not behind the low productivity figures. In fact, it appears that productivity is over-estimated in some industries. It is also important to keep in mind that technological change is nothing new. There is a vigorous debate in academic circles on whether today's new technologies are anywhere near as positive as previous ones like indoor plumbing, electricity, the internal combustion engine and the internet. We are wowed by today's new gizmos, but they are not as transformative as previous innovations. While productivity is surging in some high-profile firms, studies show that there is a long tail of low-productivity companies that drag down the average. A full discussion is beyond the scope of this report and more research needs to be done, but we are not of the view that technology and productivity preclude rising inflation. We expect that inflation will firm by enough to allow central banks to continue scaling back monetary stimulus in the coming months and quarters. Did Yellen Turn Dovish? As with other central banks, the consensus among Fed policymakers is willing to "look through" low inflation for now. Yellen's Congressional testimony did not deviate from that view, although investors interpreted her remarks as dovish. The financial press focused on her statement that "...the policy rate is not far from neutral." However, this was followed up by the statement that "...because we also anticipate that the factors that are currently holding down the neutral rate will diminish somewhat over time, additional gradual rate hikes are likely to be appropriate over the next few years to sustain the economic expansion and return inflation to our 2 percent goal." Chart I-6Bond Market Does Not Believe The Fed The Fed believes there are two neutral interest rates: short-term and long-term. Yellen argued that the actual policy rate is currently close to the short-term neutral level, which is depressed by economic headwinds. However, Yellen and others have made the case that the short-term neutral rate is trending up as headwinds diminish, and will converge with the long-term neutral rate over time. The Fed's Summary of Economic Projections reveals what the FOMC thinks is the neutral long-term real fed funds rate; the median forecast calls for a nominal fed funds rate of 2.9% at the end of 2019 and 3% in the longer run. Incorporating a 2% inflation target, we can infer that the Fed anticipates a real neutral rate of 1% in the longer run. The Fed is likely tracking the real neutral fed funds rate using an estimate created by Laubach and Williams (LW).3 Chart I-6 shows this estimate of the neutral rate, called R-star, alongside the real federal funds rate that is calculated using 12-month trailing core PCE. The resulting real fed funds rate has risen sharply during the past seven months due to both three Fed rate hikes and a decline in inflation. If the Fed lifts rates once more this year and core inflation stays put, then the real fed funds rate would end 2017 close to zero, only 42 bps below neutral. However, it's more likely that the Fed will need to see inflation rebound before it delivers another rate hike. In a scenario where core inflation rises to 1.9% and the Fed lifts rates once more, then the real fed funds rate would actually decline between now and the end of the year. The implication is that the real fed funds rate is not far from R-star, but the nominal rate will have to rise a long way before the real rate reaches the Fed's estimate of the long-term neutral rate. Investors simply don't believe Fed policymakers. According to the bond market, the real fed funds rate will not shift into positive territory until 2021 (see real forward OIS line in Chart I-6). We think this is far too complacent. U.S. Health Care Reform: RIP The speed at which short-term rates converge with the long-run neutral rate will depend importantly on the path of fiscal policy. The Republicans' failure to pass their health care legislation is leading the investors to doubt the prospect for (stimulative) tax cuts. This may be premature. Ironically, the failure to jettison Obamacare may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for President Trump and the Republican Party. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the proposed legislation would have caused 22 million fewer Americans to have health insurance in 2026 compared with the status quo. The Senate bill would have also led to substantial cuts to Medicaid relative to existing law, as well as deep cuts to insurance subsidies for many poor and middle-class families. Many of these voters came out in support of Trump last year. The failure to repeal Obamacare could actually increase the motivation of Republicans to move forward on tax cuts anyway. The chances for broad tax reform have certainly diminished, since that will be just as difficult to get passed as healthcare reform. The GOP also wanted to use the roughly $200 billion in savings from healthcare reform to fund reduced tax rates. However, tax cuts are something that all Republicans can easily agree too, and they will need to show a legislative victory ahead of next year's mid-term elections. The difficulty will be how to pay for these cuts. We expect them to be "fully funded" in the sense that there will be offsetting spending cuts, but these will be back-loaded toward the end of the 10-year budget window, whereas the tax cuts will be front-loaded. This would generate a modest amount of fiscal stimulus over the next few years. Sub-4% U.S. Unemployment Rate Followed By Recession? Chart I-7Inside The Fed's Forecasts Expansionary fiscal policy would make life more difficult for the FOMC, which may have already fallen behind the curve. The unemployment rate is below the Fed's estimate of the full employment level, and it will continue to erode unless productivity picks up soon. We backed out the productivity growth rate implied by the Fed's latest Summary of Economic Projections, given its assumption that real GDP growth will be roughly 2% over the next couple of years and that the unemployment rate will stabilize near the current level. This combination implies that productivity growth will accelerate from the average rate observed so far in this expansion (0.7%) to about 1%, which is consistent with monthly payrolls of 135,000 assuming real GDP growth of 2% (Chart I-7). If we instead assume that productivity does not accelerate (and real GDP growth is 2%), then payrolls must jump to 160,000 and the unemployment rate would fall below 4% next year. The implication is that the unemployment rate is likely to soon reach levels not seen since 2000, which would force the FOMC to tighten more aggressively. The Fed would hope for a soft landing as it tries to nudge the unemployment rate higher, but the more likely result is a recession in 2019. For this year, we expect the Fed to begin balance sheet runoff in the autumn, followed by a rate hike in December. The latter hinges importantly on at least a modest rise in core PCE inflation in the coming months. A rebound in oil prices would help the Fed reach its inflation goal, even though energy prices affect the headline by more than the core rate. Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih indicated at a recent press conference in St. Petersburg that no changes are presently needed to the production deal under which OPEC and non-OPEC producers pledged to remove 1.8mn b/d from the market. The Saudi energy minister's remarks leave open the possibility of deeper cuts later this year if global inventories do not draw fast enough, or for the cuts to be extended beyond March 2018 if officials are not satisfied with progress on the storage front. We still believe they are capable of meeting this goal, despite rising shale production. Chart I-8Forecast Of Oil Inventories Our commodity strategists expect OECD oil inventories to reach their five-year average level by year-end or early 2018 Q1 (Chart I-8). In the absence of additional cuts, the five-year average level of OECD inventories will be higher than we estimated earlier this year, indicating that our expectation for the overall inventory drawdown later this year has been trimmed. Still, our oil strategists believe the inventory drawdowns will be sufficient to push WTI above the mid-$50s by year-end. If this forecast pans out, rising oil prices will push up headline inflation and inflation expectations in the major advanced economies. The bottom line is that the backdrop has turned bond-bearish now that central bankers in the advanced economies are in the process of scaling back the easier monetary policy that followed the deflationary 2014/15 oil shock. Duration should be kept short within global fixed income portfolios. In terms of country allocation, our global fixed income strategists have downgraded the Eurozone government bond market to underweight, joining the Treasury allocation, in light of the pending ECB tapering announcement that could place more upward pressure on yields. This was offset by upgrading Japan to maximum overweight. Max Policy Divergence Has Not Been Reached Chart I-9Europe Has A Lower Neutral Rate The change in tone by central bankers outside the U.S. has weighted heavily on the U.S. dollar. The Canadian dollar and the Euro have been particularly strong. Investors have apparently decided that the peak Fed/ECB policy divergence is now behind us. We do not agree. The ECB may be tapering, but rate hikes are a long way off because there remains a substantial amount of economic slack in the Eurozone. Laubach and Williams estimate R-star in the Eurozone to be close to zero, which is 50 basis points below the U.S. neutral rate (Chart I-9). The difference is related to slower potential growth and greater unemployment. Labor market slack across the euro area as a whole is still 3.2 percentage points higher than in 2008, and 6.7 points higher outside of Germany. The current real short-term rate is about -1%. We expect U.S. R-star to rise in absolute terms and relative to the neutral rate in the Eurozone because the U.S. is further advanced in the economic expansion. As Fed rate hike expectations ratchet up in the coming months, interest rate differentials versus Europe will widen in favor of the dollar. It is the same story for the dollar/yen rate because the Bank of Japan is a long way from raising or abandoning its 10-year bond yield peg. Japanese core inflation has fallen back to zero and medium-to-long-term inflation expectations have dipped so far this year. The annual shunto wage negotiations this summer produced little in the way of salary hikes. The major exception to our "strong dollar" call is the Canadian loonie, which we expect to appreciate versus the greenback. We also like the Aussie dollar, provided that the Chinese economy continues to hold up as we expect. Stocks Get A Free Pass For Now Chart I-10Global EPS And Industrial Production Fading market hopes for U.S. fiscal stimulus have weighed on both U.S. Treasury yields and the dollar, but the equity market has taken the news in stride. Are equity investors simply in denial? We do not think so. The equity market appears to have been given a "free pass" for now because earnings have been supportive. The combination of robust earnings growth, steady real GDP growth of around 2%, and low bond yields has been bullish for stocks so far in this expansion. At the global level, EPS growth continues to accelerate in line with the recovery in industrial production, which is a good proxy for top line growth (Chart I-10). Orders and production for capital goods in the major advanced economies have been particularly strong in recent months. The global operating margin flattened off last month according to IBES data, although margins continued to firm in the U.S. and Europe (Chart I-11). The profit acceleration is widespread across these three economies in the Basic Materials and Consumer Discretionary sectors. Industrials, Energy, Health Care and Consumer Staples are also performing well in most cases. Telecom is the weak spot. Our sector profit diffusion indexes paint an upbeat picture for the near term (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Operating Margins On The Rise Chart I-12Earnings Diffusion Indexes Are Bullish In the U.S., the second quarter earnings season is off to a good start. Results so far suggest that Q2 will see another quarter of margin expansion. We believe that U.S. margins are in a secular decline, but they are in the midst of a counter-trend rally that will last for the rest of this year. Using blended results for the second quarter, trailing S&P 500 EPS growth hit 18½% on a 4-quarter moving total basis (Chart I-13). The acceleration in earnings is impressive even after excluding the Energy sector. We projected early this year that EPS growth would peak at around 20%4 by year end, but it appears that earnings will overshoot that level. Chart I-13Robust EPS Growth Even Without Energy It will be tougher sledding in the equity market once profit growth peaks in the U.S. because of poor valuation. We are expecting to scale back our overweight equity recommendation sometime in the first half of 2018, although the global rally could be extended by constructive earnings data in Europe and Japan. The earnings recovery in both economies is behind the U.S., such that peak growth will come later in 2018. There is also more room for margins to expand in Europe than in the U.S. The relative earnings cycle is one of the reasons why we continue to favor Eurozone and Japanese stocks to the U.S. in local currency terms. Japanese stocks are also cheap to the U.S. based on our top-down valuation indicator (Chart I-14). European stocks are not far from fair value relative to the U.S., after adjusting for the fact that Europe trades structurally on the cheap side. The message from our top-down valuation indicator for European stocks is confirmed when using the bottom-up information contained in the new BCA Equity Trading Strategy platform. The Special Report beginning on page 20 describes a bottom-up valuation measure that we will use in conjunction with our top-down (index-based) measures. Corporate Bonds: Kindling And Sparks Healthy EPS growth momentum is also constructive for corporate bonds, although overall balance sheet health continues to erode in the U.S. The release of the U.S. Flow of Funds data allows us to update BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for the first quarter (Chart I-15). The level of the CHM moved slightly deeper into "deteriorating health territory." Chart I-14Top-Down Relative Equity Valuation Chart I-15Deteriorating Since 2015, But... The Monitor has been a reliable indicator for the trend in corporate bond spreads over the years, calling almost all major turning points in advance. However, spreads have trended tighter over the past year even as the CHM began to signal deteriorating health in early 2015. Why the divergence? The CHM is only one of three key items on our checklist to underweight corporate bonds versus Treasurys. The other two are tight Fed policy (i.e. real interest rates that are above the neutral level) and the direction of bank lending standards for C&I loans. On its own, balance sheet deterioration only provides the kindling for a spread blowout. It also requires a spark. Investors do not worry about high leverage or a profit margin squeeze, for example, until the outlook for defaults sours. The latter occurs once inflation starts to rise and the Fed actively targets slower growth via higher interest rates. Banks see trouble on the horizon and respond by tightening lending standards, thereby restricting the flow of credit to the business sector. Defaults start to ramp up, buttressing banks' bias to curtail lending in a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. The three items on the checklist normally occurred at roughly the same time in previous cycles because a deteriorating CHM is typically a late-cycle phenomenon. But this has been a very different cycle. High stock prices and rock-bottom bond yields have encouraged the corporate sector to leverage up and repurchase stock. At the same time, the subpar, stretched-out recovery has meant that it has taken longer than usual for the economy to reach full employment. It will be some time before U.S. short-term interest rates reach restrictive territory. As for banks, they tightened lending standards a little in 2015/16 due to the collapse of energy prices, but this has since reversed. The implication is that, while corporate health has deteriorated, we do not have the spark for a sustained corporate bond spread widening. Indeed, Moody's expects that the 12-month default rate will trend lower over the next year, which is consistent with constructive trends in corporate lending standards, industrial production and job cut announcements (all good indicators for defaults). Chart I-16 presents a valuation metric that adjusts the HY OAS for 12-month trailing default losses (i.e. it is an ex-post measure). In the forecast period, we hold today's OAS constant, but the 12-month default losses are a shifting blend of historical losses and Moody's forecast. The endpoint suggests that the market is offering about 200 basis points of default-adjusted excess yield over the Treasury curve for the next 12 months. This is roughly in line with the mid-point of the historical data. In the past, a default-adjusted spread of around 200 basis points provided positive 12-month excess returns to high-yield bonds 74% of the time, with an average return of 82 basis points. It is also a positive sign for corporate bonds that the net transfer to shareholders, in the form of buybacks, dividends and M&A activity, eased in the fourth quarter 2016 and the first quarter of 2017 (Chart I-17). Ratings migration has also improved (i.e. moderating net downgrades), especially for shareholder-friendly rating action, which is a better indicator for corporate spreads. The diminished appetite to "return cash to shareholders" may not last long, but for now it supports our overweight in both investment- and speculative-grade bonds versus Treasurys. That said, excess returns are likely to be limited to the carry given little room for spread compression. Chart I-16Still Some Value In ##br##High-Yield Corporates Chart I-17Net Transfers To Shareholders ##br##Eased In Past Two Quarters Within balanced portfolios, we recommend favoring equities to high-yield at this stage of the cycle. Value is not good enough in HY relative to stocks to expect any sustained period of outperformance in the former, assuming that the bull market in risk assets continues. Investment Conclusions A key change in the global financial landscape over the past month is a signal from central banks that they see the need for policy recalibration. Policymakers view sub-target inflation as temporary, and some are concerned that low interest rates could contribute to the formation of financial market bubbles. The bond market remains skeptical, given persistent inflation undershoots and growing anecdotal evidence that new technologies are very deflationary. It would be extremely bullish for stocks if these new technologies were indeed boosting the supply side of the economy at a faster pace than the official data suggest. Robust advances in output-per-worker would allow profits to grow quickly, and would provide the economy more breathing space before hitting inflationary capacity limits (keeping the bond vigilantes at bay). We acknowledge that there are important technological breakthroughs being made, but we do not see any evidence that this is occurring on a widespread basis sufficient to "move the dial" in terms of overall productivity growth. Indeed, the stagnation of middle class personal income is consistent with a poor productivity backdrop. Chart I-18 highlights that "creative destruction" is in a long-term bear market. Chart I-18Less Creative Destruction That said, the equity market is benefiting from the mini-cycle in corporate profits, which are still recovering from the earnings recession in 2015/early 2016. We expect the recovery to be complete by early 2018, which will set the stage for a substantial slowdown in EPS growth next year. It won't be a disaster, absent a recession, but demanding valuations suggest that the market could struggle to make headway through next year. We expect to trim exposure sometime in the first half of 2018. To time the exit, we will watch for a roll-over in the growth rate of S&P 500 EPS on a 4-quarter moving total basis. Investors should look for a peak in industrial production growth as a warnings sign for profits. We are also watching for a contraction in excess money, which we define as M2 divided by nominal GDP. Finally, a rise in core PCE inflation to 2% would be a signal that the Fed is about to ramp up interest rates. For now, remain overweight equities relative to bonds and cash. Favor equities to high yield, but within fixed-income portfolios, overweight investment- and speculative-grade corporates versus Treasurys. We are comfortable with our pro-risk recommendations and our below-benchmark duration stance. Unfortunately, that can't be said of our bullish U.S. dollar and oil price house views. Both are controversial calls among our strategists. As for oil, supply and demand are finely balanced and our positive view hinges importantly on OPEC agreeing to more production cuts. The obvious risk is that these cuts do not materialize. The dollar call has gone against us as the latest signs of improving global growth momentum have admittedly been outside the U.S. Meanwhile, the U.S. is stuck in a political morass, which delays the prospect of fiscal stimulus. This is not to say that U.S. growth will slow. Rather, the growth acceleration may fall short of the high expectations following last November's election. We continue to believe that the market is too complacent on the pace of Fed rate hikes in the coming quarters. An upward adjustment in rate expectations should push the dollar higher on a trade-weighted basis, as outlined above. Nonetheless, this shift will require higher U.S. inflation, the timing of which is highly uncertain. We remain dollar bulls on a 12-month horizon, but we are stepping aside and calling for a trading range in the next three months. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst July 27, 2017 Next Report: August 31, 2017 1 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Central Banks Are Now Playing Catch-Up," dated July 4, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Kathryn Holston, Thomas Laubach, and John C. Williams "Measuring The Natural Rates Of Interest: International Trends And Determinants," Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Working Paper 2016-11 (December 2016). 4 Calculated as a year-over-year growth rate of a 4-quarter moving total of S&P data. II. The BCA ETS Trading Platform Approach To Valuing Eurozone Stocks 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. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Stocks continue to outperform bonds against a constructive backdrop of improving global economic prospects and accelerating EPS growth, while low inflation is expected to keep central banks from tightening quickly. Our main equity and asset allocation indicators remain bullish for risk, with a few exceptions. Our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) jumped back to a 100% equity weighting in July. We introduced the RPI in last month's Special Report. Quite simply, it combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks for the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. The U.S. WTP remains bullish, but has topped out, suggesting that flows into the U.S. market are beginning to moderate. In contrast, the WTP indicators for both the Eurozone and Japan are rising from a low level. This suggests that a rotation into these equity markets is underway, although it has not yet shown up in terms of equity market outperformance versus the U.S. On the negative side, our Monetary Indicator last month fell a little further below the zero line and our composite Technical Indicator appears to be rolling over; the latter generates a 'sell' signal when it drops below its 9-month moving average. Value is stretched, but our Valuation Indicator has not yet reached the +1 standard deviation level that indicates clear over-valuation. As highlighted in the Overview section, the U.S. and global earnings backdrop continues to support equity markets. Forward earnings estimates are in a steep uptrend, and the recent surge in the net revisions ratio and the earnings surprise index suggests that EPS growth will remain impressive for the remainder of the year. Bond valuation is largely unchanged from last month, sitting very close to fair value. We still believe that fair value is rising as economic headwinds fade. However, much depends on our forecast that core inflation in the major countries will grind higher in the coming months. Central banks stand ready to "remove the punchbowl" if they get the green light from inflation. The dollar's downdraft in July reduced some of its overvaluation based on purchasing power parity measures. The dollar appears less overvalued based on other measures. Our composite Technical Indicator has fallen hard, but has not reached oversold levels. This suggests that the dollar has more downside before it finds a bottom. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen TechnicalsChart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro TechnicalsChart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China

Highlights Strengthening income growth is apparent in DM and EM trade volumes, real wages in the U.S., and industrial commodity prices, chiefly oil and copper. This indicates inflation at the consumer level will move higher in the near future, most likely in 2H2018. We believe 10-year U.S. Treasury Inflation-Indexed securities (TIPS) trading below 0.52 do not reflect the risk of higher inflation and are, therefore, going long at tonight's close. Energy: Overweight. Crude oil prices rallied 4.6% this week, following the OPEC 2.0 meeting in St. Petersburg. Although ministers did not announce additional cuts to the 1.8mm b/d agreed at the end of last year, Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said the Kingdom would reduce August exports to 6.6mm b/d, which is more than 300k b/d below May's level, the latest month for which data are available from JODI. Given strong global demand, if this export reduction persists - and if others join the Kingdom - it would speed the drawdown in global inventories. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper pushed through $2.80/lb on the COMEX, a level not seen since May 2015. Underlying strength in EM economic activity - seen most recently in global trading activity (discussed below) - and a weaker USD are supporting base metals. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold fell below $1,257/oz earlier this week, and was trading ~ $1,250/oz going to press Wednesday. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge; the position is up 1.7% since it was initiated on May 4, 2017. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Harsh weather is impacting grains. The USDA rated 62% of the U.S. corn crop in the 18 states comprising 92% of total output good or excellent last week, down from 76% in 2016. For beans, the split was 58% last week vs. 71% last year. Feature The expansion in global trade that began toward the end of last year continues, which, based on our modeling, indicates inflation at the consumer level likely will move higher in the short run (Chart of the Week). Trade expansion, particularly in EM economies, is consistent with rising incomes, which, all else equal, will keep industrial commodities - oil and copper, in particular - well supported, given income and demand for these commodities are closely aligned.1 These fundamentals dovetail with other indications of stronger growth, particularly in DM economies, where trade volumes also are growing (Chart 2). In the U.S., for example, wage growth continues to outpace inflation, and monetary conditions remain benign (Chart 3). Our colleagues at BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy believe the Fed actually may be behind the curve in reacting to nascent inflationary pressures emerging in the U.S.2 Chart of the WeekRising EM Trade Volumes Consistent##BR##With Higher U.S. CPI Inflation Chart 2DM Trade Volumes Are Expanding##BR##At ~ 5% Pace ... Chart 3U.S. Labor Market Tightening,##BR##Financial Conditions Remain Loose Trade Growth Supports Higher Inflation U.S. CPI is highly correlated with EM trade volumes (imports and exports) as shown in the Chart of the Week. In recent research into inflation and trade, we also showed EM oil demand and world base metals demand are highly correlated with EM trade volumes.3 Chart 4EM Trade Volumes##BR##Continue To Strengthen Growth EM import growth continues to expand at a faster pace than DM growth (Chart 4). Year-on-year (yoy) EM import growth came in at 7.7%, a full 2 percentage points above DM growth. This is not to minimize DM growth - it finally broke out of its lethargy in May with a sharp advance of close to 6%, which will lift the trend rate of growth (the 12-month moving average, or 12mma) higher going forward. EM export growth in May was only slightly above DM growth for the month - 5.4% yoy vs. 5.2% yoy. These stout monthly trade performances will, in the next few months, offset the lethargic growth seen in EM and DM prior to the expansion begun at the end of 2016, as weaker monthly performance falls off the trend calculations. Over the year ended in May, within EM markets the annual trend in imports (the 12mma to May 2017) has barely grown more than 1% yoy, dragged down by a 6% contraction in the Middle East and Africa (MEA) and a 2.1% contraction in Latin American growth. The trend in EM - Asia's imports is up, rising 3.2% over the same period. For the year ended in May, imports into central and Eastern Europe were mostly flat; however, since November 2016, the trend turned sharply positive with 3.3% yoy growth. The trend in export volumes is expanding for in MEA and Latin America economies - 3.5% yoy trend growth (12mma) in MEA, and 4.4% growth in Latin America, which is slightly higher than the overall 2.2% rate of trend growth in EM exports. Still, lower oil and commodity prices, along with reduced volumes are curtailing an income recovery in these regions. Central and Eastern Europe's rate of export expansion leads EM generally at close to 4% yoy trend growth. Favor Gold And TIPS Ahead Of Higher Inflation As the labor market tightens and real-wage growth continues to outpace productivity growth, we expect U.S. inflation to pick up. Growth in trade volumes also will support growth in EM oil demand and world base metal demand, as noted above. This will feed into U.S. core PCE, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge (Chart 5). As we've highlighted in the past, there is very strong co-movement among these variables: We've found that, all else equal, a 1% increase in the non-OECD oil demand implies an increase in the core PCE of slightly less than 50bp. If the trend in overall EM trade volumes persists, the likelihood we will be increasing our estimate of non-OECD oil consumption for 2H17 and 2018 increases. U.S. CPI and EM trade volumes show similar co-movement properties, as the Chart of the Week shows. A 1% increase in EM import volumes translates into a 0.53% increase in the U.S. CPI, while a 1% increase in EM export volumes implies a 0.49% increase in the CPI. EM import volumes over the January - May 2017 interval have been growing at slightly more than 8% yoy, while exports have been growing at slightly more than 3%. Continued strength in the EM trade data implies U.S. CPI could grow well above what's currently being priced in inflation markets and by Fed policymakers. This leads us to favour gold and TIPS as inflation hedges. If we do get a larger-than-expected move in the U.S. CPI, gold should respond well. The modelling depicted in Chart 6 shows a 1% increase in the CPI translates into a 4.1% increase in gold. Chart 5Core PCE Will Pick Up##BR##As Commodity Demand Grows Chart 6Gold Will Pick Up##BR##Larger-Than-Expected CPI Moves For this reason we recommend getting long U.S. Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), which will appreciate as the U.S. CPI moves higher.4 We will be getting long as of tonight's close. We remain long low-risk calls spreads in Dec/17 WTI and Brent - long $50/bbl strikes vs. short $55/bbl strikes. We are up 39.3% and 32.9% on the Brent and WTI positions, respectively, from last week, and 47.2% and 89.2% since inception. U.S. Monetary Policy Remains A Huge Risk To EM Trade As we've noted in the past, U.S. monetary policy can have an outsized effect on EM trade volumes. In an update of an earlier model using U.S. M2 and the broad trade-weighted USD (TWIB), we find a 1% increase in the broad trade-weighted USD translates into a 1.1% drop in EM imports, while a 1% increase in U.S. M2 (broad money) implies an 85bp increase in EM imports (Chart 7).5 Chart 7EM Trade Volumes Highly Sensitive##BR##To U.S. Monetary Policy This demonstrates the feedback loop we've identified between U.S. monetary policy and EM trade. EM trade volumes affect inflation at a global level. We've found inflation in the U.S., EU and China to be co-integrated - i.e., these price gauges all follow the same long-term trend. Inflation and inflation expectations drive Fed policy, which drives the price formation of the USD - i.e., the FX rates included in the USD TWIB - and affect Fed policy on M2. These U.S. monetary variables, in turn, affect EM trade volumes. And so it goes ... Too-aggressive a tightening by the Fed as it normalizes its interest-rate policy regime could destabilize EM economies - either via too-sharp an appreciation in the USD TWIB, a larger-than-expected deceleration in M2 growth, or both - and negatively affect trade flows. At the end of the day, this would redound to the detriment of the U.S. economy, as the different feedback mechanisms kick in. This says the Fed's policy doesn't just affect the U.S. economy, or that EM economies essentially are on their own in the policy tools they deploy to adjust to Fed innovations. Like it or not, the Fed has to consider these types of feedback loops in its decision-making, since the Open Market Committee will be dealing with the fallout of its earlier policies. Bottom Line: EM trade volumes continue to grow yoy, continuing the trend that began at the end of last year. This performance, coupled with a tightening labor market in the U.S. and a still-loose financial backdrop, raises the odds inflation will exceed what's currently priced into market and Fed expectations. We are getting long U.S. 10-year TIPS at tonight's close, and remain long gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 The income elasticity for industrial commodities in EM economies is ~ 1.0, according to the OECD. Please see "The Price of Oil - Will It Start Rising Again?" OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1031, p. 6 (2013). 2 Please see BCA's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Are Central Banks Behind The Curve Or Ahead Of It?," published on July 21, 2017. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Among other things, the Global Investment Strategy team notes labor-market slack is dissipating, real wages are increasing, and easier financial conditions are spurring credit growth. Our colleagues note, "The prospect of stronger growth over the next few quarters implies that the unemployment rate is likely to fall below 4% early next year, possibly breaking through the 2000 low of 3.8%." BCA's Global Investment Strategy believes U.S. inflation could move higher by 2H18. 3 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Reports titled "EM Trade Volumes Continue Trending Higher, Supporting Metals" and "Strong EM Trade Volumes Will Support Oil," published June 29, and June 8, 2017. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 U.S. TIPS increase in value as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rises, and fall in value as the index declines. Please see "TIPS: Rates & Terms" on the UST's TreasuryDirect web page (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tips/res_tips_rates.htm). 5 This model covers 2000 to the present, using monthly data. The R2 for the cointegrating regression is 0.96. These variables do not explain EM exports, which are not cointegrated with U.S. monetary variables. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

While chemicals and materials are beneficiaries of an upgrading in global economic expectations (please see Monday's Weekly Report), utilities sit at the opposite end of the table (global manufacturing PMI shown inverted, top panel), and therefore warrant a downgrade to a below benchmark allocation. Now that the Fed is ready to start unwinding its balance sheet, the ECB is preparing the waters for QE tapering and a slew of central banks are on the cusp of a new tightening interest rate cycle, there are high odds that still overvalued fixed income proxies will continue to suffer. Given that utilities essentially trade as a proxy for bonds, this macro backdrop leaves them vulnerable to a significant underperformance phase (Treasury yield shown inverted, second panel). Without the support of continued declines in bond yields, utilities advances depend on improving fundamentals. The news on the domestic operating front is grim. Contracting natural gas prices, the marginal price setter for the industry, suggest that recent utilities pricing power gains are running on empty (bottom panel). Bottom Line: We are making room for the niche S&P materials upgrade to neutral by downgrading the equally small S&P utilities sector to a below benchmark allocation. For additional details please refer to this Monday's Weekly Report.

The gap between the BCA Defense and BCA Aerospace indexes has widened considerably as their respective outlooks have diverged. Aerospace orders have fallen by more than half from their peak in 2013, while defense orders appear to be gaining steam. The domestic outlook for defense remains bright. The Trump administration requested an increase of nearly 10% for the 2018 DoD budget. Further, the House authorized a spending level well in excess of what the President asked for with wide bipartisan support, indicating strong political weight behind expanding defense budgets. The international picture too seems promising; exports are booming as global austerity is receding (bottom panel). Anecdotally, the last several months have seen a number of multi-billion dollar international orders which should pad backlogs for several years. Net, an earnings driven rally seems still in the early stages. Stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the BCA Defense index are: LMT, GD, RTN, NOC, LLL. Defense Stocks Have Surged; Is The Next Up Leg Coming?

Highlights The "Trump Put" rumbles on, spurring equities, driving U.S. Treasury yields down, and hurting the dollar; White House incompetence, which underpins the "Trump Put," is about quantitative and qualitative staffing decisions, not the Russia collusion investigation; Tax reform will happen, but Congress is now in charge; Watch for the next Fed Chair nomination, more dollar downside could be ahead; China has preempted the next financial crisis with new regulatory oversight; The death of Abenomics is overstated. Feature We introduced the "Trump Put" in a recent report as a risk to our view that President Trump would get his populist economic agenda through Congress.1 The Trump Put posits that White House disarray and congressional incompetence will combine with decent earnings growth and steady global growth to produce Goldilocks conditions for U.S. equities, while simultaneously weakening the USD and supporting Treasuries. Thus far, the Trump Put continues to be in effect (Chart 1). Our House Views of further yield-curve steepening and a stronger USD have suffered from the ongoing "gong show" that is the Trump administration. The saving grace has been our high-conviction bullish equity view (Chart 2).2 Chart 1The Trump Put: Good For Equities,##br## Bad For Everything Else Chart 2S&P 500 Does Not##br## Care About Russia That said, we maintain our high-conviction view that the GOP will pass tax legislation in Q1 2018. Why? First, the failure to repeal Obamacare means that congressional Republicans will enter the midterm election season with no legislative wins. That is extraordinary given Republican control of both chambers of Congress and the executive. The House GOP members will not want to face an angry electorate in primary elections a year from now, or the general election, without a single major accomplishment. Second, Trump's low popularity will be an albatross around the neck of GOP candidates in the November 2018 elections, with potentially ominous results (Chart 3). Trump needs to pass a major piece of legislation; GOP congressmen have an interest in lifting Trump's popularity. Third, the House has passed the FY2017 budget resolution, which includes reconciliation instructions for tax reform. Given that only one budget resolution can be effective at any one time, the Obamacare replacement effort will end with the current fiscal year, on October 1.3 Chart 3GOP Is Running Out Of Time While we remain confident that some form of tax legislation will ultimately pass - either watered down tax reform or mere tax cuts - we are far less confident that it will be stimulative. In other words, it will be done according to the congressional, not the White House, blueprint. House Speaker Paul Ryan has long demanded revenue-neutral reform. The just-passed budget resolution calls for $203 billion in spending cuts in order to make tax cuts revenue-neutral. This is a reversion to form after the period earlier this year in which several fiscal conservatives, like Representatives Kevin Brady and Mark Meadows, intoned that they would be comfortable with tax reform that was not revenue-neutral. At the beginning of the year, it looked like Trump would be able to use his bully pulpit to cajole the Congressional Republicans into stimulative tax reform or tax cuts. Previous Presidents, including Obama with the Affordable Care Act, have been able to punish overly ideological legislators for the sake of pragmatism and/or expediency. Certainly Trump remains popular with GOP voters (Chart 4), suggesting that he might be able to do so as well. Chart 4Trump Retains Political ##br##Capital With GOP Voters Six months into his presidency, however, Trump remains a no-show in terms of leadership. This is not merely the result of distraction with the "Russian collusion" charges against his campaign team and inner circle. The White House is simply not playing its traditional coordinating role to shepherd key bills through Congress. Political insiders, even the ones close to Trump, are signaling privately and via the media that the White House is in disarray and understaffed both quantitatively and qualitatively. It is in no shape, in other words, to coordinate the legislative process and play the role of peacemaker between the different congressional factions. At the heart of the disarray is an elite dispute within the White House itself between what we call the "Goldman" and "Breitbart" factions of the administration. The Goldman Clique: Donald Trump has staffed his administration with several financial sector luminaries whom he met while building his business empire. At the head of this faction is Gary Cohn, Director of the National Economic Council and leading candidate for the next Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (more on that later). Other members are Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and the most recent addition to the administration, the new White House Communications Director Anthony "the Mooch" Scaramucci. This faction is pragmatic, un-ideological (Cohn and "the Mooch" are essentially Democrats), and focused on passing tax reform and pro-business regulation. They prefer tax reform to mere tax cuts, and want middle class tax cuts to be balanced with pro-business corporate tax reform. The Breitbart Clique: Most commentators see the Goldman clique as the more powerful of the two White House factions, but Trump owes his electoral victory to a campaign molded along the ideological bent in line with the Breitbart faction. This group is led by Chief Strategist Steven Bannon and policy advisor Steven Miller.4 Behind the scenes, Bannon and Miller have managed to staff the White House with several Breitbart alumni, such as presidential advisors Sebastian Gorka and Julia Hahn, and (until her departure this month) Security Council Deputy Chief of Staff Tera Dahl. Factional fighting is not new to the White House. For example, the Obama administration was divided between foreign policy hawks - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates - and doves - National Security Advisor Susan Rice and Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power. White House policy is often a product of compromise between different factions, producing sub-optimal outcomes. The problem with the Trump administration, however, is that the Breitbart faction is severely outmatched and unqualified for the job of coordinating legislative policy. Putting aside its ideological zealotry, this faction consists mainly of journalists without policy experience. This inexperience came to light with Trump's original executive order banning entry into the U.S. of nationals of several countries, penned by Bannon and Miller, which would have barred green card holders from entry. While that order may or may not have been constitutional, it was clearly impractical and aggressive. Another clear problem for the Trump administration is that its current Chief of Staff, former RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, is weak and ineffective. Priebus was a compromise candidate between the two factions and someone seen as acceptable to Republicans in Congress. Since his appointment, however, he has been a no-show. It was his idea to focus on replacing Obamacare ahead of tax reform (despite the absence of a GOP blueprint for the former and the existence of a blueprint for the latter), and it was his idea to give the overmatched Sean Spicer the role of managing the press. The chief of staff should be a force of nature, capable of instilling fear into the president's congressional allies in order to get legislation moving and reduce cliquish in-fighting. A successful chief of staff is usually a controversial and abrasive figure, such as Rahm Emanuel at the beginning of President Obama's first term. He bullied and cajoled Democrats into passing Obamacare with legendary brutality. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy rarely delves into personality-driven analysis. It is too idiosyncratic, not systematic. However, as a country's political leadership becomes more "charismatic"5 - driven by personality rather than institutions - individuals, factions, and court intrigue matter more. What does all of this mean for investors? First, the White House is failing in its coordinating role. As such, Republicans in the House will take the lead on tax reform. Revenue neutrality will be emphasized. For this to change, the White House would have to reshuffle its personnel more extensively, including replacing Priebus. Second, if fiscal policy fails to take off, Trump will put greater stock in monetary policy. Our colleagues - who are economists, not political analysts - believe that the U.S. is likely to enter into recession in 2019, as the 2020 electoral campaign heats up. However, folks like Gary Cohn and Steve Mnuchin can see the same writing on the wall, and will probably try to avoid such a badly timed recession. Chart 5 shows that household debt has continued to decline as a share of disposable income; the share of national income going to labor has increased; and wage growth among lower-income workers who tend to spend most of their paychecks has accelerated. All of this should give consumers the wherewithal to spend more, warranting higher interest rates. Meanwhile, financial conditions have significantly eased due to USD weakness and declining bond-yields, which should boost growth in the second half of this year (Chart 6). Chart 5Households Have The ##br##Wherewithal To Spend More Chart 6Financial Conditions##br## Have Eased With Congress increasingly in charge of fiscal policy and a recession possible in 2019, we would expect Trump to do everything he can to ensure that the Fed retains its dovish bias when Chair Janet Yellen's term expires on February 3. This means that he is likely to favor a non-economist and a loyal adviser, like Gary Cohn, over any of the more traditional, and hawkish, Republican candidates. While there is some speculation regarding Cohn's policy preference, we are yet to find an insider (either of the FOMC or the White House) who denies that he is a dove. The intrigue should not last long. Both Yellen and Bernanke were nominated with considerable lead time: 114 days before the end of her predecessor's term for Yellen, and 91 days for Bernanke (Chart 7). We would therefore expect the next Fed Chair to be known by Thanksgiving. Is Cohn a controversial pick? Not really. As our colleague John Canally of BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy has pointed out, lack of Fed experience does not make Cohn particularly unique as a candidate. Since the late 1970s, presidents have tended to select the Fed Chair based on their relationship with a candidate, not previous central banking experience (Table 1).6 Cohn would only break the orthodoxy by being the first candidate to be appointed from across the ideological aisle, given that he is a Democrat. (Although several chairs have been reappointed by presidents from opposing political parties.) Chart 7How Long Does It Take To Confirm The Fed Chair? Table 1Characteristics Of Fed Chairs Since 1970 A number of previous Fed chairs were selected for loyalty over academic merit or central banking experience. President Nixon's pick for the chair, Arthur Burns (Chair from 1970-1978), was the head of President Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) and was a special counselor to Nixon before being appointed. William Miller (Chair from 1978-1979), although having served as an outside director for the Boston Fed, was appointed largely because of his work on the political campaigns of Hubert Humphrey and Jimmy Carter. Alan Greenspan (1987-2006) served as Chair of President Reagan's Social Security Commission in the early 1980s, Chair of President Ford's CEA, and advised Nixon's campaign in 1968. Only Volcker, Bernanke, and Yellen had previously held posts in the Federal Reserve System. The market cares about the appointment of the Fed chair. In 2013, for example, Larry Summers and Janet Yellen were in the running for the position, with Summers viewed as the more hawkish of the two. When he withdrew from the race on September 15, the market's expected pace of rate hikes plunged and long-dated TIPS breakevens surged on the expectations of a more dovish Fed (Chart 8). Given that the market is currently discounting just 27.4 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months, down from the recent peak of 36 bps (Chart 9), there may not be much room to get more dovish.7 Chart 8Yellen Vs. Summers Drove Markets In 2013 Chart 9Market May Be Right? Nonetheless, President Trump may not want to gamble with his Fed appointments. If we are right to assume that he is an economic populist, and that his fiscally stimulative agenda is slipping away, then we would expect the White House to err on the side of Fed appointments that would be behind the proverbial curve. In addition to Yellen, Trump will have the opportunity to appoint a new Vice Chairman of the Fed in place of Stanley Fischer on June 12, 2018 (Diagram 1), as well as another candidate for the Board of Governors (after already having nominated Marvin Goodfriend and Randal Quarels). By mid-2018, the Fed will start to take on a new composition altogether. Diagram 1Federal Reserve Board Of Governors Calendar Staffing the Fed with doves fits at least two of President Trump's campaign promises. First, if the Fed were to fall behind the curve, nominal GDP would likely surprise to the upside. Second, the USD would continue its downward trajectory, helping rebalance America's trade deficit. As such, we take the potential nomination of Gary Cohn seriously. And we expect the market will as well. That said, a Cohn-led Fed would not be a fundamental break with the past. In fact, Yellen has herself intoned that the Fed may want to let inflation run above 2% in past speeches. In addition, Trump's first two nominees to the Fed do not fit a dovish mold. Conservative economist Marvin Goodfriend is a hawk and favors rule-based policymaking. Randal Quarels will focus on regulating the financial sector, or rather deregulating it, although his policy orientation is largely unknown. Furthermore, other potential Fed Chair nominees, such as Kevin Warsh and Richard Fisher, would be more hawkish than Yellen. And if they are not selected to replace Yellen, they could replace the current Vice-Chairman Fischer. As such, investors should not overreact to a Cohn appointment. However, currency markets might, given that the Trump White House has been highly unorthodox. Bottom Line: There is likely more downside to the USD over the rest of the year. China: A Preemptive Dodd-Frank Last week we argued that China is likely to escalate financial regulation considerably over the next 6-12 months.8 Essentially, the "financial crackdown" or "deleveraging campaign" seen in H1 of this year was just a dress rehearsal for what is to come. The larger policy shift will exert downward pressure on economic growth in H2 2017 and throughout 2018, essentially putting a cap of about 7% on China's growth rate. True, the Chinese government will strive to avoid letting the new regulatory push lead to a sharp slowdown, i.e., shattering its preexisting commitment to an average GDP growth rate of 6.5% per year through 2020. However, the risks lie to the downside over the next 18 months due to the combination of unaddressed structural imbalances, cyclically fading economic tailwinds, and further policy tightening. We have outlined the structural flaws before. In brief, they include: Demographics: The working-age population is declining, yet the social systems to improve productivity are not yet adequate. Economic model: The investment-led model has become inefficient, requiring China to add more and more debt in order to generate the same amount of growth, in a manner reminiscent of South Korea prior to the Asian Financial Crisis (Chart 10). The transition to consumer-led growth is incomplete, with households still reluctant to take over from corporates in driving spending. Financial transmission: China's banking sector has expanded quickly, leading to a rise in bad loans and "special mention" assets, as losses from large companies remain elevated (Chart 11). The shadow banking sector is highly leveraged, poorly regulated, and extremely risky, and has mushroomed since 2008. Fiscal system: Local governments lack stable sources of funding and therefore rely on SOE debt and manipulation of the land market in order to fund their 85% share of China's fiscal spending. The government's recent fiscal reforms (the VAT extension) have actually further deprived local governments of revenues. Inequality and social ills: Wealth inequality, social immobility, regressive taxation (Chart 12), and an inadequate social safety net have hindered the development of the consumer society as well as innovation and entrepreneurship. Centralized authoritarianism: The political system perpetuates the above ills by disallowing free speech, free association, free movement, and other freedoms that would encourage innovation and total factor productivity. Chart 10More And More Reliant On Debt For Growth Chart 11Bad Loans Rising Chart 12Communism Fails To Redistribute Income Meanwhile, we have several reasons for anticipating a larger, less accommodative policy shift over the next six-to-twelve months: Policy drift: China's economic policy has been adrift over the past year and a half, as reflected by elevated economic policy uncertainty. While President Xi Jinping's anti-corruption campaign is no longer relevant in a macroeconomic sense - and this theoretically opens the way for him to pursue his ambitious economic reform agenda - he has so far chosen stimulus over restructuring due to the instability of 2015-16. Now, as the latest stimulus measures fade (Chart 13), the question of how to go forward is pressing, since to re-apply the same policy mix in 2018 would be to forgo his reform agenda until 2019 ... and probably once and for all. Warning signs: The central government's launch of a deleveraging campaign this year was risky and surprising. It was risky because central financial authorities in any country threaten a liquidity squeeze when they tighten financial conditions into large and rapidly growing leverage. It was surprising because the authorities chose to do so when a mistake could have upset political stability in advance of the midterm party congress. The implication is: (1) authorities intended a limited campaign from the beginning; (2) the newly appointed leaders of financial regulatory bodies are no-nonsense people.9 They take very seriously, as we do, China's systemic financial risks. They believe risky measures are necessary to prevent the dangerous credit excesses. The National Financial Work Conference: The conference concluded with Xi putting his imprimatur on a renewed policy focus on the financial sector: Reducing systemic risk, reducing speculation (lending to the real economy), and eventually putting the sector back on the path of liberalization. The specific outcomes amount to something like a preemptive Dodd Frank: The People's Bank of China will take on a larger role in identifying and monitoring systemically important institutions; it will also host a new inter-agency body - the Financial Stability and Development Committee (FSDC) - that will ostensibly ensure better cooperation and coordination between the regulators of banks, stock markets, insurance, etc. Finally, the meeting signaled that this year's deleveraging campaign would expand (beyond shadow banking, insurance companies, and private companies roving overseas) to affect over-leveraged SOEs and local government financing vehicles. Significantly, local government officials will be made accountable for excessive debt. This last point should not be underrated. At the height of the anti-corruption campaign, in late 2014, fiscal spending numbers remained depressed and government agency cash deposits continued rising even after the central government tried to encourage faster growth (Chart 14), suggesting that local officials were refraining from spending due to fears that they would be punished for it.10 We consider these announcements to be substantive - i.e., not the usual propaganda - even if they take some time to get off the ground. The financial conference was frowned upon by much of the mainstream media because some interpret the FSDC as failing to live up to the rumor that China would create a new "financial super-ministry." But the rise of super-ministries under the Hu Jintao administration resulted in very little substantive change to Chinese policy. By contrast, Xi Jinping signaled that the PBoC would be the chief instrument of the new financial regulatory push, and he has already shown he can operate exceedingly effectively through existing institutions - namely the Central Discipline and Inspection Commission (CDIC), which went from being an ineffective intra-party corruption watchdog to a nationwide vehicle for the party's most aggressive corruption investigations and personnel purges in recent memory. We are willing to bet that the PBoC's new powers, including the new financial stability committee, will be more aggressive than the merely status quo multiplication of administrative functions that the financial media and markets apparently expect. The changing of the PBoC's Guard: It is not a coincidence that greater regulatory powers are being planned for the PBoC in the final months of Governor Zhou Xiaochuan's term. Zhou has been in office since late 2002. He has been a cornerstone figure in China's financial stability and reform throughout this period, including during the global crisis and the various financial panics from 2010-16. He has allegedly desired a more muscular central bank to tackle the country's ballooning credit risks. By handing off the baton, he clears the way for a new, ambitious governor to succeed him, one who will maintain policy continuity while also taking the opportunity of the transition to implement a new and tougher regulatory framework. Consider that after Xi put the ambitious Guo Shuqing in charge of the China Banking Regulatory Committee in February, Guo immediately launched a notable crackdown on shadow banking.11 Guo is a possible contender for the central banker position; the other likely contenders have strong credentials in regulatory oversight as well as banking. The 19th National Party Congress: The midterm leadership reshuffle will mark Xi's consolidation of power, which will enable him to pursue his policy preferences more effectively in 2018-22. He could still be prevented by exogenous events, but domestic politics should be less of an obstacle for him going forward. Chart 13China's Economic##br## Tailwinds Fading Chart 14Anti-Corruption Campaign Hindered##br## Local Government Spending What about Xi's political capital within the top Communist Party bodies? We are in the thick of major decisions as we go to press. The highest level of leadership - the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC) - is expected to have its members chosen, in secret, in August when the current PSC and other party heavyweights will likely convene at Beidaihe to settle the list. The fall of Chongqing Party Secretary Sun Zhengcai in mid-July gives a few hints as to what might occur. Sun was ostensibly sympathetic with Xi, and until now the likeliest candidate for Premier Li Keqiang's replacement in 2022. His ouster means that four of the top five candidates on the PSC come from the rival camp to President Xi, i.e., the "Hu Jintao faction," which is rooted in the Chinese Communist Youth League (CCYL) (Diagram 2). Diagram 2Lineup Of New Politburo Standing Committee Yet To Take Shape - Factions Evenly Balanced? There are two likely pathways from here: either Sun's fall is part of a bargaining process and other CCYL members will soon be removed from the running for the PSC; or they will not be removed, which would mean that Xi gets along much better with the top CCYL members than is generally believed. The latter is unlikely, but possible, given that Xi and former President Hu Jintao did cooperate on critical power arrangements in the 2012 leadership transition. However, the most recent reports suggest that several CCYL members who were seen as rising stars (for 2022 leadership and beyond) have not received invitations to the party congress, including the current party secretary of the CCYL.12 If this proves to be the case, then it strongly suggests that Xi is continuing to undercut the CCYL. That, in turn, suggests that Xi will not tolerate the current scenario in which he stands to be outnumbered four-to-one on a five-member PSC. Instead, we should expect at least one major CCYL contender for the PSC to be removed in the coming months. This would enable Xi to gain the balance on a seven-member PSC. If the PSC is to be reduced to five members, then he would have to oust two major CCYL members - a more dramatic power play, but presumably within his reach given what he has achieved so far. Ultimately it is impossible to predict the PSC (and broader Politburo) membership precisely. All we can point out is that a failure by Xi to consolidate control on the top bodies - which is no longer our baseline view - would have bullish short-term but bearish long-term implications for growth. It would suggest, first, that Xi is weaker than he appears; second, that the aggressive financial regulatory drive outlined above, as well as other painful but necessary reforms, will be watered down as a result of resistance at top levels; third, that China is increasingly resisting the "creative destruction" that Xi threatens to bring about in the pursuit of making China more efficient. Bottom Line: A number of signs suggest that Chinese politics will become a headwind, rather than tailwind, to growth after the party congress. Xi's move to undercut the opposing CCYL faction ahead of the party congress confirms this view. His new policy will focus on deleveraging and financial sector restrictions. The commitment to stability will remain in place, however. Japan: Abe Is Not Yet Dead, Long Live Abenomics Shinzo Abe's approval rating has plummeted since June (Chart 15). His Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has also seen its popularity fall. This has been notable in relation to the flat polling of the LDP's main coalition partner, New Komeito (Chart 16). Chart 15Abe's Luck Runs Out? Chart 16Ruling LDP Also In Trouble Abe has been buffeted by a combination of spiraling corruption scandals and the loss of the Tokyo Metropolitan legislature in the local election of July 2. As if this were not bad enough, the Japanese economy is set to slow down (Chart 17).13 Chart 17A Slowdown In Japan Our readers will recall that we think there is a deeper cause for Abe's sudden loss of popularity: his proposed constitutional revisions, which he laid out in detail in May. Ever since he secured a virtual two-thirds supermajority in the House of Councillors (the Upper House) in July 2016, we have maintained that he would push ahead with controversial constitutional revisions that aim to enshrine the Japanese military. We expected that these changes would sap Abe's support - as did the debate over the new national security law in 2015 (Chart 18), only bigger this time because the matter is constitutional.14 However, the Tokyo election loss does not portend the death of Abe, and regardless, Abenomics itself will survive. Why? Because it is Abe's constitutional and security agenda that is unpopular, not Abenomics. Understood as economic reflation with elements of restructuring, like wage growth, Abenomics will actually intensify over the next year and a half as a result of the new threats to Abe's and the LDP's popularity and agenda, to which they will respond. Abe is more deeply committed to this constitutional mission than to Abenomics. It is his most ambitious plan and his economic policy supports it. Revising the constitution is about Japan seizing its own destiny again as a sovereign nation and also locking in the American alliance by offering greater military assistance to the U.S. Hence, at this point, economic reflation is not only an end in itself but also a means to a constitutional end. First, note that Abe's coalition in the upper house is not as "super" of a super-majority as is widely believed. He needs the support of smaller right-wing parties that are sympathetic toward his constitutional revisions to cross the 162-seat threshold for a two-thirds vote in the upper House of Councillors to approve constitutional reforms. But the LDP's three partner parties that are in favor of revision, as well as at least one independent, could raise objections and that would sink the revisions (Diagram 3). There are others with misgivings. Economic slowdown is not a recipe for Diet members to make big political sacrifices on Abe's account, so we expect monetary and fiscal policy to remain easy. Chart 18Abe Loses Support When He Talks ##br##Security Instead Of Economy Diagram 3Super-Majority ##br##Barely Within Reach Second, if the constitutional changes pass the upper and lower houses of the Diet by two-thirds votes, they must pass a nationwide referendum. While there is majority support for revisions of some sort, there is a roughly 50-50 division on the question of altering Article 9 (Chart 19), the article that forbids Japan to maintain military forces. This is the bullseye of Abe's proposal. The need for 50% of the nation to vote "yes" is an even bigger reason for Abe to pull policy levers to keep the economy humming before a potential referendum date in December 2018. Finally, even in the unlikely scenario that Abe's approval rating drops into the mid-20s or below and the LDP ousts him, we do not expect the next LDP leader to alter Abenomics in any significant way. The frontrunners for Abe's replacement in the September 2018 LDP party leadership poll, such as Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, would likely soften their predecessor's policy on remilitarization and constitutional revision, but would also launch a substantively similar economic policy that the media would promptly dub "Kishidanomics," "Ishibanomics," or "Asonomics." Thus, on fiscal policy, the focus will remain on fiscal support and lifting wages and social spending. Rules calling for fiscal restraint will be relaxed. On monetary policy, BoJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda is eligible for reappointment on April 8, 2018. So are his two deputies. Furthermore, the monetary policy committee members appointed since Kuroda have also been ultra-dovish like him.15 In short, the BoJ underwent a regime change in 2012 and will not revert back to the norms that prevailed before the global financial crisis, before the LDP lost power to a serious opposition party (2009), and before the shock to the national psyche that occurred during the 2011 earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crisis. Further, Japanese households are only hardly net savers anymore (Chart 20), and have for five years voted for a more reflationary policy. And aside from the current path of stealth debt monetization, there is no other way of managing the nation's debt other than fiscal austerity, which is not an option for an increasingly elderly population dependent on government social spending. The era of BoJ unorthodoxy is here to stay, at least as long as the LDP is in power (December 2018), if not longer. Chart 19Revise The Constitution? Yes.##br## End Pacifism? Maybe. Chart 20Japanese No Longer ##br##Savers Who Fear Inflation Bottom Line: Abe's downfall is not assured, and would portend the end of Abenomics in name only. The next LDP government would maintain Abenomics, as it is driven by structurally limited options. Fade any selloff in Japanese equities. However, in the long run, Abenomics may prove a failure in terms of defeating deflation. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 As a reminder to the uninitiated readers, Breitbart is a conservative magazine that has been a platform for a slew of unorthodox right-wing views more in line with modern nationalist European political movements than the American conservative movement. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Monetary Policy Recalibration," dated July 17, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Every Which Way But Loose," dated July 18, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, "Questions From The Road," dated July 1, 2015, and "Policy Mistakes And A Silver Lining," dated October 7, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see Gabriel Wildau, "China bank overseer launches 'regulatory windstorm,'" Financial Times, April 18, 2017, available at www.ft.com. 12 Please see Jun Mai, "Guess who's not invited to China's key Communist Party congress," South China Morning Post, July 23, 2017, available at www.scmp.com. 13 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "A Soft-Spoken Yellen," dated July 14, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see footnote 11 above. 15 The last two dissenters, Takehiro Sato and Takehide Kiuchi, stepped down when their terms expired on July 23, 2017. They were replaced by Goshi Kataoka and Hitoshi Suzuki, who are expected to support Governor Haruhiko Kuroda's dovish approach. Now all nine policy board members have been appointed by the Abe administration. Please see "Two new Bank of Japan policymakers join board," Japan Times, July 24, 2017, available at www.japantimes.co.jp.

Chemicals stocks comprise over 73% of the S&P materials index, and this bump to a neutral stance also moves the broad materials index to a benchmark allocation. The key Chinese economy, the largest commodity consumer, appears to have turned a corner. Historically, the Keqiang Index has been positively correlated with materials revenue growth and the current message is positive (second panel). Further, the recently surging Australian dollar suggests that China is at least not relapsing (third panel). Not only are emerging markets reviving, but also advanced economies are in excellent shape. Synchronized global growth and the coordinated brewing tightening cycle should lead to a selloff in most G7 bond markets. At a minimum, this implies that relative materials performance has put in a cyclical trough. Our newly introduced S&P materials relative EPS model captures this positive macro backdrop for the sector and signals that the relative EPS recovery still has breathing room (bottom panel). Bottom Line: Lift the S&P materials sector to a benchmark allocation, and lock in profits of 12.8% since inception.

In the summer of 2014 we went underweight the S&P chemicals index, anticipating an earnings underperformance phase, driven by weak revenues as chemicals manufacturers were furiously adding capacity to benefit from lower domestic feedstocks. This view has largely panned out, and now three factors underpin our more neutral bias: synchronized global growth, receding global capacity and improving domestic operating conditions. The global manufacturing PMI has recently reaccelerated and jumped to a six year high. Similarly, the U.S. ISM manufacturing survey also vaulted higher. Synchronized global growth suggests that final demand is on the upswing and should bode well for chemical top- and bottom-line growth (second panel). This has driven a relative weakening of the U.S. dollar, much to the benefit of U.S. chemical producers, whose exports appear to be displacing German exports (third panel). Finally, domestic operating conditions have taken a turn for the better. This improving domestic final demand backdrop is reflected in higher resource utilization rates and solid pricing power gains have staying power (bottom panel). Net, evidence is emerging that the bear market in chemicals producers is over; upgrade the S&P chemicals index to neutral (see the next Insight).

Informe especial

Highlights Trading The Yield Curve: Butterfly trades, going long or short a bullet versus a barbell, offer exposure to changes in the slope of the yield curve while remaining insulated from small parallel curve shifts. This will always be true provided that the cash allocation to the two bonds in the barbell is chosen to make the dollar-duration of the barbell equal to that of the bullet. Yield Curve Models: Using a model of the butterfly spread versus the slope, we can calculate how much curve steepening or flattening is being discounted by the current yield curve. Our strategy is to only implement a steepening/flattening butterfly trade if we think the curve will steepen/flatten by more than what is currently priced in. Empirical Performance: Incorporating the reading from our butterfly spread model improves on the performance of a purely macro-based yield curve trading strategy, both in theory and empirically. A purely mechanical trading rule based on our model also displays encouraging results over time. Feature One of the mandates of this publication is to take a view on the slope of the yield curve. Typically, we implement these views by recommending butterfly trades. A butterfly trade consists of two legs: A Barbell. Defined as a weighted combination of the two bonds that bound the yield curve segment you want to trade. For example, to take a view on the 2/10 slope, the barbell leg of the trade would be a weighted combination of the 2-year and 10-year notes. A Bullet. Defined as a bond that sits near the middle of the yield curve segment you want to trade. For example, the 5-year note would be a good choice for the bullet leg of a trade designed to profit from shifts in the 2/10 slope. A butterfly trade is defined as going long either the bullet or barbell while simultaneously shorting the other. This provides exposure to the slope of the curve because bullets tend to outperform barbells when the yield curve steepens and vice-versa (Chart 1 on page 1). Chart 1Gain Curve Exposure Through Butterfly Trades In this Special Report, we explain why butterfly trades are the best way to gain exposure to changes in the slope of the yield curve. We also explain how we think about the trade-off between our macro-informed view of whether the yield curve will steepen or flatten and how much steepening/flattening is already discounted in the market. To determine what is discounted in the market we rely on fair value models of the butterfly spread, which are also described in this report.1 Note: In the remainder of this report we focus exclusively on the 2/10 slope of the curve and the 2/5/10 butterfly spread, although the logic of butterfly trades applies to any yield curve segment. We will explore different yield curve segments in future reports. The Mechanics Of Butterfly Trades The first choice that must be made when implementing a butterfly trade is how to weight the two bonds used in the barbell. The chosen weighting scheme depends on what sort of curve movement you want to profit from. For our purpose, which is to gain exposure to changes in the slope of the yield curve while remaining insulated from parallel shifts, we adopt a dollar duration (DV01)2 weighting scheme. In this weighting scheme, the barbell weights are set so that the DV01 of the bullet leg of the trade matches the DV01 of the barbell. Table 1 presents an illustrated example of how this works. Table 1Butterfly Trade Performance Illustrated The top half of Table 1 shows an example based on hypothetical bonds derived from the Federal Reserve's par coupon constant-maturity yield curve. By definition, each of these hypothetical bonds trades at par ($100) and we use that fact along with the par coupon yield to calculate each bond's duration. After calculating the DV01 for each hypothetical bond by multiplying its duration by its price and dividing by 104, we can calculate that placing 40% of the barbell's cash in the 10-year note and 60% in the 2-year note leads to identical DV01's in both the bullet and barbell. Shocking The Yield Curve Identical DV01's in each leg of the trade means that if we go long one leg and short the other, our butterfly trade is immune to small parallel shifts in the yield curve. This is shown in the sixth column of Table 1, where we see that a +1 basis point parallel shift in the curve results in a loss of $0.0475 in both the bullet and barbell. It should be noted that this immunization from parallel curve shifts only works for small changes in yields. This is because while we have matched the DV01 between each leg of the trade, we have not matched the convexity. In this weighting scheme the barbell will always have a greater convexity than the bullet and will outperform in the event of a large parallel curve shift (in either direction). However, large parallel curve shifts are quite rare in practice. Usually, big yield moves are associated with either a steepening or a flattening of the curve. As such, convexity differences are only a minor consideration when we recommend butterfly trades. While the DV01 of each leg of the trade is the same, within the barbell itself there is a mismatch between the 2-year and 10-year notes. The fifth column of Table 1 shows that the weighted DV01 contribution to the barbell is $0.0117 from the 2-year note and $0.0357 from the 10-year note. The greater "weighted DV01" means that the barbell is more sensitive to changes in the 10-year yield than to changes in the 2-year yield. It is this mismatch that gives the butterfly trade exposure to the slope of the curve. For example, column 7 of Table 1 presents a scenario where the curve steepens by a small amount. Specifically, the 10-year yield rises 1 bp, the 2-year yield falls 1 bp and the 5-year yield remains flat. In this scenario, the losses in the 10-year note more than offset the gains in the 2-year note, causing the barbell to underperform the bullet. The opposite scenario is presented in column 8, which shows that the barbell outperforms the bullet when the curve flattens. The bottom half of Table 1 replicates the same analysis using the current on-the-run 2-year, 5-year and 10-year notes instead of hypothetical par bonds. It shows that the same logic and methodology apply in both cases. Bottom Line: Butterfly trades, going long or short a bullet versus a barbell, offer exposure to changes in the slope of the yield curve while remaining insulated from small parallel curve shifts. This will always be true provided that the cash allocation to the two bonds in the barbell is chosen to make the dollar-duration of the barbell equal to that of the bullet. Modeling The Butterfly Spread Often, it is not sufficient to just know whether the curve will steepen or flatten and then put on the appropriate butterfly trade. In an efficient market the butterfly spread (defined in this report as the yield on the bullet minus the yield on the DV01-matched barbell) should adjust to expected changes in the slope of the curve so that no excess profits can be earned. We see evidence for this in the bottom panel of Chart 1 on page 1. Here, the 2/5/10 butterfly spread widens as the 2/10 slope steepens and vice-versa. The logic of this relationship depends on mean reversion. As the curve steepens investors start to discount a greater probability of curve flattening in the future. This means that investors will also demand greater compensation to enter steepener trades (long bullet, short barbell) as the curve steepens. We can take advantage of this positive relationship between the slope of the curve and the butterfly spread by creating a fair value model (Chart 2). The model is simply a regression of the 2/5/10 butterfly spread on the 2/10 Treasury slope. Chart 22/5/10 Butterfly Spread Fair Value Model We tested the model using many different time intervals and settled on a regression coefficient of 0.14. As shown in Chart 3, the coefficient has been reasonably close to 0.14 for most of its history, with the exception of the period immediately following the financial crisis when the fed funds rate was pinned at the zero-lower-bound. The zero-lower-bound caused the relationship between the butterfly spread and the slope to weaken dramatically, but it began to re-assert itself once the Fed started to lift rates at the end of 2015. At present, the coefficient from a 3-year trailing regression is 0.17. Chart 3Choosing The Right Beta What's Priced Into The Curve? One obvious application of our fair value model is that we can identify periods when the butterfly spread is too high or too low relative to the slope of the curve. Put differently, when the butterfly spread's deviation from fair value is above zero, the bullet looks attractive relative to the barbell. When the deviation from fair value is below zero, the barbell looks attractive compared to the bullet. However, if we make a few simplifying assumptions, we can express the model's deviation from fair value in a more helpful way. If we assume that: The butterfly spread will revert to its fair value during the next 6 months During this time period returns to the bullet and barbell legs of the trade will be equal3 Then we can calculate how much the slope of the curve must change to satisfy both conditions. In other words, we can answer the question of what change in the slope is being discounted by today's butterfly spread. Chart 4How Our Models Add Value The third panel of Chart 2 shows the change in the 2/10 slope that is currently being discounted by the butterfly spread. The bottom panel shows the level of the slope that is implied by the model compared to the actual 2/10 slope. A recent example of why it's important to consider what is priced into the curve is shown in Chart 4. Last December 20,4 we recommended entering a butterfly trade that is long the 5-year bullet and short the 2/10 barbell, a trade designed to profit from curve steepening. Since then, however, the 2/10 slope has flattened 44 bps. Despite the curve flattening, our recommended trade is 21 bps in the money. The reason is that, according to our model, on December 20 the butterfly spread was discounting a whopping 49 bps of flattening during the next 6 months. Significantly more flattening than what actually occurred. We continue to recommend this trade going forward, even though the curve is now already priced for 6 bps of 2/10 steepening during the next six months. This means that we will need the yield curve to steepen more than 6 bps for our trade to outperform. We continue to see this as the most likely outcome.5 Bottom Line: Using a model of the butterfly spread versus the slope, we can calculate how much curve steepening or flattening is being discounted by the current yield curve. Our strategy is to only implement a steepening/flattening butterfly trade if we think the curve will steepen/flatten by more than what is currently priced in. Empirical Testing Charts 5 and 6 illustrate the importance of relying on both a macro call about the slope of the curve and the reading from our butterfly spread model. In Chart 5 we plot 6-month excess returns in the 5-year bullet over the 2/10 barbell versus the 6-month change in the 2/10 slope. While we see a reasonably strong positive correlation, there are still many periods of steepening when the bullet underperforms and many periods of flattening when the barbell underperforms. Chart 5Performance Of A Bullet Over Barbell Strategy Vs. ##br##The Actual Change In The 2/10 Nominal Treasury Slope Chart 6Performance Of A Bullet Over Barbell Strategy Vs. The Difference Between ##br##Actual And Discounted Change In The 2/10 Nominal Treasury Slope Chart 6 plots the same 6-month excess return, but this time against the difference between the actual change in the 2/10 slope and what was priced-in according to our model. Here we observe a much stronger correlation and fewer examples of the butterfly trade not performing as expected. Going one step further, Table 2 shows the results of implementing butterfly trades over 6-month horizons assuming perfect knowledge of how the yield curve will move. The first row shows that, during our sample period, a long 5-year bullet, short 2/10 barbell trade produced positive returns 71% of the time when the 2/10 slope steepened, for an average un-levered 6-month return of 34 bps. Similarly, long 2/10 barbell, short 5-year bullet trades produced positive returns 71% of the time when the 2/10 slope flattened, for an average un-levered 6-month return of 24 bps. Table 2Performance Of Butterfly Trades Over 6-Month Horizons ##br##Assuming Perfect Knowledge Of Curve Movements (1976-Present) The bottom two rows of Table 2 show that the performance of these trades improves when we also incorporate the reading from our model, only putting on trades when the steepening or flattening is greater than what was initially priced in. In fact, incorporating the output from our butterfly spread model led to 128 instances when we would have reversed the trade that would have been implemented if all we knew was which direction the slope would move. Out of those 128 instances, 60% of the time the change led to a better trade. Cumulatively, incorporating the reading from the model produced an extra return of more than 11% throughout our entire sample. Can We Just Follow The Model? This begs the question of whether we can create a mechanical trading rule based purely on the output from our butterfly spread model that will produce positive results. To test this we first look at excess returns in the 5-year bullet over the 2/10 barbell in 6-month periods following different readings from our model (Table 3). Table 3Performance Of Butterfly Trades Over 6-Month ##br##Horizons Based Only On Our Model (1976-Present) We find that bullets outperform barbells in more than 70% of 6-month periods when the 5-year bullet appears more than 5 bps undervalued. Similarly, barbells outperform in 56% of 6-month periods when the 2/10 barbell is more than 5 bps undervalued. Second, we created a trading rule where every month you invest either: Chart 7A Model-Driven Curve Trading Strategy 100% in the 5-year bullet, if the bullet appears more than 5 bps cheap on our model. 50% in the 5-year bullet and 50% in the 2/10 barbell, if the bullet is between 5 bps expensive and 5 bps cheap compared to the barbell. 100% in the 2/10 barbell, if the barbell appears more than 5 bps cheap on our model. The cumulative results from this model since 1980 relative to a curve-neutral benchmark that is always invested 50% in the bullet and 50% in the barbell are shown in Chart 7. We observe a clear outperformance over time, with relatively few periods of sustained losses. Bottom Line: Incorporating the reading from our butterfly spread model improves on the performance of a purely macro-based yield curve trading strategy, both in theory and empirically. A purely mechanical trading rule based on our model also displays encouraging results over time. Going forward we will consider both the output from our butterfly spread model and our macro view of the yield curve when recommending butterfly trades. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 These models were first introduced in a Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report from February 1, 2002. Please contact your sales representative to request a copy. 2 DV01 is the dollar value of a basis point. It measures the dollar change in the price of a given bond assuming a one basis point change in its yield. It is calculated as the bond's duration times its price, divided by 104. 3 A 6-month time period was arbitrarily chosen to line up with our preferred investment horizon. We also need to assume how much of the discounted shift in the yield curve occurs at the long-end relative to the short-end. We assume that half the change in slope occurs at each maturity, but the results are not very sensitive to changing this assumption. 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For further details on our macro outlook for the yield curve please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com