メガテーマ

特別レポート

Dear Client, In addition to this Special Report written by my colleagues Mark McClellan and Brian Piccioni, we are sending you an abbreviated weekly report. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. Technological advance in the past has not prevented improving living standards or led to ever rising joblessness over the decades, but pessimists argue that recent advances are different. The issue is important for financial markets. If structural factors such as automation are holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. We see no compelling evidence that the displacement effect of emerging technologies is any stronger than in the past. Robot usage has had a modest positive impact on overall productivity. Despite this contribution, overall productivity growth has been dismal over the past decade. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale as some claim, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Periods of strong growth in automation have historically been associated with robust, not lackluster, wage gains, contrary to the consensus view. The Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. This and other evidence suggest that it is difficult to make the case that robots will make it tougher for central banks to reach their inflation goals than did previous technological breakthroughs. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. Feature Recent breakthroughs in technology are awe-inspiring and unsettling. These advances are viewed with great trepidation by many because of the potential to replace humans in the production process. Hype over robots is particularly shrill. Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. In the first in our series of Special Reports focusing on the structural factors that might be preventing central banks from reaching their inflation targets, we demonstrated that the impact of Amazon is overstated in the press. We estimated that E-commerce is depressing inflation in the U.S. by a mere 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points. This Special Report tackles the impact of automation. We are optimistic that robot technology and artificial intelligence will significantly boost future productivity, and thus reduce costs. But, is there any evidence at the macro level that robot usage has been more deflationary than technological breakthroughs in the past and is, thus, a major driver of the low inflation rates we observe today across the major countries? The question matters, especially for the outlook for central bank policy and the bond market. If structural factors are indeed holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. However, if low inflation simply reflects long lags between wages and the tightening labor market, then inflation may suddenly lurch to life as it has at the end of past cycles. The bond market is not priced for that scenario. Are Robots Different? A Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service suggested that the "robot revolution" could be as transformative as previous General Purpose Technologies (GPT), including the steam engine, electricity and the microchip.1 GPTs are technologies that radically alter the economy's production process and make a major contribution to living standards over time. The term "robot" can have different meanings. The most basic definition is "a device that automatically performs complicated and often repetitive tasks," and this encompasses a broad range of machines: From the Jacquard Loom, which was invented over 200 years ago, on to Numerically Controlled (NC) mills and lathes, pick and place machines used in the manufacture of electronics, Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), and even homicidal robots from the future such as the Terminator. Our Technology Sector report made the case that there is nothing particularly sinister about robots. They are just another chapter in a long history of automation. Nor is the displacement of workers unprecedented. The industrial revolution was about replacing human craft labor with capital (machines), which did high-volume work with better quality and productivity. This freed humans for work which had not yet been automated, along with designing, producing and maintaining the machinery. Agriculture offers a good example. This sector involved over 50% of the U.S. labor force until the late 1800s. Steam and then internal combustion-powered tractors, which can be viewed as "robotic horses," contributed to a massive rise in output-per-man hour. The number of hours worked to produce a bushel of wheat fell by almost 98% from the mid-1800s to 1955. This put a lot of farm hands out of work, but these laborers were absorbed over time in other growing areas of the economy. It is the same story for all other historical technological breakthroughs. Change is stressful for those directly affected, but rising productivity ultimately lifts average living standards. Robots will be no different. As we discuss below, however, the increasing use of robots and AI may have a deeper and longer-lasting impact on inequality. Strong Tailwinds Chart 1Robots Are Getting Cheaper Factory robots have improved immensely due to cheaper and more capable control and vision systems. As these systems evolve, the abilities of robots to move around their environment while avoiding obstacles will improve, as will their ability to perform increasingly complex tasks. Most importantly, robots are already able to do more than just routine tasks, thus enabling them to replace or aid humans in higher-skilled processes. Robot prices are also falling fast, especially after quality-adjusting the data (Chart 1). Units are becoming easier to install, program and operate. These trends will help to reduce the barriers-to-entry for the large, untapped, market of small and medium sized enterprises. Robots also offer the ability to do low-volume "customized" production and still keep unit costs low. In the future, self-learning robots will be able to optimize their own performance by analyzing the production of other robots around the world. Robot usage is growing quickly according to data collected by the International Federation of Robotics (IFR) that covers 23 countries. Industrial robot sales worldwide increased to almost 300,000 units in 2016, up 16% from the year before (Chart 2). The stock of industrial robots globally has grown at an annual average pace of 10% since 2010, reaching slightly more than 1.8 million units in 2016.2 Robot usage is far from evenly distributed across industries. The automotive industry is the major consumer of industrial robots, holding 45% of the total stock in 2016 (Chart 3). The computer & electronics industry is a distant second at 17%. Metals, chemicals and electrical/electronic appliances comprise the bulk of the remaining stock. Chart 2Global Robot Usage Chart 3Global Robot Usage By Industry (2016) As far as countries go, Japan has traditionally been the largest market for robots in the world. However, sales have been in a long-term downtrend and the stock of robots has recently been surpassed by China, which has ramped up robot purchases in recent years (Chart 4). Robot density, which is the stock of robots per 10 thousand employed in manufacturing, makes it easier to compare robot usage across countries (Chart 5, panel 2). By this measure, China is not a heavy user of robots compared to other countries. South Korea stands at the top, well above the second-place finishers (Germany and Japan). Large automobile sectors in these three countries explain their high relative robot densities. Chart 4Stock Of Robots By Country (I) Chart 5Stock Of Robots By Country (II) (2016) While the growth rate of robot usage is impressive, it is from a very low base (outside of the automotive industry). The average number of robots per 10,000 employees is only 74 for the 23 countries in the IFR database. Robot use is tiny compared to total man hours worked. In the U.S., spending on robots is only about 5% of total business spending on equipment and software (Chart 6). To put this into perspective, U.S. spending on information, communication and technology (ICT) equipment represented 35-40% of total capital equipment spending during the tech boom in the 1990s and early 2000s.3 Chart 6U.S. Investment In Robots The bottom line is that there is a lot of hype in the press, but robots are not yet widely used across countries or industries. It will be many years before business spending on robots approaches the scale of the 1990s/2000s IT boom. A Deflationary Impact? As noted above, we view robotics as another chapter in a long history of technological advancements. Pessimists suggest that the latest advances are different because they are inherently more threatening to the overall job market and wage share of total income. If the pessimists are right, what are the theoretical channels though which this would have a greater disinflationary effect relative to previous GPT technologies? Faster Productivity Gains: Enhanced productivity drives down unit labor costs, which may be passed along to other industries (as cheaper inputs) and to the end consumer. More Human Displacement: The jobs created in other areas may be insufficient to replace the jobs displaced by robots, leading to lower aggregate income and spending. The loss of income for labor will simply go to the owners of capital, but the point is that the labor share of income might decline. Deflationary pressures could build as aggregate demand falls short of supply. Even in industries that are slow to automate, just the threat of being replaced by robots may curtail wage demands. Inequality: Some have argued that rising inequality is partly because the spoils of new technologies over the past 20 years have largely gone to the owners of capital. This shift may have undermined aggregate demand because upper income households tend to have a high saving rate, thereby depressing overall aggregate demand and inflationary pressures. The human displacement effect, described above, would exacerbate the inequality effect by transferring income from labor to the owners of capital. 1. Productivity It is difficult to see the benefits of robots on productivity at the economy-wide level. Productivity growth has been abysmal across the major developed countries since the Great Recession, but the productivity slowdown was evident long before Lehman collapsed (Chart 7). The productivity slowdown continued even as automation using robots accelerated after 2010. Chart 7Productivity Collapsed Despite Automation Some analysts argue that lackluster productivity is simply a statistical mirage because of the difficulties in measuring output in today's economy. We will not get into the details of the mismeasurement debate here. We encourage interested clients to read a Special Report by the BCA Global Investment Strategy service entitled "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians." 4 Our colleague Peter Berezin makes the case that the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, radio, indoor plumbing and air conditioning. He argues that the real reason that productivity growth has slowed is that educational attainment has decelerated and businesses have plucked many of the low-hanging fruit made possible by the IT revolution. Cyclical factors stemming from the Great Recession and financial crisis are also to blame, as capital spending has been slow to recover in most of the advanced economies. Some other factors that help to explain the decline in aggregate productivity are provided in Appendix 1. Nonetheless, the poor aggregate productivity performance does not mean that there are no benefits to using robots. The benefits are evident at the industrial level, where measurement issues are presumably less vexing for statisticians (i.e., it is easier to measure the output of the auto industry, for example, than for the economy as a whole). Chart 8 plots the level of robot density in 2016 with average annual productivity growth since 2004 for 10 U.S. manufacturing industries (robot density is presented in deciles). A loose positive relationship is apparent. Chart 8U.S.: Productivity Vs. Robot Density Academic studies estimate that robots have contributed importantly to economy-wide productivity growth. The Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) estimated that labor productivity growth rises by 0.07 to 0.08 percentage points for every 1% rise in the rate of robot density.5 This implies that robots accounted for roughly 10% of the productivity growth experienced since the early 1990s in the major economies. Another study of 14 industries across 17 countries by the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) found that robots boosted annual productivity growth by 0.36 percentage points over the 1993-2007 period.6 This is impressive because, if this estimate holds true for the U.S., robots' contribution to the 2½% average annual U.S. total productivity growth over the period was 14%. To put the importance of robotics into historical context, its contribution to productivity so far is roughly on par with that of the steam engine (Chart 9). It falls well short of the 0.6 percentage point annual productivity contribution from the IT revolution. The implication is that, while the overall productivity performance has been dismal since 2007, it would have been even worse in the absence of robots. What does this mean for inflation? According to the "cost push" model of the inflation process, an increase in productivity of 0.36% that is not accompanied by associated wage gains would reduce unit labor costs (ULC) by the same amount. This should trim inflation if the cost savings are passed on to the end consumer, although by less than 0.36% because robots can only depress variable costs, not fixed costs. There indeed appears to be a slight negative relationship between robot density and unit labor costs at the industrial level in the U.S., although the relationship is loose at best (Chart 10). Chart 9GPT Contribution To Productivity Chart 10U.S.: Unit Labor Costs Vs. Robot Density In theory, divergences in productivity across industries should only generate shifts in relative prices, and "cost push" inflation dynamics should only operate in the short term. Most economists believe that inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon in the long run, which means that central banks should be able to offset positive productivity shocks by lowering interest rates enough that aggregate demand keeps up with supply. Indeed, the Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. Also, note that inflation is currently low across the major advanced economies, irrespective of the level of robot intensity (Chart 11). From this perspective, it is hard to see that robots should take much of the credit for today's low inflation backdrop. Chart 11Inflation Vs. Robot Density 2. Human Displacement A key question is whether robots and humans are perfect substitutes. If new technologies introduced in the past were perfect substitutes, then it would have led to massive underemployment and all of the income in the economy would eventually have migrated to the owners of capital. The fact that average real household incomes have risen over time, and that there has been no secular upward trend in unemployment rates over the centuries, means that new technologies were at least partly complementary with labor (i.e., the jobs lost as a direct result of productivity gains were more than replaced in other areas of the economy over time). Rather than replacing workers, in many cases tech made humans more productive in their jobs. Rising productivity lifted income and thereby led to the creation of new jobs in other areas. The capital that workers bring to the production process - the skills, know-how and special talents - became more valuable as interaction with technology increased. Like today, there were concerns in the 1950s and 1960s that computerization would displace many types of jobs and lead to widespread idleness and falling household income. With hindsight, there was little to worry about. Some argue that this time is different. Futurists frequently assert that the pace of innovation is not just accelerating, it is accelerating 'exponentially'. Robots can now, or will soon be able to, replace humans in tasks that require cognitive skills. This means that they will be far less complementary to humans than in the past. The displacement effect could thus be much larger, especially given the impressive advances in artificial intelligence. However, Box 1 discusses why the threat to workers posed by AI is also heavily overblown in the media. The CEP multi-country study cited above did not find a large displacement effect; robot usage did not affect the overall number of hours worked in the 23 countries studied (although it found distributional effects - see below). In other words, rather than suppressing overall labor input, robot usage has led to more output, higher productivity, more jobs and stronger wage and income growth. A report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI)7 takes a broader look at automation, using productivity growth and capital spending as proxies. Automation is what occurs as the implementation of new technologies is incorporated along with new capital equipment or software to replace human labor in the workplace. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending, and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Indeed, the report demonstrates that occupational employment shifts were far slower in the 2000-2015 period than in any decade in the 1900s (Chart 12). Box 1 The Threat From AI Is Overblown Media coverage of AI/Deep Learning has established a consensus view that we believe is well off the mark. A recent Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service dispels the myths surrounding AI.8 We believe the consensus, in conjunction with warnings from a variety of sources, is leading to predictions, policy discussions, and even career choices based on a flawed premise. It is worth noting that the most vocal proponents of AI as a threat to jobs and even humanity are not AI experts. At the root of this consensus is the false view that emerging AI technology is anything like true intelligence. Modern AI is not remotely comparable in function to a biological brain. Scientists have a limited understanding of how brains work, and it is unlikely that a poorly understood system can be modeled on a computer. The misconception of intelligence is amplified by headlines claiming an AI "taught itself" a particular task. No AI has ever "taught itself" anything: All AI results have come about after careful programming by often PhD-level experts, who then supplied the system with vast amounts of high quality data to train it. Often these systems have been iterated a number of times and we only hear of successes, not the failures. The need for careful preparation of the AI system and the requirement for high quality data limits the applicability of AI to specific classes of problems where the application justifies the investment in development and where sufficient high-quality data exists. There may be numerous such applications but doubtless many more where AI would not be suitable. Similarly, an AI system is highly adapted to a single problem, or type of problem, and becomes less useful when its application set is expanded. In other words, unlike a human whose abilities improve as they learn more things, an AI's performance on a particular task declines as it does more things. There is a popular misconception that increased computing power will somehow lead to ever improving AI. It is the algorithm which determines the outcome, not the computer performance: Increased computing power leads to faster results, not different results. Advanced computers might lead to more advanced algorithms, but it is pointless to speculate where that may lead: A spreadsheet from 2001 may work faster today but it still gives the same answer. In any event, it is worth noting that a tool ceases to be a tool when it starts having an opinion: there is little reason to develop a machine capable of cognition even if that were possible. Chart 12U.S. Job Rotation Has Slowed The EPI report also notes that these indicators of automation increased rapidly in the late 1990s and early 2000s, a period that saw solid wage growth for American workers. These indicators weakened in the two periods of stagnant wage growth: from 1973 to 1995 and from 2002 to the present. Thus, there is no historical correlation between increases in automation and wage stagnation. Rather than automation, the report argues that it was China's entry into the global trading system that was largely responsible for the hollowing out of the U.S. manufacturing sector. We have also made this argument in previous research. The fact that the major advanced economies are all at, or close to, full employment supports the view that automation has not been an overwhelming headwind for job creation. Chart 13 demonstrates that there has been no relationship between the change in robot density and the loss of manufacturing jobs since 1993. Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. Interestingly, despite a worsening labor shortage, robot density among Japanese firms is falling. Moreover, the Japanese data show that the industries that have a high robot usage tend to be more, not less, generous with wages than the robot laggard industries. Please see Appendix 2 for more details. Chart 13Global Manufacturing Jobs Vs. Robot Density The bottom line is that it does not appear that labor displacement related to automation has been responsible in any meaningful way for the lackluster average real income growth in the advanced economies since 2007. 3. Inequality That said, there is evidence suggesting that robots are having important distributional effects. The CEP study found that robot use has reduced hours for low-skilled and (to a lesser extent) middle-skilled workers relative to the highly skilled. This finding makes sense conceptually. Technological change can exacerbate inequality by either increasing the relative demand for skilled over unskilled workers (so-called "skill-biased" technological change), or by inducing companies to substitute machinery and other forms of physical capital for workers (so-called "capital-biased" technological change). The former affects the distribution of labor income, while the latter affects the share of income in GDP that labor receives. A Special Report appearing in this publication in 2014 focused on the relationship between technology and inequality.9 The report highlighted that much of the recent technological change has been skill-biased, which heavily favors workers with the talent and education to perform cognitively-demanding tasks, even as it reduces demand for workers with only rudimentary skills. Moreover, technological innovations and globalization increasingly allow the most talented individuals to market their skills to a much larger audience, thus bidding up their wages. The evidence suggests that faster productivity growth leads to higher average real wages and improved living standards, at least over reasonably long horizons. Nonetheless, technological change can, and in the future almost certainly will, increase income inequality. The poor will gain, but not as much as the rich. The fact that higher-income households tend to maintain a higher savings rate than low-income households means that the shift in the distribution of income toward the higher-income households will continue to modestly weigh on aggregate demand. Can the distribution effect be large enough to have a meaningful depressing impact on inflation? We believe that it has played some role in the lackluster recovery since the Great Recession, with the result that an extended period of underemployment has delivered a persistent deflationary impulse in the major developed economies. However, as discussed above, stimulative monetary policy has managed to overcome the impact of inequality and other headwinds on aggregate demand, and has returned the major countries roughly to full employment. Indeed, this year will be the first since 2007 that the G20 economies as a group will be operating slightly above a full employment level. Inflation should respond to excess demand conditions, irrespective of any ongoing demand headwind stemming from inequality. Conclusions Technological change has led to rising living standards over the decades. It did not lead to widespread joblessness and did not prevent central banks from meeting their inflation targets over time. The pessimists argue that this time is different because robots/AI have a much larger displacement effect. Perhaps it will be 20 years before we will know the answer. But our main point is that we have found no evidence that recent advances in robotics and AI, while very impressive, will be any different in their macro impact. There is little evidence that the modern economy is less capable in replacing the jobs lost to automation, although the nature of new technologies may be affecting the distribution of income more than in the past. Real incomes for the middle- and lower-income classes have been stagnant for some time, but this is partly due to productivity growth that is too low, not too high. Moreover, it is not at all clear that positive productivity shocks are disinflationary beyond the near term. The link between robot usage and unit labor costs over the past couple of decades is loose at best at the industry level, and is non-existent when looking across the major countries. The Fed was able to roughly meet its 2% inflation target in the 1990s and the first half of the 2000s, despite IT's impressive contribution to productivity growth during that period. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. The global output gap will shift into positive territory this year for the first time since the Great Recession. Any resulting rise in inflation will come as a shock since the bond market has discounted continued low inflation for as far as the eye can see. We expect bond yields and implied volatility to rise this year, which may undermine risk assets in the second half. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Brian Piccioni Vice President Technology Sector Strategy Appendix 1 Why Is Productivity So Low? A recent study by the OECD10 reveals that, while frontier firms are charging ahead, there is a widening gap between these firms and the laggards. The study analyzed firm-level data on labor productivity and total factor productivity for 24 countries. "Frontier" firms are defined to be those with productivity in the top 5%. These firms are 3-4 times as productive as the remaining 95%. The authors argue that the underlying cause of this yawning gap is that the diffusion rate of new technologies from the frontier firms to the laggards has slowed within industries. This could be due to rising barriers to entry, which has reduced contestability in markets. Curtailing the creative-destruction process means that there is less pressure to innovate. Barriers to entry may have increased because "...the importance of tacit knowledge as a source of competitive advantage for frontier firms may have risen if increasingly complex technologies were to increase the amount and sophistication of complementary investments required for technological adoption." 11 The bottom line is that aggregate productivity is low because the robust productivity gains for the tech-savvy frontier companies are offset by the long tail of firms that have been slow to adopt the latest technology. Indeed, business spending has been especially weak in this expansion. Chart 14 highlights that the slowdown in U.S. productivity growth has mirrored that of the capital stock. Chart 14U.S. Capex Shortfall Partly To Blame For Poor Productivity Appendix 2 Japan - The Leading Edge Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. The popular press is full of stories of how robots are taking over. If the stories are to be believed, robots are the answer to the country's shrinking workforce. Robots now serve as helpers for the elderly, priests for weddings and funerals, concierges for hotels and even sexual partners (don't ask). Prime Minister Abe's government has launched a 5-year push to deepen the use of intelligent machines in manufacturing, supply chains, construction and health care. Indeed, Japan was the leader in robotics use for decades. Nonetheless, despite all the hype, Japan's stock of industrial robots has actually been eroding since the late 1990s (Chart 4). Numerous surveys show that firms plan to use robots more in the future because of the difficulty in hiring humans. And there is huge potential: 90% of Japanese firms are small- and medium-sized (SME) and most are not currently using robots. Yet, there has been no wave of robot purchases as of 2016. One problem is the cost; most sophisticated robots are simply too expensive for SMEs to consider. This suggests that one cannot blame robots for Japan's lack of wage growth. The labor shortage has become so acute that there are examples of companies that have turned down sales due to insufficient manpower. Possible reasons why these companies do not offer higher wages to entice workers are beyond the scope of this report. But the fact that the stock of robots has been in decline since the late 1990s does not support the view that Japanese firms are using automation on a broad scale to avoid handing out pay hikes. Indeed, Chart 15 highlights that wage deflation has been the greatest in industries that use almost no robots. Highly automated industries, such as Transportation Equipment and Electronics, have been among the most generous. This supports the view that the productivity afforded by increased robot usage encourages firms to pay their workers more. Looking ahead, it seems implausible that robots can replace all the retiring Japanese workers in the years to come. The workforce will shrink at an annual average pace of 0.33% between 2020 and 2030, according to the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training. Productivity growth would have to rise by the same amount to fully offset the dwindling number of workers. But that would require a surge in robot density of 4.1, assuming that each rise in robot density of one adds 0.08% to the level of productivity (Chart 16). The level of robot sales would have to jump by a whopping 2½ times in the first year and continue to rise at the same pace each year thereafter to make this happen. Of course, the productivity afforded by new robots may accelerate in the coming years, but the point is that robot usage would likely have to rise astronomically to offset the impact of the shrinking population. Chart 15Japan: Earnings Vs. Robot Density Chart 16Japan: Where Is The Flood Of Robots? The implication is that, as long as the Japanese economy continues to grow above roughly 1%, the labor market will continue to tighten and wage rates will eventually begin to rise. 1 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "The Coming Robotics Revolution," dated May 16, 2017, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 2 Note that this includes only robots used in manufacturing industry, and thus excludes robots used in the service sector and households. However, robot usage in services is quite limited and those used in households do not add to GDP. 3 Note that ICT investment and capital stock data includes robots. 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 Centre for Economic and Business Research (January 2017) "The Impact of Automation." A Report for Redwood. In this report, robot density is defined to be the number of robots per million hours worked. 6 Graetz, G., and Michaels, G. (2015): "Robots At Work." CEP Discussion Paper No 1335. 7 Mishel, L., and Bivens, J. (2017): "The Zombie Robot Argument Lurches On," Economic Policy Institute. 8 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Bad Information - Why Misreporting Deep Learning Advances Is A Problem," dated January 9, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Rage Against the Machines: Is Technology Exacerbating Inequality?" dated June 2014, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 10 OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 05 (2016) "The Best Versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence Across Firms and the Role of Public Policy." 11 Please refer to page 8.

特別レポート

Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. Technological advance in the past has not prevented improving living standards or led to ever rising joblessness over the decades, but pessimists argue that recent advances are different. The issue is important for financial markets. If structural factors such as automation are holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. We see no compelling evidence that the displacement effect of emerging technologies is any stronger than in the past. Robot usage has had a modest positive impact on overall productivity. Despite this contribution, overall productivity growth has been dismal over the past decade. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale as some claim, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Periods of strong growth in automation have historically been associated with robust, not lackluster, wage gains, contrary to the consensus view. The Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. This and other evidence suggest that it is difficult to make the case that robots will make it tougher for central banks to reach their inflation goals than did previous technological breakthroughs. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. Recent breakthroughs in technology are awe-inspiring and unsettling. These advances are viewed with great trepidation by many because of the potential to replace humans in the production process. Hype over robots is particularly shrill. Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. In the first in our series of Special Reports focusing on the structural factors that might be preventing central banks from reaching their inflation targets, we demonstrated that the impact of Amazon is overstated in the press. We estimated that E-commerce is depressing inflation in the U.S. by a mere 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points. This Special Report tackles the impact of automation. We are optimistic that robot technology and artificial intelligence will significantly boost future productivity, and thus reduce costs. But, is there any evidence at the macro level that robot usage has been more deflationary than technological breakthroughs in the past and is, thus, a major driver of the low inflation rates we observe today across the major countries? The question matters, especially for the outlook for central bank policy and the bond market. If structural factors are indeed holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. However, if low inflation simply reflects long lags between wages and the tightening labor market, then inflation may suddenly lurch to life as it has at the end of past cycles. The bond market is not priced for that scenario. Are Robots Different? A Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service suggested that the "robot revolution" could be as transformative as previous General Purpose Technologies (GPT), including the steam engine, electricity and the microchip.1 GPTs are technologies that radically alter the economy's production process and make a major contribution to living standards over time. The term "robot" can have different meanings. The most basic definition is "a device that automatically performs complicated and often repetitive tasks," and this encompasses a broad range of machines: From the Jacquard Loom, which was invented over 200 years ago, on to Numerically Controlled (NC) mills and lathes, pick and place machines used in the manufacture of electronics, Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), and even homicidal robots from the future such as the Terminator. Our Technology Sector report made the case that there is nothing particularly sinister about robots. They are just another chapter in a long history of automation. Nor is the displacement of workers unprecedented. The industrial revolution was about replacing human craft labor with capital (machines), which did high-volume work with better quality and productivity. This freed humans for work which had not yet been automated, along with designing, producing and maintaining the machinery. Agriculture offers a good example. This sector involved over 50% of the U.S. labor force until the late 1800s. Steam and then internal combustion-powered tractors, which can be viewed as "robotic horses," contributed to a massive rise in output-per-man hour. The number of hours worked to produce a bushel of wheat fell by almost 98% from the mid-1800s to 1955. This put a lot of farm hands out of work, but these laborers were absorbed over time in other growing areas of the economy. It is the same story for all other historical technological breakthroughs. Change is stressful for those directly affected, but rising productivity ultimately lifts average living standards. Robots will be no different. As we discuss below, however, the increasing use of robots and AI may have a deeper and longer-lasting impact on inequality. Strong Tailwinds Chart II-1Robots Are Getting Cheaper Factory robots have improved immensely due to cheaper and more capable control and vision systems. As these systems evolve, the abilities of robots to move around their environment while avoiding obstacles will improve, as will their ability to perform increasingly complex tasks. Most importantly, robots are already able to do more than just routine tasks, thus enabling them to replace or aid humans in higher-skilled processes. Robot prices are also falling fast, especially after quality-adjusting the data (Chart II-1). Units are becoming easier to install, program and operate. These trends will help to reduce the barriers-to-entry for the large, untapped, market of small and medium sized enterprises. Robots also offer the ability to do low-volume "customized" production and still keep unit costs low. In the future, self-learning robots will be able to optimize their own performance by analyzing the production of other robots around the world. Robot usage is growing quickly according to data collected by the International Federation of Robotics (IFR) that covers 23 countries. Industrial robot sales worldwide increased to almost 300,000 units in 2016, up 16% from the year before (Chart II-2). The stock of industrial robots globally has grown at an annual average pace of 10% since 2010, reaching slightly more than 1.8 million units in 2016.2 Robot usage is far from evenly distributed across industries. The automotive industry is the major consumer of industrial robots, holding 45% of the total stock in 2016 (Chart II-3). The computer & electronics industry is a distant second at 17%. Metals, chemicals and electrical/electronic appliances comprise the bulk of the remaining stock. Chart II-2Global Robot Usage Chart II-3Global Robot Usage By Industry (2016) As far as countries go, Japan has traditionally been the largest market for robots in the world. However, sales have been in a long-term downtrend and the stock of robots has recently been surpassed by China, which has ramped up robot purchases in recent years (Chart II-4). Robot density, which is the stock of robots per 10 thousand employed in manufacturing, makes it easier to compare robot usage across countries (Chart II-5, panel 2). By this measure, China is not a heavy user of robots compared to other countries. South Korea stands at the top, well above the second-place finishers (Germany and Japan). Large automobile sectors in these three countries explain their high relative robot densities. Chart II-4Stock Of Robots By Country (I) Chart II-5Stock Of Robots By Country (II) (2016) While the growth rate of robot usage is impressive, it is from a very low base (outside of the automotive industry). The average number of robots per 10,000 employees is only 74 for the 23 countries in the IFR database. Robot use is tiny compared to total man hours worked. Chart II-6U.S. Investment In Robots In the U.S., spending on robots is only about 5% of total business spending on equipment and software (Chart II-6). To put this into perspective, U.S. spending on information, communication and technology (ICT) equipment represented 35-40% of total capital equipment spending during the tech boom in the 1990s and early 2000s.3 The bottom line is that there is a lot of hype in the press, but robots are not yet widely used across countries or industries. It will be many years before business spending on robots approaches the scale of the 1990s/2000s IT boom. A Deflationary Impact? As noted above, we view robotics as another chapter in a long history of technological advancements. Pessimists suggest that the latest advances are different because they are inherently more threatening to the overall job market and wage share of total income. If the pessimists are right, what are the theoretical channels though which this would have a greater disinflationary effect relative to previous GPT technologies? Faster Productivity Gains: Enhanced productivity drives down unit labor costs, which may be passed along to other industries (as cheaper inputs) and to the end consumer. More Human Displacement: The jobs created in other areas may be insufficient to replace the jobs displaced by robots, leading to lower aggregate income and spending. The loss of income for labor will simply go to the owners of capital, but the point is that the labor share of income might decline. Deflationary pressures could build as aggregate demand falls short of supply. Even in industries that are slow to automate, just the threat of being replaced by robots may curtail wage demands. Inequality: Some have argued that rising inequality is partly because the spoils of new technologies over the past 20 years have largely gone to the owners of capital. This shift may have undermined aggregate demand because upper income households tend to have a high saving rate, thereby depressing overall aggregate demand and inflationary pressures. The human displacement effect, described above, would exacerbate the inequality effect by transferring income from labor to the owners of capital. 1. Productivity It is difficult to see the benefits of robots on productivity at the economy-wide level. Productivity growth has been abysmal across the major developed countries since the Great Recession, but the productivity slowdown was evident long before Lehman collapsed (Chart II-7). The productivity slowdown continued even as automation using robots accelerated after 2010. Chart II-7Productivity Collapsed Despite Automation Some analysts argue that lackluster productivity is simply a statistical mirage because of the difficulties in measuring output in today's economy. We will not get into the details of the mismeasurement debate here. We encourage interested clients to read a Special Report by the BCA Global Investment Strategy service entitled "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians." 4 Our colleague Peter Berezin makes the case that the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, radio, indoor plumbing and air conditioning. He argues that the real reason that productivity growth has slowed is that educational attainment has decelerated and businesses have plucked many of the low-hanging fruit made possible by the IT revolution. Cyclical factors stemming from the Great Recession and financial crisis are also to blame, as capital spending has been slow to recover in most of the advanced economies. Some other factors that help to explain the decline in aggregate productivity are provided in Appendix II-1. Nonetheless, the poor aggregate productivity performance does not mean that there are no benefits to using robots. The benefits are evident at the industrial level, where measurement issues are presumably less vexing for statisticians (i.e., it is easier to measure the output of the auto industry, for example, than for the economy as a whole). Chart II-8 plots the level of robot density in 2016 with average annual productivity growth since 2004 for 10 U.S. manufacturing industries (robot density is presented in deciles). A loose positive relationship is apparent. Chart II-8U.S.: Productivity Vs. Robot Density Academic studies estimate that robots have contributed importantly to economy-wide productivity growth. The Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) estimated that labor productivity growth rises by 0.07 to 0.08 percentage points for every 1% rise in the rate of robot density.5 This implies that robots accounted for roughly 10% of the productivity growth experienced since the early 1990s in the major economies. Another study of 14 industries across 17 countries by the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) found that robots boosted annual productivity growth by 0.36 percentage points over the 1993-2007 period.6 This is impressive because, if this estimate holds true for the U.S., robots' contribution to the 2½% average annual U.S. total productivity growth over the period was 14%. To put the importance of robotics into historical context, its contribution to productivity so far is roughly on par with that of the steam engine (Chart II-9). It falls well short of the 0.6 percentage point annual productivity contribution from the IT revolution. The implication is that, while the overall productivity performance has been dismal since 2007, it would have been even worse in the absence of robots. What does this mean for inflation? According to the "cost push" model of the inflation process, an increase in productivity of 0.36% that is not accompanied by associated wage gains would reduce unit labor costs (ULC) by the same amount. This should trim inflation if the cost savings are passed on to the end consumer, although by less than 0.36% because robots can only depress variable costs, not fixed costs. There indeed appears to be a slight negative relationship between robot density and unit labor costs at the industrial level in the U.S., although the relationship is loose at best (Chart II-10). Chart II-9GPT Contribution To Productivity Chart II-10U.S.: Unit Labor Costs Vs. Robot Density In theory, divergences in productivity across industries should only generate shifts in relative prices, and "cost push" inflation dynamics should only operate in the short term. Most economists believe that inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon in the long run, which means that central banks should be able to offset positive productivity shocks by lowering interest rates enough that aggregate demand keeps up with supply. Indeed, the Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. Also, note that inflation is currently low across the major advanced economies, irrespective of the level of robot intensity (Chart II-11). From this perspective, it is hard to see that robots should take much of the credit for today's low inflation backdrop. Chart II-11Inflation Vs. Robot Density 2. Human Displacement A key question is whether robots and humans are perfect substitutes. If new technologies introduced in the past were perfect substitutes, then it would have led to massive underemployment and all of the income in the economy would eventually have migrated to the owners of capital. The fact that average real household incomes have risen over time, and that there has been no secular upward trend in unemployment rates over the centuries, means that new technologies were at least partly complementary with labor (i.e., the jobs lost as a direct result of productivity gains were more than replaced in other areas of the economy over time). Rather than replacing workers, in many cases tech made humans more productive in their jobs. Rising productivity lifted income and thereby led to the creation of new jobs in other areas. The capital that workers bring to the production process - the skills, know-how and special talents - became more valuable as interaction with technology increased. Like today, there were concerns in the 1950s and 1960s that computerization would displace many types of jobs and lead to widespread idleness and falling household income. With hindsight, there was little to worry about. Some argue that this time is different. Futurists frequently assert that the pace of innovation is not just accelerating, it is accelerating 'exponentially'. Robots can now, or will soon be able to, replace humans in tasks that require cognitive skills. This means that they will be far less complementary to humans than in the past. The displacement effect could thus be much larger, especially given the impressive advances in artificial intelligence. However, Box II-1 discusses why the threat to workers posed by AI is also heavily overblown in the media. The CEP multi-country study cited above did not find a large displacement effect; robot usage did not affect the overall number of hours worked in the 23 countries studied (although it found distributional effects - see below). In other words, rather than suppressing overall labor input, robot usage has led to more output, higher productivity, more jobs and stronger wage and income growth. A report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI)7 takes a broader look at automation, using productivity growth and capital spending as proxies. Automation is what occurs as the implementation of new technologies is incorporated along with new capital equipment or software to replace human labor in the workplace. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending, and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Indeed, the report demonstrates that occupational employment shifts were far slower in the 2000-2015 period than in any decade in the 1900s (Chart II-12). Box II-1 The Threat From AI Is Overblown Media coverage of AI/Deep Learning has established a consensus view that we believe is well off the mark. A recent Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service dispels the myths surrounding AI.8 We believe the consensus, in conjunction with warnings from a variety of sources, is leading to predictions, policy discussions, and even career choices based on a flawed premise. It is worth noting that the most vocal proponents of AI as a threat to jobs and even humanity are not AI experts. At the root of this consensus is the false view that emerging AI technology is anything like true intelligence. Modern AI is not remotely comparable in function to a biological brain. Scientists have a limited understanding of how brains work, and it is unlikely that a poorly understood system can be modeled on a computer. The misconception of intelligence is amplified by headlines claiming an AI "taught itself" a particular task. No AI has ever "taught itself" anything: All AI results have come about after careful programming by often PhD-level experts, who then supplied the system with vast amounts of high quality data to train it. Often these systems have been iterated a number of times and we only hear of successes, not the failures. The need for careful preparation of the AI system and the requirement for high quality data limits the applicability of AI to specific classes of problems where the application justifies the investment in development and where sufficient high-quality data exists. There may be numerous such applications but doubtless many more where AI would not be suitable. Similarly, an AI system is highly adapted to a single problem, or type of problem, and becomes less useful when its application set is expanded. In other words, unlike a human whose abilities improve as they learn more things, an AI's performance on a particular task declines as it does more things. There is a popular misconception that increased computing power will somehow lead to ever improving AI. It is the algorithm which determines the outcome, not the computer performance: Increased computing power leads to faster results, not different results. Advanced computers might lead to more advanced algorithms, but it is pointless to speculate where that may lead: A spreadsheet from 2001 may work faster today but it still gives the same answer. In any event, it is worth noting that a tool ceases to be a tool when it starts having an opinion: there is little reason to develop a machine capable of cognition even if that were possible. Chart II-12U.S. Job Rotation Has Slowed The EPI report also notes that these indicators of automation increased rapidly in the late 1990s and early 2000s, a period that saw solid wage growth for American workers. These indicators weakened in the two periods of stagnant wage growth: from 1973 to 1995 and from 2002 to the present. Thus, there is no historical correlation between increases in automation and wage stagnation. Rather than automation, the report argues that it was China's entry into the global trading system that was largely responsible for the hollowing out of the U.S. manufacturing sector. We have also made this argument in previous research. The fact that the major advanced economies are all at, or close to, full employment supports the view that automation has not been an overwhelming headwind for job creation. Chart II-13 demonstrates that there has been no relationship between the change in robot density and the loss of manufacturing jobs since 1993. Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. Interestingly, despite a worsening labor shortage, robot density among Japanese firms is falling. Moreover, the Japanese data show that the industries that have a high robot usage tend to be more, not less, generous with wages than the robot laggard industries. Please see Appendix II-2 for more details. Chart II-13Global Manufacturing Jobs Vs. Robot Density The bottom line is that it does not appear that labor displacement related to automation has been responsible in any meaningful way for the lackluster average real income growth in the advanced economies since 2007. 3. Inequality That said, there is evidence suggesting that robots are having important distributional effects. The CEP study found that robot use has reduced hours for low-skilled and (to a lesser extent) middle-skilled workers relative to the highly skilled. This finding makes sense conceptually. Technological change can exacerbate inequality by either increasing the relative demand for skilled over unskilled workers (so-called "skill-biased" technological change), or by inducing companies to substitute machinery and other forms of physical capital for workers (so-called "capital-biased" technological change). The former affects the distribution of labor income, while the latter affects the share of income in GDP that labor receives. A Special Report appearing in this publication in 2014 focused on the relationship between technology and inequality.9 The report highlighted that much of the recent technological change has been skill-biased, which heavily favors workers with the talent and education to perform cognitively-demanding tasks, even as it reduces demand for workers with only rudimentary skills. Moreover, technological innovations and globalization increasingly allow the most talented individuals to market their skills to a much larger audience, thus bidding up their wages. The evidence suggests that faster productivity growth leads to higher average real wages and improved living standards, at least over reasonably long horizons. Nonetheless, technological change can, and in the future almost certainly will, increase income inequality. The poor will gain, but not as much as the rich. The fact that higher-income households tend to maintain a higher savings rate than low-income households means that the shift in the distribution of income toward the higher-income households will continue to modestly weigh on aggregate demand. Can the distribution effect be large enough to have a meaningful depressing impact on inflation? We believe that it has played some role in the lackluster recovery since the Great Recession, with the result that an extended period of underemployment has delivered a persistent deflationary impulse in the major developed economies. However, as discussed above, stimulative monetary policy has managed to overcome the impact of inequality and other headwinds on aggregate demand, and has returned the major countries roughly to full employment. Indeed, this year will be the first since 2007 that the G20 economies as a group will be operating slightly above a full employment level. Inflation should respond to excess demand conditions, irrespective of any ongoing demand headwind stemming from inequality. Conclusions Technological change has led to rising living standards over the decades. It did not lead to widespread joblessness and did not prevent central banks from meeting their inflation targets over time. The pessimists argue that this time is different because robots/AI have a much larger displacement effect. Perhaps it will be 20 years before we will know the answer. But our main point is that we have found no evidence that recent advances in robotics and AI, while very impressive, will be any different in their macro impact. There is little evidence that the modern economy is less capable in replacing the jobs lost to automation, although the nature of new technologies may be affecting the distribution of income more than in the past. Real incomes for the middle- and lower-income classes have been stagnant for some time, but this is partly due to productivity growth that is too low, not too high. Moreover, it is not at all clear that positive productivity shocks are disinflationary beyond the near term. The link between robot usage and unit labor costs over the past couple of decades is loose at best at the industry level, and is non-existent when looking across the major countries. The Fed was able to roughly meet its 2% inflation target in the 1990s and the first half of the 2000s, despite IT's impressive contribution to productivity growth during that period. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. The global output gap will shift into positive territory this year for the first time since the Great Recession. Any resulting rise in inflation will come as a shock since the bond market has discounted continued low inflation for as far as the eye can see. We expect bond yields and implied volatility to rise this year, which may undermine risk assets in the second half. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Brian Piccioni Vice President Technology Sector Strategy Appendix II-1 Why Is Productivity So Low? A recent study by the OECD10 reveals that, while frontier firms are charging ahead, there is a widening gap between these firms and the laggards. The study analyzed firm-level data on labor productivity and total factor productivity for 24 countries. "Frontier" firms are defined to be those with productivity in the top 5%. These firms are 3-4 times as productive as the remaining 95%. The authors argue that the underlying cause of this yawning gap is that the diffusion rate of new technologies from the frontier firms to the laggards has slowed within industries. This could be due to rising barriers to entry, which has reduced contestability in markets. Curtailing the creative-destruction process means that there is less pressure to innovate. Barriers to entry may have increased because "...the importance of tacit knowledge as a source of competitive advantage for frontier firms may have risen if increasingly complex technologies were to increase the amount and sophistication of complementary investments required for technological adoption." 11 The bottom line is that aggregate productivity is low because the robust productivity gains for the tech-savvy frontier companies are offset by the long tail of firms that have been slow to adopt the latest technology. Indeed, business spending has been especially weak in this expansion. Chart II-14 highlights that the slowdown in U.S. productivity growth has mirrored that of the capital stock. Chart II-14U.S. Capex Shortfall Partly To Blame For Poor Productivity Appendix II-2 Japan - The Leading Edge Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. The popular press is full of stories of how robots are taking over. If the stories are to be believed, robots are the answer to the country's shrinking workforce. Robots now serve as helpers for the elderly, priests for weddings and funerals, concierges for hotels and even sexual partners (don't ask). Prime Minister Abe's government has launched a 5-year push to deepen the use of intelligent machines in manufacturing, supply chains, construction and health care. Indeed, Japan was the leader in robotics use for decades. Nonetheless, despite all the hype, Japan's stock of industrial robots has actually been eroding since the late 1990s (Chart II-4). Numerous surveys show that firms plan to use robots more in the future because of the difficulty in hiring humans. And there is huge potential: 90% of Japanese firms are small- and medium-sized (SME) and most are not currently using robots. Yet, there has been no wave of robot purchases as of 2016. One problem is the cost; most sophisticated robots are simply too expensive for SMEs to consider. This suggests that one cannot blame robots for Japan's lack of wage growth. The labor shortage has become so acute that there are examples of companies that have turned down sales due to insufficient manpower. Possible reasons why these companies do not offer higher wages to entice workers are beyond the scope of this report. But the fact that the stock of robots has been in decline since the late 1990s does not support the view that Japanese firms are using automation on a broad scale to avoid handing out pay hikes. Indeed, Chart II-15 highlights that wage deflation has been the greatest in industries that use almost no robots. Highly automated industries, such as Transportation Equipment and Electronics, have been among the most generous. This supports the view that the productivity afforded by increased robot usage encourages firms to pay their workers more. Looking ahead, it seems implausible that robots can replace all the retiring Japanese workers in the years to come. The workforce will shrink at an annual average pace of 0.33% between 2020 and 2030, according to the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training. Productivity growth would have to rise by the same amount to fully offset the dwindling number of workers. But that would require a surge in robot density of 4.1, assuming that each rise in robot density of one adds 0.08% to the level of productivity (Chart II-16). The level of robot sales would have to jump by a whopping 2½ times in the first year and continue to rise at the same pace each year thereafter to make this happen. Of course, the productivity afforded by new robots may accelerate in the coming years, but the point is that robot usage would likely have to rise astronomically to offset the impact of the shrinking population. Chart II-15Japan: Earnings Vs. Robot Density Chart II-16Japan: Where Is The Flood Of Robots? The implication is that, as long as the Japanese economy continues to grow above roughly 1%, the labor market will continue to tighten and wage rates will eventually begin to rise. 1 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "The Coming Robotics Revolution," dated May 16, 2017, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 2 Note that this includes only robots used in manufacturing industry, and thus excludes robots used in the service sector and households. However, robot usage in services is quite limited and those used in households do not add to GDP. 3 Note that ICT investment and capital stock data includes robots. 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 Centre for Economic and Business Research (January 2017): "The Impact of Automation." A Report for Redwood. In this report, robot density is defined to be the number of robots per million hours worked. 6 Graetz, G., and Michaels, G. (2015): "Robots At Work." CEP Discussion Paper No 1335. 7 Mishel, L., and Bivens, J. (2017): "The Zombie Robot Argument Lurches On," Economic Policy Institute. 8 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Bad Information - Why Misreporting Deep Learning Advances Is A Problem," dated January 9, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Rage Against The Machines: Is Technology Exacerbating Inequality?" dated June 2014, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 10 OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 05 (2016): "The Best Versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence Across Firms and the Role of Public Policy." 11 Please refer to page 27.

ハイライト ビットコインの「合成」供給が金融デリバティブを通じて増加し、大手既存テクノロジー企業によるビットコイン類似の代替通貨の立ち上げが加わると、暗号通貨市場は自らの重みで崩壊するでしょう。 今後数年で供給増に起因する圧力を受け得る他の分野としては、原油、ハイイールド債、世界の不動産、低ボラティリティ取引が挙げられます。 対照的に、米国株式市場は自社株買いと自発的な上場廃止により株式供給の減少が観察されています。 投資家はハイイールド債に対して米国株をロングすることを検討しつつ、ボラティリティ上昇に備えるべきです。 このような結果は1990年代後半に起きた状況に類似している可能性があり、その期間はVIXとクレジットスプレッドが上昇傾向にある一方で株式は史上最高値を更新し続けました。 NAFTA交渉の決裂はカナダドルとメキシコ・ペソにとって依然として主要なリスクです。 特集 供給過剰でバブルが崩壊する 価格上昇の「治療法」はさらなる価格上昇である。ドットコムと住宅バブルは完全に自然消滅したわけではない。その崩壊は市場に新たな供給が波のように押し寄せたことで促進された。ドットコム・バブルの場合、2000年には新規公開（IPO）や二次公募による株式の洪水が投資家を圧倒し（チャート1）、インターネット株の価格に大きな下押し圧力を与えた。住宅ブームも同様に新規建設の急増によって覆された。住宅投資は2006年にGDP比6.6%と55年ぶりの高水準に達した（チャート2）。 チャート1 供給過剰による崩壊：例1 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 1 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 1 チャート2 供給過剰による崩壊：例2 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 2 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 2 ビットコインは同様の運命をたどろうとしているのだろうか？表面的には「いいえ」のように見えるかもしれない。より多くのビットコインが「マイニング」されるにつれ、追加生産の計算上のコストは指数関数的に上昇する。理論上、流通可能なビットコインは2100万枚に制限され、その約80%は既に生成されている（チャート3）。しかし、表面の下を見れば、ビットコインはさまざまな「供給側」要因に脆弱である可能性がある。 チャート3 ビットコイン：大部分は既に採掘済み ビットコイン：大部分はすでにマイニング済み ビットコイン：大部分はすでにマイニング済み まず第一に、ビットコインの価値に連動する金融デリバティブの拡大は、暗号通貨の「合成」供給を生み出す脅威となる。 株式のコールオプションを売る（ライトする）とき、オプションの売り手は実質的に弱気の賭けをし、買い手は強気の賭けをしている。オプションを売るという行為自体が追加のロング・ポジションを生み、それは追加のショート・ポジションによってちょうど相殺される。さらに、特定のコールオプションを売る決定が類似のコールオプションの価格を押し下げる程度に、基礎となる株価も押し下げられるだろう。これは単純に、株式に対するロングエクスポージャーは現物株を保有するかそのコールオプションを保有することで得られるからである。後者の価格を傷つけるものは前者の価格も傷つける。 ビットコイン先物が取引され始めると、ビットコインに対して弱気の投資家はショートポジションを作り、結果として流通するビットコインの実質的な数量を増加させることができる。これは公式の発行枚数が同じままであっても起こり得る。 模倣は最大の賛辞 ビットコインの合成的な供給増はビットコイン投資家の懸念の一つである。もう一つの懸念は、ビットコイン類似の代替通貨からの競争の増大である。現在、数百もの暗号通貨が存在し、その多くはビットコインを支えるブロックチェーン技術のわずかな変形を使用している。 チャート4 政府は取り分を要求するだろう 政府は取り分を求めるだろう 政府は取り分を求めるだろう これまで新通貨の拡散は主に寝室やガレージで働く技術に精通した起業家によって牽引されてきた。しかし今や企業も参入している。営業しているらしいコダックの株価は、今週自社の暗号通貨を発表したことで3倍になった。これはこれから起こることのほんの一例に過ぎない。 フェイスブック、アマゾン、ネットフリックス、グーグルのような巨大企業が自社の暗号通貨を発行するのを妨げるものは何だろうか。彼らはすでに安全なグローバルネットワークを持っている。アマゾンは販売ごとに数コインを配り始め、消費者が新通貨で同社のオンラインストアから商品を購入できるようにすることもできる。やり方は簡単だ。1 唯一のもっともらしい制約は法的なものである：政府が自国の法定通貨への需要が落ちることを恐れて新興の暗号通貨を潰す脅威だ。数週間前に述べたように、米政府は通貨を印刷しその資金で財やサービスを購入する能力から年間約$100 billion、約1000億ドルのシニョレッジ収入を得ている（チャート4）。2 大企業が暗号通貨分野に参入すると、政府は遅かれ早かれ厳しい対応を取る可能性が高い。今週の韓国政府が取引所での暗号通貨取引禁止を検討するという報道は、その兆候である。 他にどの分野が？ 新規供給の津波に脆弱な他の分野はどこか？四つが思い浮かぶ： 原油：BCAの強気の原油見通しは大当たりだった。ブレントは昨年6月の44ドルから現在の69ドルまで上昇した。しかし今後の追加上昇はそれほど容易ではないかもしれない。当社のエネルギー・ストラテジストは米国シェール生産者の損益分岐点を50ドル台前半と見積もっている。3 現在はその水準を大きく上回っており、シェール供給は加速するだろう。これは短期的に価格がさらに上昇し得ないという意味ではないが、原油の長期的な上昇余地を制限する。 不動産：世界の多くで超低金利が住宅価格の急増を後押しした。カナダ、オーストラリア、ニュージーランド、および欧州の一部では、インフレ調整後の住宅価格は大不況前の水準を大きく上回っている（チャート5）。米国の実質住宅価格はまだ2006年のピークを下回っているが、商業用不動産（CRE）価格は新高値に達している（チャート6）。米国のCREセクター内の賃料上昇は鈍化し始めており、供給が徐々に需要に追いつきつつあることを示唆している（チャート7）。 チャート5 低金利が##br##住宅価格を押し上げた地域 低金利が住宅価格を押し上げた地域 低金利が住宅価格を押し上げた地域 チャート6 商業用不動産価格が##br##不況前の水準を上回った 商業用不動産の価格は景気後退前の水準を上回っている 商業用不動産の価格は景気後退前の水準を上回っている チャート7 賃料の伸びは鈍化している 家賃の伸びが鈍化している 家賃の伸びが鈍化している 企業債務：低金利は企業にクレジットを活用させた。米国および多くの国で企業債務の対GDP比はほぼ過去最高水準にある（チャート8A およびチャート8B）。クレジットスプレッドは依然として非常にタイトだが、これも企業債が市場に出てくるにつれて変わる可能性がある。 チャート8A 企業債務の対GDP比が##br##過去最高水準に近い 企業債務対GDP比は過去最高水準に迫っている 企業債務対GDP比は過去最高水準に迫っている チャート8B 企業債務の対GDP比が##br##過去最高水準に近い 企業債務の対GDP比は記録的高水準に迫っている 企業債務の対GDP比は記録的高水準に迫っている 低ボラティリティ取引：最近のブルームバーグの見出しは「ショート・ボラティリティ・ファンドに史上最多の資金が流入」と叫んでいた。4 Cboeで取引されるボラティリティ契約の数は2012年以降で10倍以上に増加した。ネットのショート投機ポジションは現在史上最高水準にある（チャート9）。トレーダーはここ数年、ボラティリティが低下することに賭けて巨額の利益を上げてきた。問題は、ボラティリティが上昇し始めると、同じトレーダーがポジションを一斉に手放す可能性があり、さらにボラティリティが高まる懸念があることだ。 前掲の分野とは対照的に、株式市場は自社株買いと自発的な上場廃止により株式供給の侵食を受けている。S&Pの除数（ディバイザー）は2005年以降8%以上低下している。米国の上場企業数は1990年代後半以降ほぼ半減している（チャート10）。この傾向がすぐに逆転する可能性は低く、利益率の高止まりと多くの企業が法人税減税を利用して自社株買いを加速させる誘惑があることを考えれば、なおさらである。 チャート9 低ボラティリティへの需要が高い 低ボラティリティへの需要が高まっている 低ボラティリティへの需要が高まっている チャート10 株式市場における供給の減少 株式市場における供給の侵食 株式市場における供給の侵食 株価上昇に賭ける一方、ボラティリティとクレジットスプレッドの上昇も見込む 前述の議論は、今後数か月で株価とボラティリティ、クレジットスプレッドの関係が変化する可能性を示唆している。これは初めてのことではない。チャート11は、1990年代後半にVIXとクレジットスプレッドが上昇傾向に転じた一方でS&P500は史上最高値を更新し続けたことを示している。今、我々は類似の局面に入る可能性がある。 米国でのトレンド超過の成長継続とインフレ上昇は米国債利回りを押し上げるだろう。我々は2016年7月5日に「35年間の債券ブルマーケットの終焉」と宣言したが、これはちょうど10年物米国債利回りが終値で史上最安の1.37%を記録したその日だった。5 利上げは資金繰りに苦しむ借り手を苦しめ、クレジットスプレッドを拡大させる。企業の業況が悪化し次の景気後退の時期が近づくにつれて株式のボラティリティも上昇するだろう。我々の基本シナリオでは、米国および世界は2019年後半に景気後退に陥ると見ている。 金融市場は景気後退を実際に起こる前に嗅ぎつける。ただし歴史が示すように、それは景気後退開始の約6か月前にしか起こらないことが多い（表1）。これは、世界の株式は今後12か月程度は上昇を続け得ることを示唆する。これを念頭に、我々はS&P500のロング対ハイイールド債を新規トレードとして開始する。 チャート11 株価が上昇する中でもボラティリティは上昇し、スプレッドは##br##拡大し得る 株価が上昇すると、ボラティリティが高まり、スプレッドが拡大する可能性があります。 株価が上昇すると、ボラティリティが高まり、スプレッドが拡大する可能性があります。 表1 手仕舞いにはまだ早い ビットコインはDeFANG化されるか？ ビットコインはDeFANG化されるか？ 通貨に関するクイック・ヒット（4点） 今週は4つの項目が通貨およびフィクスト・インカム市場を揺るがした。第一は中国が米国債の購入を減速または停止するという報道だ。中国の国家外為管理局（SAFE）はその報道を「フェイクニュース」と非難した。 騒ぎの中で見落とされがちなのは、中国の保有する米国債残高が2011年以降ほぼ横ばいで推移しているという事実である（チャート12）。中国は依然として高度に管理された通貨を持つ。資本流出がもはや発生していないため、中国人民銀行（PBoC）は外貨準備の再構築を始めるだろう。米国債市場が世界で最大かつ最も流動的であることを考えれば、中国が余剰外貨の多くを米国に置かざるを得ないのは避けがたいように思える。 第二は日本銀行が保有する国債の買入目標を引き下げると発表したことだ。これは既に1年以上続いている動きを形式化したに過ぎない。日本銀行のJGB買入は過去12か月で急減しており、主因は80兆円という目標が国債の年間ネット発行額30〜35兆円のほぼ2倍であるためだ（チャート13）。 チャート12 中国の米国債保有：##br##2011年以降ほぼ横ばい 中国の米国債保有高：2011年以降ほぼ横ばい 中国の米国債保有高：2011年以降ほぼ横ばい チャート13 日銀は国債買入を##br##削減している 日本銀行（BoJ）は国債の買入を縮小している 日本銀行（BoJ）は国債の買入を縮小している 最終的には、これらはそれほど重要ではないはずだ。日本銀行は価格（JGBの利回り）をターゲットにすることも、数量（保有国債の枚数）をターゲットにすることもできるが、両方を同時にターゲットにすることはできない。日銀がすでに前者を行っているという事実は後者を無意味にする。そして長期インフレ期待が日銀の目標からほど遠い現状では、前者が変わる見込みは低い。 では円には何を意味するのか。円は割安であり、経常収支の黒字はGDP比で4%に膨らんでいる（チャート14）。投機筋の円ショートも非常に大きい（チャート15）。これは短期的な上昇の可能性を高めるが、同僚のMathieu Savaryが今週指摘したように、6世界の国債利回りが上昇する一方で日本の利回りが据え置かれる場合、円が大きく上昇して持続するのは難しい。総合的には、今年はUSD/JPYがやや強含むと予想している。 チャート14 円は既に割安... 円はすでに安い… 円はすでに安い… チャート15 ...かつ不人気 ...そして愛されない ...そして愛されない 第三の項目はECBの12月議事録で、中央銀行が2018年初めにコミュニケーション方針を見直すと示唆された点だ。市場が織り込んでいるより速くECBが金融政策を正常化するという憶測がある。もしそうなればEUR/USDはさらに強含むだろう。 もちろんこれは起こり得るが、それにはユーロ圏の成長が上振れサプライズを出す必要があるだろう。それは決して確実ではない。ユーロ圏の経済サプライズ・インデックスは下落に転じ始めており、相対的には米国に対して急落している（チャート16）。米国とは異なり、ユーロ圏のクレジット・インパルスは現在マイナスである（チャート17）。ユーロ圏の金融環境も米国に比べて大幅に引き締まっている（チャート18）。 チャート16 ユーロ圏の経済サプライズが##br##下落に転じ始めている ユーロ圏の経済サプライズが小幅に低下 ユーロ圏の経済サプライズが小幅に低下 チャート17 ユーロ圏のクレジット・インパルスのマイナスは##br##成長の重しとなる ユーロ圏のマイナスのクレジット・インパルスが成長を圧迫するだろう ユーロ圏のマイナスのクレジット・インパルスが成長を圧迫するだろう チャート18 金融環境の乖離は##br##米国をユーロ圏より有利にする 金融環境の乖離は米国をユーロ圏よりも有利にする 金融環境の乖離は米国をユーロ圏よりも有利にする 一方で、EUR/USDは2016年以降、金利差の変化から予想される以上に上昇している（チャート19）。ユーロに対する投機的ポジショニングも、2017年初頭の大幅ショートから今日では大幅ロングへと変化している（チャート20）。妥当な割安感と健全な経常収支の黒字はユーロに有利に働くが、我々の最良の見立てはEUR/USDが今後数か月で上昇分の一部を手放すだろうというものである。 チャート19 金利差で説明される以上にユーロは##br##強含んだ ユーロは金利差で正当化される以上に上昇している ユーロは金利差で正当化される以上に上昇している チャート20 ユーロのポジショニング：大幅ショートから##br##史上最高のロングへ ユーロ・ポジショニング：大幅にショートから過去最高のロングへ ユーロ・ポジショニング：大幅にショートから過去最高のロングへ 最後に、今週は米国がNAFTA交渉から撤退するという報道を受けてカナダドルとメキシコ・ペソが圧迫された。ここで述べた4項目のうち、これが我々にとって最も懸念材料である。グローバルなサプライチェーンは高度に統合されている。それを破壊するものは大きな混乱を招くであろう。ある程度、トランプはこれを理解しているが、支持基盤は貿易に厳しくあってほしいと望んでおり、そうしなければ再選の見込みはさらに厳しくなることも彼は知っている。最終的には新たなNAFTA合意が成立すると期待しているが、そこに至る道のりはでこぼこだろう。 事務連絡 当社のグローバル・インダストリアルのロング／ユーティリティのショートのトレードは、9月29日に開始して以来12.4%の利益が出ている。利益保護のためストップを10%に引き上げる。2年物USD/サウジ・リヤルのフォワード契約のロングは損失2.9%で満了とし、サウジアラビアの財務状況が最近改善していることを踏まえ、同トレードは再導入しない。 ピーター・ベレジン, チーフ・グローバル・ストラテジスト グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 本トピックに関する貴重な示唆を頂いたSHIG Partners LLC代表イゴール・ヴァッセルマン氏に感謝する。 2 グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー・スペシャル・レポート「ビットコインのマクロ的影響（Bitcoin's Macro Impact）」、2017年9月15日付；およびグローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー・ウィークリー・レポート「フラット化したイールドカーブを恐れるな（Don't Fear A Flatter Yield Curve）」、2017年12月22日付を参照されたい。 3 エネルギー・セクター・ストラテジー・ウィークリー・レポート「損益分岐点分析：シェール企業が自立するには約50ドルの原油が必要（Breakeven Analysis: Shale Companies Need ~$50 Oil To Be Self-Sufficient）」、2017年3月15日付を参照。 4 Dani Burger, "Short-Volatility Funds Are Being Flooded With Cash," Bloomberg, 2017年11月6日。 5 グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー・スペシャル・アラート「35年間の債券ブルマーケットの終焉（End Of The 35-year Bond Bull Market）」、2016年7月5日付を参照。 6 フォーリン・エクスチェンジ・ストラテジー「円：QQEは死んだ！YCC万歳！（Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!）」、2018年1月12日付を参照。 タクティカル・グローバル・アセット・アロケーションの推奨 ストラテジー & マーケット・トレンド タクティカル・トレード 戦略的推奨 クローズド・トレード

特別レポート

Highlights The financial system / banks cannot and do not lend out or intermediate national or households "savings". In any economy, new money/new purchasing power is originated by commercial banks "out of thin air". The term "savings" in macroeconomics denotes an increase in the economy's capital stock, not deposits at the banks. The Chinese banking system has enormous amount of deposits because banks have created them "out of nothing" not because households save a lot. Hence, the narrative that justifies China's money, credit and property market excesses by high national and household "savings" is incorrect. The maneuvering room for China is diminishing as inflationary pressures are rising, productivity is slowing and speculative leverage is high. Feature The debate on China's macro outlook continues to linger both within and outside BCA. The focal point of the debate centers on the role of national "savings" in China in spurring credit origination and debt formation. Many of my colleagues at BCA and the majority of commentators outside BCA argue that China's high "savings" rate, or so-called "excess savings", has been an important contributor to its exponential credit and money growth. Contrary to this narrative, we within BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team maintain that the dramatic surge in credit and money in China has been the result of speculative behavior by banks and debtors. As such, the boom in money and credit growth has produced large imbalances and excesses, if not outright bubbles (Chart I-1). Chart I-1An Unprecedented Credit ##br##And Money Boom In China Every financial bubble in history has had its justifications. Last decade, the common narrative about U.S. real estate was that nationwide, U.S. house prices had historically never deflated in nominal terms. In the late 1990s, the tech bubble was vindicated by the "new productivity" era. In the meantime, in the 1980s in Japan and the mid-1990s in Hong Kong, sky high property prices were rationalized by limited amounts of land, given that these are islands. Despite these validations, all of these bubbles ultimately burst. We feel that vindicating China's enormous credit, money and property market excesses - which are all interrelated - by the nation's high "savings" is another attempt to endorse overextended and unsustainable macro imbalances. This report is a continuation of our series discussing these issues in great depth.1 The objective of this piece is to illuminate on the confusion between national "savings" and credit / deposits / money. Intuitively, many investors and commentators use the term "savings" to refer to bank deposits. Yet, in macroeconomics, national and household "savings" are not about deposits or money in the banking system at all. The term "savings" in macroeconomics denotes an increase in the economy's capital stock. Therefore, the financial system in general, and banks in particular, cannot and do not lend out or intermediate national or households "savings." The Chinese banking system has enormous amount of deposits because banks have created them "out of nothing" not because households save a lot. In an economy where banks exist, "savings" and financing are very different things. Commercial banks (hereafter referred to as banks) provide financing by expanding their balance sheets - creating deposits "out of thin air" as and when they originate loans. We previously elaborated on this money creation process,2 but given its importance to the topic of this report, we revisit it here. Banks Create New Purchasing Power "Out Of Thin Air" When a bank originates a loan, it simultaneously creates a deposit, or new money. Importantly, this does not represent a transfer of an existing deposit to the new borrower. This is a new deposit - new purchasing power - that did not previously exist (Figure 1). Figure I-1Credit / Money Creation Process The borrower can immediately use this new deposit to purchase goods and services or buy assets. At the same time, all owners of existing deposits at the bank still have their deposits too, and can use them as, when, and how they prefer. Thereby, the bank has created new purchasing power "out of nothing" when it originated a loan. Traditional macroeconomic theory presumes that for a person or company to invest in productive capacity, another person/unit must save. This assumption is true for a barter economy with no banks and money - where some entities produce but do not consume, so that others can acquire their output (goods) and in turn use them as investment. Nevertheless, in an economy with banks, one does not need to save in the form of a deposit in a bank in order for the latter to lend money to another entity. When a bank grants a loan or acquires an asset, it simultaneously creates new deposit/money - which is de facto new purchasing power originated by the bank "out of thin air." We use the terms deposit and money interchangeably because broad money supply is computed as the sum of all deposits in the commercial banks. Let's consider an example of how a bank loan leads to new income creation. A company borrows from a bank to build a bridge, it then pays its suppliers and contractors for their work. As a result, the suppliers and contractors, and consequently their employees and shareholders, earn income. Without this loan, the bridge would not have been built, and the suppliers, their employees and business owners would not have received income. In short, the loan comes first, then the investment - and only after the investment is carried out do employees and business owners earn income. Thereafter, they can consume, acquire assets and save in forms of bank deposits. Critically, this income is realized because the bank originated a loan / new purchasing power "out of nothing." Chart I-2 illustrates that the Chinese banking system has created RMB 140 trillion of broad money/deposits since January 2009. This is equivalent to US$21 trillion at today's exchange rate. This is twice as much as aggregate broad money - equivalent to $10.5 trillion - generated by commercial and central banks in the U.S., the euro area and Japan combined since early 2009 - even amid their respective QE programs. Chart I-2Helicopter Money In China The unprecedented new purchasing power of Chinese companies and households has been primarily due to this enormous balance sheet expansion by mainland commercial banks (Chart I-3). Chart I-3China: Commercial Banks ##br##Assets And Money Multiplier Bank Versus Financial Intermediaries Banks perform a unique function in the economy and financial system. There are considerable differences between a bank lending money or buying assets and a non-bank doing the same. This is unfortunately not reflected in mainstream economic theory and macro models. Unlike banks, non-banks - such as pension funds, insurance companies, households, businesses and all other non-bank entities - do not create new money/new purchasing power when they grant a loan or acquire an asset. The act of lending by non-banks simply constitutes a transfer of an existing deposit from a creditor to a borrower. Banks are not intermediaries of deposits into loans as the Loanable Funds Theory (LFT) alleges. They create deposits themselves by making loans and acquiring assets. The LFT, nonetheless, applies to non-bank lenders - the latter are indeed financial intermediaries, i.e., they channel existing deposits into loans or other assets. The institutional and legal differences that make commercial banks unique and allow them to create money are discussed in detail in "How Do Banks Create Money, and Why Can Other Firms Not Do the Same?," Werner (2014b).3 The theory of fractional banking is not applicable to modern banking as well.4 It is the theory of money creation by banks that we subscribe to and present here that accurately describes the process of money creation. Bottom Line: Banks differ vastly from non-bank financial institutions, and are unique in their ability to create money/new purchasing power by originating loans or acquiring assets. Money Versus Credit Remarkably, there is also an important analytical distinction between credit/leverage and money. New money matters when one is attempting to gauge the (nominal) growth outlook because it represents new purchasing power. New money can only be originated by banks, including the central bank. Central banks can create broad money in circulation (i.e. beyond central bank reserves) when they buy financial assets from or lend to non-bank entities. Doing so creates a deposit in the commercial banking system. By contrast, the degree of credit/leverage is critical when evaluating the risk of financial distress in both the economy and the financial system. Credit can be extended not only by banks but also by non-banks. Hence, lending or buying corporate bonds by non-banks creates leverage/credit but not new money. The banking system is the only one capable of originating new money, and in turn, new purchasing power. In China, the outstanding stock of total non-financial debt (private plus public) is close to the amount of money supply (Chart I-4). Even though non-bank credit growth has risen in importance since 2010, it seems that without banks' money creation, non-bank credit would not have expanded. Chart I-4China: Money Versus Credit/Debt On another note, household propensity to save alters the velocity of money, not the amount of money in the banking system. A decision by a household to spend more rather than save does not change the amount of deposits in the banking system. As an example, a person who gets paid $1000 might spend $800 of her income and decide to save the remaining $200. The amount of deposits in the banking system does not change; $800 will be transferred to another bank account as she pays for her purchases, while the remaining $200 stays in her existing bank account. Hence, there is no change in the amount of deposits and money supply in the banking system in this scenario. On the whole, the amount of deposits, and hence, broad money supply, in any banking system is equal to the cumulative net money creation by banks and the central bank over the course of their history. This has nothing to do with household and national "savings." The Chinese banking system has enormous amount of deposits because banks have created them "out of nothing" not because households save a lot. Interestingly, changes in household propensity to save are reflected not in money supply but in the velocity of money. When households or companies decide to spend their deposits, the velocity of money rises. Conversely, when households and companies decide to save (retain) their deposits, the velocity of money drops. Bottom Line: Money is distinct from credit and leverage. Changes in the propensity to save alter the velocity of money, but not the amount of deposits/money supply in the banking system. True Meaning Of "Savings" In Macroeconomics What is the true meaning of "savings"5 in macroeconomics, given the amount of deposits in the banking system has no bearing on "savings?" The confusion between national "savings" and deposit/money creation is dealt with nicely by Fabian Lindner. Having modelled it, Lindner6 argues: "... the aggregate economy's saving is equal to the newly produced tangible assets and inventories. That total saving is equal to just the increase in tangible assets ... (because) all changes in net financial assets in the economy add up to zero... Thus, for every economic agent increasing her net financial assets, there is a corresponding decrease in net financial assets of all other economic agents in the economy. Put in more general terms: An economic agent can only save financially if other agents dis-save financially by the same amount... That is why in the entire economy (that is the world economy or a closed economy) only the increase in tangible assets, thus investment, is saving (emphasis is added). Thus, saving and investment are equivalent in the aggregate... The equivalence of investment and saving however does not mean - as claimed by LFT - that household saving (or the sum of household and government saving) is equal to total saving and thus to investment. No matter how high one group's financial saving is, the financial dis-saving of the rest of the economy has to be just as high. The only thing remaining is the creation of tangible assets." (Lindner 2015) In another paper,7 Lindner asserts: "Investment is the production of any non-financial asset in an economy and thus is always directly and unambiguously savings: it increases the economy's net worth... The economy as a whole cannot change its net financial wealth since it always equals zero. The aggregate economy can only save in the form of non-financial assets...The only way an economy can save is by increasing its non-financial wealth, i.e., its physical capital stock." (Lindner 2012) Bottom Line: For a country to raise its domestic "savings" rate, it needs to build its capital stock by using domestically produced investment goods and raw materials. Thereby, domestic "savings" have nothing to do with the absolute level or changes in amount of deposits/money in the banking system. China's Great Wall Of "Savings" China has been investing tremendous amounts for many years, and its capital stock has been mushrooming (Chart I-5, top panel). Yet, the incremental capital-to-output ratio (ICOR) has surged and, its inverse, the output-to-capital ratio has plunged since 2010 (Chart I-5, middle and bottom panels). These developments signify deteriorating efficiency in the Chinese economy and worsening capital allocation. They also entail that companies might have difficulties servicing their debt. When its export machine faltered in 2008 due to the Global Financial Crisis, China offset it by boosting its domestic investments. These investments - incremental additions to the nation's capital stock - defined by macroeconomics as domestic "savings"- offset the decline in external "savings." As such, the composition of national "savings" has changed dramatically since 2008: the share of external "savings" (net exports) have declined while the share of domestic "savings" has risen (Chart I-6). Chart I-5China: Capital Stocks Has Surged Chart I-6China: Domestic And External 'Savings' In China, the augmentation of its capital stock and, hence, its domestic "savings," have been largely financed by loans from Chinese banks. This may sound like nonsense, but only because we are using the term "savings" in a way used in macroeconomics. Yet, new purchasing power originated by the banking system is not in and of itself a sufficient condition to generate domestic "savings." The sufficient condition for having high domestic "savings" is the ability to produce domestic capital goods and raw materials that go into investment. If a country does not build its capacity to produce capital goods and raw materials, it would need to rely on imports - in other words it has to acquire foreign "savings" to invest. Encouraging domestic "savings" entails enhancing capacity to produce goods that are used in capital spending like raw materials, chemicals, steel, cement, machinery, and various equipment and instruments. This is what China has done exceptionally well over the past 20 years. The following points illustrate how China achieved very high "savings" and investment rates (Chart I-7): China devalued its currency in January 1994 by 32% and relied on a cheap currency to produce large trade surpluses (Chart I-8). It used the foreign currency proceeds to purchase foreign technologies and equipment to boost its capital stock. Chart I-7Savings And Investment Ratios Chart I-8China: The 1994 Currency ##br##Devaluation Started New Era It also attracted FDI to build its productive capacity both for consumer goods as well as capital goods. FDI inflows surged since China's acceptance into the WTO in 2001. Since 2009, however, China has been relying on new purchasing power created by banks to expand its industrial capacity to produce commodities, raw materials, industrial equipment and machinery. Meanwhile, mainland banks have been originating new loans, and hence deposits/money - new purchasing power - to finance real estate development and infrastructure construction, utilizing these domestically produced raw materials and machinery. This has allowed China to sustain high levels of domestic "savings." On the whole, China indeed has had "excess savings" as its economy has been suffering from excess industrial capacity. Initially, China invested to create such excess capacity. Then, its banking system originated enormous amount of money/new purchasing power to support and keep zombie companies alive in these industries with excess capacity. The banking system is still involved in this function up until today. While this is a reasonable economic policy in the short run, it is not a good growth strategy in the long term. The problem is that easy money and credit support inefficient enterprises and encourage unproductive investment. As a result, productivity growth will slow and potential growth will decelerate considerably. Bottom Line: The countries that produce a lot of goods and services for domestic investment are said to have high domestic "savings." By definition, the more excess industrial capacity a country has, the more "excess savings" that economy will carry. Yet, uncontrolled money/credit origination to support zombie enterprises in over-capacity sectors entails inefficient allocation of capital that necessarily slows productivity growth and hence economic growth potential in the long term. Limits On Money Creation A natural question that arise from all this is what are the limits on money creation? We list some of major ones here, but these issues have been addressed in our previous three reports,8 and we will address them again in forthcoming reports. Inflation and/or deprecation pressures on the currency that could lead to monetary tightening; Bank regulation and various regulatory ratios; Shareholders of banks - who are highly leveraged to non-performing assets/loans - might order reduced lending; Removing the implicit government "put" that encourage irresponsible borrowing and lending. Inflationary pressures are presently rising and more entrenched in China now than at any time in the past decade or so (Chart I-9). In the context of negative real interest rates (Chart I-10) and barring major growth slowdown, the authorities are unlikely to stimulate anytime soon. Chart I-9Beware Of Rising Inflation In China... Chart I-10...Making Interest Rates Negative Negative real local interest rates undermine Chinese households' willingness to hold the currency. China's foreign exchange reserves at $3 trillion, while high, are equal only to 10% broad money (M3) and 14% of official M2. This signifies how much money the banking system has created. At the moment, mainland banking regulations are being tightened. This as well as liquidity tightening by the People's Bank of China and the government's anti-corruption crackdown that is moving into the financial industry will further dampen money creation and leverage expansion. This triple tightening amid lingering money and credit excesses constitutes the main rationale behind our negative stance on China's growth and China-related plays in global financial markets. Policy tightening is especially dangerous amid the existing credit, money and property market imbalances and excesses. Downgrade Chinese Stocks From Overweight To Neutral The Chinese MSCI Investable equity index - which unlike H-shares includes mega-cap tech companies - has rallied massively and outperformed the EM benchmark (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Downgrade Chinese Investable Stocks ##br##From Overweight To Neutral Relative performance is overbought, and we recommend dedicated EM equity portfolios downgrade their allocation from overweight to neutral. Our overweight position was initiated on November 26, 2014, and has generated an 18.5% gain. The freed-up capital should be allocated proportionally to our remaining overweights, which are Taiwan, Thailand, Korean tech stocks, Russia and central Europe. We are contemplating upgrading Chile. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports from October 26, 2016, November 23, 2016 and January 18, 2017; available on ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 16, 2016, available on available on ems.bcaresearch.com 3 Werner, R. (2014b), "How Do Banks Create Money, and Why Can Other Firms Not Do the Same?", International Review of Financial Analysis, 36, 71-77. 4 Werner, R. (2014a), "Can banks individually create money out of nothing? -- The theories and the empirical evidence", International Review of Financial Analysis, 36, 1-19. 5 We use "savings" in parenthesis because as this term does not really mean households' and companies' and governments' financial assets or deposits at the banks. "Savings" signifies the amount of goods and services produced but not consumed by an economy. 6 Lindner, F. (2015), "Did Scarce Global Savings Finance the US Real Estate Bubble? The Global Saving Glut thesis from a stock flow Consistent Perspective", Macroeconomic Policy Institute, Working Paper 155, July 2015. 7 Lindner, F. (2012), "Savings does not finance Investment: Accounting as an indispensable guide to economic theory", Macroeconomic Policy Institute, Working Paper 100, October 2012. 8 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports from October 26, 2016, November 23, 2016 and January 18, 2017; available on ems.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

特別レポート

Mr. X is a long-time BCA client who visits our offices toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook. This year, Mr. X introduced us to his daughter, who we shall identify as Ms. X. She has many years of experience as a portfolio manager, initially in a wealth management firm, and subsequently in two major hedge funds. In 2017, she joined her father to help him run the family office portfolio. She took an active role in our recent discussion and this report is an edited transcript of our conversation. Mr. X: As always, it is a great pleasure to sit down with you to discuss the economic and investment outlook. And I am thrilled to bring my daughter to the meeting. She and I do not always agree on the market outlook and appropriate investment strategy, but even in her first year working with me she has added tremendous value to our decisions and performance. As you know, I have a very conservative bias in my approach and this means I sometimes miss out on opportunities. My daughter is more willing than me to take risks, so we make a good team. I am happy that our investment portfolio has performed well over the past year, but am puzzled by the high level of investor complacency. I can't understand why investors do not share my concerns about by sky-high valuations, a volatile geopolitical environment and the considerable potential for financial instability. Over the years, you have made me appreciate the power of easy money to create financial bubbles and also that market overshoots can last for a surprisingly long time. Thus, I am fully aware that we could easily have another year of strong gains, but were that to happen, I would worry about the potential for a sudden 1987-style crash. I remember that event well and it was an unpleasant experience. My inclination is to move right now to an underweight equity position. Ms. X: Let me add that I am delighted to finally attend the annual BCA meeting with my father. Over the years, he has talked to me at length about your discussions, making me very jealous that I was not there. He and I do frequently disagree about the outlook so it will be good to have BCA's independent and objective perspective. As my father noted, I do not always share his cautious bias. When I joined the family firm in early 2017, I persuaded him to raise our equity exposure and that was the right decision. I have been in the business long enough to know that it is dangerous to get more bullish as the market rises and I agree there probably is too much complacency. However, I do not see an early end to the conditions that are driving the bull market and I am inclined to stay overweight equities for a while longer. Thus, the big debate between us is whether or not we should now book profits from the past year's strong performance and move to an underweight stance in risk assets. Hopefully, this meeting will help us make the right decision. Chart 1An Impressive Bull Market BCA: First of all, we are delighted to see you both and look forward to getting to know Ms. X in the years to come. It is not a surprise that you are debating whether to cut exposure to risk assets because that question is on the mind of many of our clients. We share your surprise about complacency - investors have been seduced by the relentless upward drift of prices since early 2016. The global equity index has not suffered any setback above 2% during the past year, and that has to be close to a record (Chart 1). The conditions that have underpinned this remarkable performance are indeed still in place but we expect that to change during the coming year. Thus, if equity prices continue to rise, it would make sense to reduce exposure to risk assets to a neutral position over the next few months. A blow-off phase with a final spike in prices cannot be ruled out, but trying to catch those moves is a very high-risk strategy. We are not yet recommending underweight positions in risk assets, but if our economic and policy views pan out, we likely will shift in that direction in the second half of 2018. Ms. X: It seems that you are siding with my father in terms of wanting to scale back exposure to risk assets. That would be premature in my view and I look forward to discussing this in more detail. But first, I would be interested in reviewing your forecasts from last year. BCA: Of course. A year ago, our key conclusions were that: A number of important regime shifts will impact the economic and investment outlook over the next few years. These include the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a move away from fiscal conservatism, a policy pushback against globalization, and a rise in the labor share of income at the expense of profit margins. Together with an earlier regime shift when the Debt Supercycle ended, these trends are consistent with very modest returns from financial assets over the next decade. The failure of low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private credit growth is consistent with our end-of-Debt Supercycle thesis. The end point for dealing with high debt levels may ultimately be sharply higher inflation, but only after the next downturn triggers a new deflationary scare. The potential for trade restrictions by the incoming U.S. administration poses a threat to the outlook, but the odds of a global trade war are low. Time lags in implementing policy mean that the fiscal plans of President-elect Trump will boost U.S. growth in 2018 more than 2017. This raises the risk of an overheated economy in 2018 leading to a monetary squeeze and recession in 2019. The key issue will be whether the supply side of the economy expands alongside increased demand and it will be critical to monitor business capital spending. Lingering structural problems will prevent any growth acceleration outside the U.S. The euro area and emerging economies are still in the midst of a deleveraging cycle and demographics remain a headwind for Japan. Not many countries will follow the U.S. example of fiscal stimulus. Nevertheless, for the first time since the recovery began, global growth forecasts are likely avoid a downgrade over the next couple of years. China remains an unbalanced and fragile economy but the authorities have enough policy flexibility to avoid a hard landing, at least over the year or two. The longer-run outlook is more bearish unless the government moves away from its stop-go policy approach and pursues more supply-side reforms. Inflation has bottomed in the U.S., but the upturn will be gradual in 2017 and it will stay subdued in the euro area and Japan. Divergences in monetary policy between the U.S. and other developed economies will continue to build in 2017 as the Fed tightens and other central banks stay on hold. Unlike a year ago, the Fed's rate expectations look reasonable. Bond yields in the U.S. may fall in the near run after their recent sharp rise, but the cyclical trend is up against a backdrop of monetary tightening, fiscal stimulus and rising inflation. Yields in the euro area will be held down by ongoing QE, while the 10-year yield will stay capped at zero in Japan. The secular bull market in bonds is over although yields could retest their recent lows in the next downturn. The search for yield will remain an important investment theme, but rich valuations dictate only a neutral weighting in investment-grade corporate bonds and a modest underweight in high-yielders. The U.S. equity market is modestly overvalued but the conditions are ripe for an overshoot in 2017 given optimism about a boost to profits from the new administration's policies. Earnings expectations are far too high and ignore the likelihood that rising labor costs will squeeze margins. Nevertheless, that need not preclude equity prices moving higher. There is a good chance of a sell-off in early 2017 and that would be a buying opportunity. Valuations are better in Japan and several European markets than in the U.S. and relative monetary conditions also favor these markets. We expect the U.S. to underperform in 2017. We expect emerging markets to underperform developed markets. The oil price should average around $55 a barrel over the next one or two years, with some risk to the upside. Although shale production should increase, the cutbacks in oil industry capital spending and planned production cuts by OPEC and some other producers will ensure that inventories will have to be drawn down in the second half of 2017. Non-oil commodity prices will stay in a trading range after healthy gains in 2016, but the long-run outlook is still bearish. The dollar bull market should stay intact over the coming year with the trade-weighted index rising by around 5%. Relative policy stances and economic trends should all stay supportive of the dollar. The outlook for the yen is especially gloomy. A stabilization in resource prices will keep commodity prices in a range. We remain bearish on EM currencies. The biggest geopolitical risks relate to U.S.-China relations, especially given President-elect Trump's inclination to engage in China-bashing. Meanwhile, the defeat of ISIS could create a power vacuum in the Middle East that could draw Turkey into a disastrous conflict with the Kurds and Iran/Russia. The coming year is important for elections in Europe but we do not expect any serious threat to the EU or single currency to emerge. The most important prediction that we got right was our view that conditions were ripe for an overshoot in equity prices. The MSCI all-country index has delivered an impressive total return of around 20% in dollar terms since the end of 2016, one of the best calendar year performances of the current cycle (Table 1). So it was good that your daughter persuaded you to keep a healthy equity exposure. It is all the more impressive that the market powered ahead in the face of all the concerns that you noted earlier. Our preference for European markets over the U.S. worked out well in common currency terms, but only because the dollar declined. Emerging markets did much better than we expected, with significant outperformance relative to their developed counterparts. Table 1Market Performance With regard to the overall economic environment, we were correct in forecasting a modest improvement in 2017 global economic activity and that growth would not fall short of the IMF's predictions for the first time in the current expansion. However, one big surprise, not only for us, but also for policymakers, was that inflation drifted lower in the major economies. Latest data show the core inflation rate for the G7 economies is running at only 1.4%, down from 1.6% at the end of 2016. We will return to this critical issue later as the trend in inflation outlook will be a key determinant of the market outlook for the coming year and beyond. Regionally, the Euro area and Japanese economies registered the biggest upside surprises relative to our forecast and those of the IMF (Table 2). That goes a long way to explaining why the U.S. dollar was weaker than we expected. In addition, the dollar was not helped by a market downgrading of the scale and timing of U.S. fiscal stimulus. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the dollar has merely unwound the 2016 Trump rally and recently has shown some renewed strength. Table 2IMF Economic Forecasts A year ago, there were major concerns about potential political turmoil from important elections in Europe, the risk of U.S.-led trade wars and a credit bust-up in China. We downplayed these issues as near-term threats to the markets and that turned out to be appropriate. Nevertheless, there are many lingering risks to the outlook and market complacency is a much bigger concern now than it was a year ago. Mr. X: As you just noted, a key theme of your Outlook last year was "Shifting Regimes" such as the end of disinflation and fiscal conservatism, a retreat from globalization, and the start of a rebalancing in income shares away from profits toward labor. And of course, you talked about the End of the Debt Supercycle a few years ago. Do you still have confidence that these regime shifts are underway? BCA: Absolutely! These are all trends that we expect to play out over a number of years and thus can't be judged by short-term developments. There have been particularly important shifts in the policy environment. The 2007-09 economic and financial meltdown led central banks to fight deflation rather than inflation and we would not bet against them in this battle. Inflation has been lower than expected, but there has been a clear turning point. On fiscal policy, governments have largely given up on austerity against a background of a disappointingly slow economic recovery in recent years and rising populist pressures (Chart 2). The U.S. budget deficit could rise particularly sharply over the next few years. In the U.S., the relative income shares going to profits and labor have started to shift direction, but there is a long way to go. Finally, the same forces driving government to loosen fiscal purse strings have also undermined support for globalization with the U.S. even threatening to abandon NAFTA. The ratio of global trade to output has trended sideways for several years and is unlikely to turn higher any time soon. All these trends are part of our Regime Shift thesis. Chart 2Regime Shifts The remarkable macro backdrop of low inflation, easy money and healthy profits has been incredibly positive for financial markets in recent years. You would have to be an extreme optimist to believe that such an environment will persist. Our big concern for the coming year is that we are setting up for a collision between the markets and looming changes in economic policy. The Coming Collision Between Policy And The Markets BCA: As you mentioned earlier, we attach enormous importance to the role of easy money in supporting asset prices and it is hard to imagine that we could have had a more stimulative monetary environment than has existed in recent years. Central banks have been in panic mode since the 2007-09 downturn with an unprecedented period of negative real interest rates in the advanced economies, coupled with an extraordinary expansion of central bank balance sheets (Chart 3). Initially, the fear was for another Great Depression and as that threat receded, the focus switched to getting inflation back to the 2% target favored by most developed countries. In a post-Debt Supercycle world, negative real rates have failed to trigger the typical rebound in credit demand that was so characteristic of the pre-downturn era. Central banks have expanded base money in the form of bank reserves, but this has not translated into markedly faster growth in broad money or nominal GDP. This is highlighted by the collapse in money multipliers (the ratio of broad to base money) and in velocity (the ratio of GDP to broad money). This has been a double whammy: there is less broad money generated for each dollar of base money and less GDP for every dollar of broad money (Chart 4). Chart 3An Extraordinary Period Of Easy Money Chart 4Monetary Policy: Pushing On A String Historically, monetary policy acted primarily through the credit channel with lower rates making households and companies more willing to borrow, and lenders more willing to supply funds. In the post-Debt Supercycle world, the credit channel has become partly blocked, forcing policymakers to rely more on the other channels of monetary transmission, the main one being boosting asset prices. However, there is a limit to how far this can go because the end result is massively overvalued assets and building financial excesses. The Fed and many other central banks now realize that this strategy cannot be pushed much further. The economic recovery in the U.S. and other developed economies has been the weakest of the post-WWII period. But potential growth rates also have slowed which means that spare capacity has gradually been absorbed. According to the IMF, the U.S. output gap closed in 2015 having been as high as 2% of potential GDP in 2013. The IMF estimates that the economy was operating slightly above potential in 2017 with a further rise forecast in 2018 (Chart 5). According to IMF estimates, the median output gap for 20 advanced economies will shift from -0.1% in 2017 to +0.3% in 2018 (i.e. they will be operating above potential). This makes it hard to justify the maintenance of hyper-stimulative monetary policies. Chart 5No More Output Gaps The low U.S. inflation rate is giving the Fed the luxury of moving cautiously and that is keeping the markets buoyant. Indeed, the markets don't even believe the Fed will be able to raise rates as much they expect. The most recent FOMC projections show a median federal funds rate of 2.1% by the end of 2018 but the markets are discounting a move to only 1.8%. The markets probably have this wrong because inflation is likely to wake up from its slumber in the second half of the year. Ms. X: This is another area where my father and I disagree. I view the world as essentially deflationary. We all know that technological innovations have opened up competition in a lot of markets, driving down prices. Two obvious examples are Uber and Airbnb, but these are just the tip of the iceberg. Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods is another example of how increased competitive pressures will continue to sweep through previously relatively stable industries. And such changes have an important impact on employee psychology and thus bargaining power. These days, people are glad to just keep their jobs and this means companies hold the upper hand when it comes to wage negotiations. So I don't see a pickup in inflation being a threat to the markets any time soon. Mr. X: I have a different perspective. First of all, I do not even believe the official inflation data because most of the things I buy have risen a lot in price over the past couple of years. Secondly, given the extremely stimulative stance of monetary policy in recent years, a pickup in inflation would not surprise me at all. So I am sympathetic to the BCA view. But, even if the data is correct, why have inflation forecasts proved so wrong and what underpins your view that it will increase in the coming year? BCA: There is an interesting disconnect between the official data and the inflation views of many consumers and economic/statistics experts. According to the Conference Board, U.S. consumers' one-year ahead inflation expectations have persistently exceeded the published data and the latest reading is close to 5% (Chart 6). That ties in with your perception. Consumer surveys by the New York Fed and University of Michigan have year-ahead inflation expectations at a more reasonable 2.5%. At the same time, many "experts" believe the official data is overstated because it fails to take enough account of technological changes and new lower-priced goods and services. The markets also have a moderately optimistic view with the five-year CPI swap rate at 2%. This is optimistic because it is consistent with inflation below the Fed's 2% target, if one allows for an inflation risk premium built in to the swap price. We are prepared to take the inflation data broadly at face value. Low inflation is consistent with an ongoing tough competitive environment in most sectors, boosted by the disruptive impact of technological changes that Ms. X described. The inflation rate for core goods (ex-food and energy) has been in negative territory for several years while that for services ex-shelter is at the low end of its historical range (Chart 7). Chart 6Differing Perspectives Of Inflation Chart 7Not Much Inflation Here There is no simple explanation of why inflation has fallen short of forecasts. Economic theory assumes that price pressures build as an economy moves closer to full employment and the U.S. is at that point. This raises several possibilities: There is more slack in the economy than suggested by the low unemployment rate. The lags are unusually long in the current cycle. Technological disruption is having a greater impact than expected. The link between economic slack and inflationary pressures is typically captured by the Phillips Curve which shows the relationship between the unemployment rate and inflation. In the U.S., the current unemployment rate of 4.1% is believed to be very close to a full-employment level. Yet, inflation recently has trended lower and while wage growth is in an uptrend, it has remained softer than expected (Chart 8). Chart 8Inflationary Pressures Are Turning We agree with Ms. X that employee bargaining power has been undermined over the years by globalization and technological change and by the impact of the 2007-09 economic downturn. That would certainly explain a weakened relationship between the unemployment rate and wage growth, but does not completely negate the theory. The historical evidence still suggests that once the labor market becomes tight, inflation eventually does accelerate. A broad range of data indicates that the U.S. labor market is indeed tight and the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker is in an uptrend, albeit modestly. Two other factors consistent with an end to disinflation are the lagged effects of dollar weakness and a firming in oil prices. Non-oil prices have now moved decisively out of deflationary territory while oil prices in 2017 have averaged more than 20% above year-ago levels. As far as the impact of technology is concerned, there is no doubt that innovations like Uber and Airbnb are deflationary. However, our analysis suggests that the growth in online spending has not had a major impact on the inflation numbers. E-commerce still represents a small fraction of total U.S. consumer spending, depressing overall consumer inflation by only 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points. The deceleration of inflation since the global financial crisis has been in areas largely unaffected by online sales, such as energy and rent. Moreover, today's creative destruction in the retail sector is no more deflationary than the earlier shift to 'big box' stores. We are not looking for a dramatic acceleration in either wage growth or inflation - just enough to convince the Fed that it needs to carry on with its plan to raise interest rates. And the pressure to do this will increase if the Administration is able to deliver on its planned tax cuts. Ms. X: You make it sound as if cutting taxes would be a bad thing. Surely the U.S. would benefit from the Administration's tax plan? A reduction in the corporate tax rate would be very bullish for equities. BCA: The U.S. tax system is desperately in need of reform via eliminating loopholes and distortions and using the savings to lower marginal rates. That would make it more efficient and hopefully boost the supply side of the economy without undermining revenues. However, the economy does not need stimulus from net tax giveaways given that it is operating close to potential. That would simply boost demand relative to supply, create overheating, and give the Fed more reason to get aggressive. The Republican's initial tax plan has some good elements of reform such as cutting back the personal mortgage interest deduction, eliminating some other deductions and making it less attractive for companies to shift operations overseas. However, many of these proposals are unlikely to survive the lobbying efforts of special interest groups. The net result probably will be tax giveaways without much actual reform. Importantly, there is not a strong case for personal tax cuts given that a married worker on the average wage and with two children paid an average income tax rate of only 14% in 2016, according to OECD calculations. There inevitably will be contentious negotiations in Congress but we assume that the Republicans will eventually come together to pass some tax cuts by early next year. The combination of easier fiscal policy and Fed rate hikes will be bullish for the dollar and this will contribute to tighter overall financial conditions. That is why we see a coming collision between economic policy and the markets. The narrative for the so-called Trump rally in markets was based on the assumption that the Administration's platform of increased spending, tax cuts and reduced regulations would be bullish for the economy and thus risk assets. That was always a misplaced notion. The perfect environment for markets has been moderate economic growth, low inflation and easy money. The Trump agenda would be appropriate for an economy that had a lot of spare capacity and needed a big boost in demand. It is less suited for an economy with little spare capacity. Reduced regulations and lower corporate tax rates are good for the supply side of the economy and could boost the potential growth rate. However, if a key move is large personal tax cuts then the boost to demand will dominate. Mr. X: It seems that you are making the case for a serious policy error in the U.S. in the coming year - both on fiscal and monetary policy. I can't argue against that because everything that has happened over the past few years tells me that policymakers don't have a good grip on either the economy or the implications of their actions. I never believed that printing money and creating financial bubbles was a sensible approach to an over-indebted economy. I always expected it to end badly. BCA: Major tightening cycles frequently end in recession because monetary policy is a very blunt tool. Central banks would like to raise rates by just enough to cool things down but that is hard to achieve. The problem with fiscal policy is that implementation lags mean that it often is pro-cyclical. In other words, there is pressure for fiscal stimulus in a downturn, but by the time legislation is passed, the economy typically has already recovered and does not really need a big fiscal boost. And that certainly applies to the current environment. The other area of potential policy error is on trade. Having already pulled the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Trump Administration is taking a hardline attitude toward a renegotiation of NAFTA. This could even end up with the deal being scrapped and that would add another element of risk to the North American economies. Ms. X: Your scenario assumes that the Fed will be quite hawkish. However, everything I have read about Jerome Powell, the new Fed chair, suggests that he will err on the side of caution when it comes to raising rates. So monetary policy may not collide with markets at all over the coming year. BCA: It is certainly true that Powell does not have any particular bias when it comes to the conduct of monetary policy. That would not have been the case if either John Taylor or Kevin Warsh had been given the job - they both have a hawkish bias. Powell is not an economist so will likely follow a middle path and be heavily influenced by the Fed's staff forecasts and by the opinions of other FOMC members. There are still several vacancies on the Fed's Board so much will depend on who is appointed to those positions. The latest FOMC forecasts are for growth and inflation of only 2% in 2018 and these numbers seem too low. Meanwhile, the prediction that unemployment will still be at 4.1% at end-2018 is too high. We expect projections of growth and inflation to be revised up and unemployment to be revised down. That will embolden the Fed to keep raising rates. So, even with Powell at the helm, monetary policy is set to get tighter than the market currently expects. Ms. X: So far, we have talked mainly about the U.S. What about other central banks? I can't believe that inflation will be much of a problem in the euro area or in Japan any time soon. Does that not mean that the overall global monetary environment will stay favorable for risk assets? BCA: The Fed is at the leading edge of the shift away from extreme monetary ease by hiking interest rates and starting the process of balance sheet reduction. But the Bank of Canada also has raised rates and the ECB has announced that it will cut its asset purchases in half beginning January 2018, as a first step in normalizing policy. Even the Bank of England has raised rates despite Brexit-related downside risks for the economy. The BoJ will keep an accommodative stance for the foreseeable future. You are correct that financial conditions will be tightening more in the U.S. than in other developed economies. Moreover, equity valuations are more stretched in the U.S. than elsewhere leaving that market especially vulnerable. Yet, market correlations are such that any sell-off in U.S. risk assets is likely to become a global affair. Another key issue relates to the potential for financial shocks. Long periods of extreme monetary ease always fuel excesses and sometimes these remain hidden until they blow up. We know that companies have taken on a lot of debt, largely to fund financial transactions such as share buybacks and merger and acquisitions activity. That is unlikely to be the direct cause of a financial accident but might well become a problem in the next downturn. It typically is increased leverage within the financial sector itself that poses the greatest risk and that is very opaque. The banking system is much better capitalized than before the 2007-09 downturn so the risks lie elsewhere. As would be expected, margin debt has climbed higher with the equity market, and is at a historically high level relative to market capitalization (Chart 9). We don't have good data on the degree of leverage among non-bank financial institutions such as hedge funds but that is where leverage surprises are likely to occur. And the level of interest rates that causes financial stress is almost certainly to be a lot lower than in the past. Chart 9Financial Leverage Has Risen Mr. X: That is the perfect lead-in to my perennial concern - the high level of debt in the major economies. I realize high debt levels are not a problem when interest rates are close to zero, but that will change if your view on the Fed is correct. Ms. X: I would just add that this is one area where I share my father's concerns, but with an important caveat. I wholeheartedly agree that high debt levels pose a threat to economic and financial stability, but I see this as a long-term issue. Even with rising interest rates, debt servicing costs will stay low for at least the next year. It seems to me that rates will have to rise a lot before debt levels in the major economies pose a serious threat to the system. Even if the Fed tightens policy in line with its plans, real short rates will still stay low by historical standards. This will not only keep debt financing manageable but will also sustain the search for yield and support equity prices. BCA: We would be disappointed if you both had not raised the issue of debt. Debt levels do indeed remain very elevated among advanced and emerging economies (Chart 10). The growth in private debt remains far below pre-crisis levels in the advanced countries, but this has been offset by the continued high level of government borrowing. As a result, the total debt-to-GDP ratio has stayed close to a peak. And both private and public debt ratios have climbed to new highs in the emerging economies, with China leading the charge. Chart 10ADebt Levels Remain Elevated Chart 10BDebt Levels Remain Elevated As we have discussed in the past, there is not an inconsistency between our End of Debt Supercycle thesis and the continued high levels of debt in most countries. As noted earlier, record-low interest rates have not triggered the kind of private credit resurgence that occurred in the pre-crisis period. For example, household borrowing has remained far below historical levels as a percent of income in the U.S., despite low borrowing costs (Chart 11). At the same time, it is not a surprise that debt-to-income ratios are high given the modest growth in nominal incomes in most countries. Chart 11Low Rates Have Not Triggered ##br##A Borrowing Surge In U.S. Debt growth is not benign everywhere. In the developed world, Canada's debt growth is worryingly high, both in the household and corporate sectors. As is also the case with Australia, Canada's overheated housing market has fueled rapid growth in mortgage debt. These are accidents waiting to happen when borrowing costs increase. In the emerging word, China has yet to see the end of its Debt Supercycle. Fortunately, with most banks under state control, the authorities should be able to contain any systemic risks, at least in the near run. With regard to timing, we agree that debt levels are not likely to pose an economic or financial problem in next year. It is right to point out that debt-servicing costs are very low by historical standards and it will take time for rising rates to have an impact given that a lot of debt is locked in at low rates. For example, in the U.S., the ratio of household debt-servicing to income and the non-financial business sector's ratio of interest payments to EBITD are at relatively benign levels (Chart 12). However, changes occur at the margin and the example of the Bernanke taper tantrum highlighted investor sensitivity to even modest changes in the monetary environment. You may well be right Ms. X that risk assets will continue to climb higher in the face of a tighter financial conditions. But given elevated valuations, we lean toward a cautious rather than aggressive approach to strategy. We would rather leave some money on the table than risk being caught in a sudden downdraft. Other investors, including yourself, might prefer to wait for clearer signals that a turning point is imminent. Returning to the issue of indebtedness, the end-game for high debt levels continues to be a topic of intense interest. There really are only three options: to grow out of it, to write it off, or to try and inflate it away. The first option obviously would be best - to have fast enough growth in real incomes that allowed debtors to start paying down their debt. Unfortunately, that is the least likely prospect given adverse demographic trends throughout the developed world and disappointing productivity growth (Chart 13). Chart 12Borrowing Costs Are Benign Chart 13It's Hard To Grow Out Of Debt ##br##With These Structural Headwinds Writing the debt off - i.e. defaulting - is a desperate measure that would be the very last resort after all other approaches had failed. In this case, we are talking mainly about government debt, because private debt always has to be written off when borrowers become bankrupt. Japan is the one developed country where government debt probably will be written off eventually. Given that the Bank of Japan owns around 45% of outstanding government debt, those holdings can be neutralized by converting them to perpetuals - securities that are never redeemed. If the first two options are not viable, then inflation becomes the preferred solution to over-indebtedness. To make a big impact, inflation would need to rise far above the 2% level currently favored by central banks, and it would have to stay elevated for quite some time. Central banks are not yet ready to allow such an environment, but that could change after the next economic downturn. Central banks have made it clear that they are prepared to pursue radical policies in order to prevent deflation. This sets the scene for increasingly aggressive actions after the next recession and the end result could be a period of significantly higher inflation. Mr. X: I don't disagree with that view which is why I always like to hold some physical gold in my portfolio. It is interesting that you are worried about a looming setback for risk assets because you are positive on the near-run economic outlook. That is contrary to the typical view that sees a decent economy as supporting higher equity prices. Let's spend a bit more time on your view of the economic outlook. Ms. X: Before we do that, I would just emphasize that it is far too early to worry about debt end games and the potential for sharply rising inflation. I don't disagree that monetary policy could be forced to embrace massive reflation during the next downturn and perhaps that will make me change my view of the inflation outlook. But the sequencing is important because we would first have to deal with a recession that could be a very deflationary episode. And before the next recession we could have period of continued decent growth, which would be positive for risk assets. So I agree that the near-term view of the economic outlook is important. The Economic Outlook BCA: This recovery cycle has been characterized by a series of shocks and headwinds that constrained growth in various regions. In no particular order, these included fiscal austerity, the euro crisis, a brief U.S. government shutdown, the Japanese earthquake, and a spike in oil prices above $100. As we discussed a year ago, in the absence of any new shocks, we expected global growth to improve and that is what occurred in 2017. A broad range of indicators shows that activity has picked up steam in most areas. Purchasing managers' indexes are in an uptrend, business and consumer confidence are at cyclical highs and leading indicators have turned up (Chart 14). This is hardly a surprise given easy monetary conditions and a more relaxed fiscal stance almost everywhere. Chart 14Global Activity On An Uptrend The outlook for 2018 is positive and the IMF's projections for growth is probably too low (see Table 2). So, for the second year in a row, the next set of updates due in the spring are likely to be revised up. Ms. X: Let's talk about the U.S. economy. You are concerned that tax cuts could contribute to overheating, tighter monetary policy and an eventual collision with the markets. But there are two alternative scenarios, both quite optimistic for risk assets. On the one hand, a cut in the corporate tax rate could trigger a further improvement in business confidence and thus acceleration in capital spending. This would boost the supply side of the economy and mean that faster growth need not lead to higher inflation. It would be the perfect world of a low inflation boom. At the other extreme, if political gridlock prevents any meaningful tax cuts, we will be left with the status quo of moderate growth and low inflation that has been very positive for markets during the past several years. Mr. X: You can always rely on my daughter to emphasize the potential for optimistic outcomes. I would suggest another entirely different scenario. The cycle is very mature and I fear it would not take much to tip the economy into recession, even if we get some tax relief. So I am more concerned with near-term downside risks to the U.S. economy. A recession in the coming year would be catastrophic for the stock market in my view. BCA: Before we get to the outlook, let's agree on where we are right now. As we already noted, the U.S. economy currently is operating very close to its potential level. The Congressional Budget Office estimates potential growth to be only 1.6% a year at present, which explains why the unemployment rate has dropped even though growth has averaged a modest 2% pace in recent years. The consumer sector has generally been a source of stability with real spending growing at a 2¾% pace over the past several years (Chart 15). And, encouragingly, business investment has recently picked up from its earlier disappointing level. On the negative side, the recovery in housing has lost steam and government spending has been a source of drag. Looking ahead, the pattern of growth may change a bit. With regard to consumer spending, the pace of employment growth is more likely to slow than accelerate given the tight market and growing lack of available skilled employees. According to the National Federation of Independent Business survey, 88% of small companies hiring or trying to hire reported "few or no qualified applicants for the positions they were trying to fill". Companies in manufacturing and construction say that the difficulty in finding qualified workers is their single biggest problem, beating taxes and regulations. In addition, we should not assume that the personal saving rate will keep falling given that it has hit a recovery low of 3.1% (Chart 16). On the other hand, wage growth should continue to firm and there is the prospect of tax cuts. Overall, this suggests that consumer spending should continue to grow by at least a 2% pace in 2018. Chart 15Trends In U.S. Growth Chart 16Personal Saving At A Recovery Low Survey data suggests that business investment spending should remain strong in the coming year, even without any additional boost from corporate tax cuts. Meanwhile, rebuilding and renovations in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma should provide a short-term boost to housing investment and a more lasting improvement will occur if the millennial generation finally moves out of their parents' basements. On that note, it is encouraging that the 10-year slide in the homeownership rate appears to have run its course (Chart 17). And although housing affordability is down from its peak, it remains at an attractive level from a historical perspective. Chart 17A Weak Housing Recovery Last, but not least, government spending will face countervailing forces. The Administration plans to increase spending on defense and infrastructure but there could be some offsetting cutbacks in other areas. Overall, government spending should make a positive contribution to 2018 after being a drag in 2017. Putting all this together, the U.S. economy should manage to sustain a growth rate of around 2.5% in 2018, putting GDP further above its potential level. And it could rise above that if tax cuts are at the higher end of the range. You suggested three alternative scenarios to our base case: a supply-side boom, continued moderate growth and a near-term recession. A supply-side revival that leads to strong growth and continued low inflation would be extremely bullish, but we are skeptical about that possibility. The revival in capital spending is good news, but this will take time to feed into faster productivity growth. Overall, any tax cuts will have a greater impact on demand than supply, putting even greater pressure on an already tight labor market. The second scenario of a continuation of the recent status quo is more possible, especially if we end up with a very watered-down tax package. However, growth would actually have to drop below 2% in order to prevent GDP from rising above potential. We will closely monitor leading indicators for signs that growth is about to lose momentum. The bearish scenario of a near-term recession cannot be completely discounted, but there currently is no compelling evidence of such a development. Recessions can arrive with little warning if there is an unanticipated shock, but that is rare. Historically, a flat or inverted yield curve has provided a warning sign ahead of most recessions and the curve currently is still positively sloped (Chart 18). Another leading indicator is when cyclical spending1 falls as a share of GDP, reflecting the increased sensitivity of those items to changes in financial conditions. Cyclical spending is still at a historically low level relative to GDP and we expect this to rise rather than fall over the coming quarters. While a near-term recession does not seem likely, the odds will change during the course of 2018. By late year, there is a good chance that the yield curve will be flat or inverted, giving a warning signal for a recession in 2019. Our base case view is for a U.S. recession to start in the second half of 2019, making the current expansion the longest on record. At this stage, it is too early to predict whether it would be a mild recession along the lines of 1990-91 and 2000-01 or a deeper downturn. Chart 18No Recession Signals For The U.S. ...Yet Mr. X: I hope that you are right that a U.S. recession is more than a year away. I am not entirely convinced but will keep an open mind, and my daughter will no doubt keep me fully informed of any positive trends. Ms. X: You can be sure of that. Although I lean toward the optimistic side on the U.S. economy, I have been rather surprised at how well the euro area economy has done in the past year. Latest data show that the euro area's real GDP increased by 2.5% in the year to 2017 Q3 compared to 2.3% for the U.S. Can that be sustained? BCA: The relative performance of the euro area economy has been even better if you allow for the fact that the region's population growth is 0.5% a year below that of the U.S. So the economic growth gap is even greater on a per capita basis. The euro area economy performed poorly during their sovereign debt crisis years of 2011-13, but the subsequent improvement has meant that the region's real per capita GDP has matched that of the U.S. over the past four years. And even Japan's GDP has not lagged much behind on a per capita basis (Chart 19). Chart 19No Clear Winner On Growth The recovery in the euro area has been broadly based but the big change was the end of a fiscal squeeze in the periphery countries. Between 2010 and 2013, fiscal drag (the change in the structural primary deficit) was equivalent to around 10% of GDP in Greece and Portugal and 7% of GDP in Ireland and Spain. There was little fiscal tightening in the subsequent three years, allowing those economies to recover lost ground. Meanwhile, Germany's economy has continued to power ahead, benefiting from much easier financial conditions than the economy has warranted. That has been the inevitable consequence of a one size fits all monetary policy that has had to accommodate the weakest members of the region. The French and Italian economies have disappointed, but there are hopes that the new French government will pursue pro-growth policies. And Italy should also pick up given signs that it is finally starting to deal with its fragile banking system. Both Spain and Italy faced a sharp rise in non-performing bank loans during the great recession, but Italy lagged Spain in dealing with the problem (Chart 20). That goes a long way to explaining why the Italian economic recovery has been so poor relative to Spain. With Italian banks raising capital and writing off non-performing loans more aggressively, the Italian economy should start to improve, finally catching up with the rest of the region. Overall, the euro area economy should manage to sustain growth above the 2.1% forecast by the IMF for 2018. Overall financial conditions are likely to stay favorable for at least another year and we do not anticipate any major changes in fiscal policy. If, as we fear, the U.S. moves into recession in 2019, there will be negative fallout for Europe, largely via the impact on financial markets. However, in relative terms, the euro area should outperform the U.S. during the next downturn. Mr. X: A year ago, you said that Brexit posed downside risks for the U.K. economy. For a while, that seemed too pessimistic as the economy performed quite well, but recent data show things have taken a turn for the worse. How do you see things playing out with this issue? BCA: It was apparent a year ago that the U.K. government had no concrete plans to deal with Brexit and little has changed since then. The negotiations with the EU are not going particularly well and the odds of a "hard" exit have risen. This means withdrawing from the EU without any agreement on a new regime for trade, labor movements or financial transactions. A growing number of firms are taking the precaution of shifting some operations from the U.K. to other EU countries. As you noted, there are signs that Brexit is starting to undermine the U.K. economy. For example, London house prices have turned down and the leading economic index has softened (Chart 21). The poor performance of U.K. consumer service and real estate equities relative to those of Germany suggest investors are becoming more wary of the U.K. outlook. Of course, a lot will depend on the nature of any deal between the U.K. and the EU and that remains a source of great uncertainty. Chart 20A Turning Point For Italian Banks? Chart 21U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are ##br##Underperforming Brexit Effects Show Up At the moment, there are no real grounds for optimism. The U.K. holds few cards in the bargaining process and the country's strong antipathy toward the free movement of people within the EU will be a big obstacle to an amicable separation agreement. Ms. X: I think the U.K. made the right decision to leave the EU and am more optimistic than you about the outlook. There may be some short-term disruption but the long-term outlook for the U.K. will be good once the country is freed from the stifling bureaucratic constraints of EU membership. The U.K. has a more dynamic economy than most EU members and it will be able to attract plenty of overseas capital if the government pursues appropriate policies toward taxes and regulations. It will take a few years to find out who is correct about this. In the meantime, given the uncertainties, I am inclined to have limited exposure to sterling and the U.K. equity market. Let's now talk about China, another country facing complex challenges. This is a topic where my father and I again have a lot of debates. As you might guess, I have been on the more optimistic side while he has sided with those who have feared a hard landing. And I know that similar debates have occurred in BCA. BCA: It is not a surprise that there are lots of debates about the China outlook. The country's impressive economic growth has been accompanied by an unprecedented build-up of debt and supply excesses in several sectors. The large imbalances would have led to a collapse by now in any other economy. However, China has benefited from the heavy state involvement in the economy and, in particular, the banking sector. The big question is whether the government has enough control over economic developments to avoid an economic and financial crisis. The good news is that China's government debt is relatively low, giving them the fiscal flexibility to write-off bad debts from zombie state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The problems of excessive leverage and over-capacity are particularly acute in SOEs that still comprise a large share of economic activity. The government is well aware of the need to reform SOEs and various measures have been announced, but progress has been relatively limited thus far. The IMF projects that the ratio of total non-financial debt to GDP will remain in an uptrend over the next several years, rising from 236% in 2016 to 298% by 2022 (Chart 22). Yet, growth is expected to slow only modestly over the period. Of course, one would not expect the IMF to build a crisis into their forecast. Some investors have been concerned that a peak in China's mini-cycle of the past two years may herald a return to the economic conditions that prevailed in 2015, when the industrial sector grew at a slower pace than during the acute phase of the global financial crisis. These conditions occurred due to the combination of excessively tight monetary conditions and weak global growth. While China's export growth may slow over the coming year, monetary policy remains accommodative. Monetary conditions appear to have peaked early this year but are still considerably easier than in mid-2015. Shifts in the monetary conditions index have done a good job of leading economic activity and they paint a reasonably positive picture (Chart 23). The industrial sector has finally moved out of deflation, with producer prices rising 6.9% in the year ended October. This has been accompanied by a solid revival in profits. Chart 22China: Debt-Fueled Growth To Continue Chart 23China Leaves Deflation Behind On balance, we assume that the Chinese economy will be able to muddle through for the foreseeable future. President Xi Jinping has strengthened his grip on power and he will go to great lengths to ensure that his reign is not sullied with an economic crisis. The longer-term outlook will depend on how far the government goes with reforms and deleveraging and we are keeping an open mind at this point. In sum, for the moment, we are siding with Ms. X on this issue. Mr. X: I have been too bearish on China for the past several years, but I still worry about the downside risks given the massive imbalances and excesses. I can't think of any example of a country achieving a soft landing after such a massive rise in debt. I will give you and my daughter the benefit of the doubt, but am not totally convinced that you will be right. BCA has been cautious on emerging economies in general: has that changed? BCA: The emerging world went through a tough time in 2015-16 with median growth of only 2.6% for the 23 constituent countries of the MSCI EM index (Chart 24). This recovered to 3% in 2017 according to IMF estimates, but that is still far below the average 5% pace of the period 2000-07. Chart 24Emerging Economy Growth: ##br##The Boom Years Are Over It is always dangerous to generalize about the emerging world because the group comprises economies with very different characteristics and growth drivers. Two of the largest countries - Brazil and Russia - went through particularly bad downturns in the past couple of years and those economies are now in a modest recovery. In contrast, India has continued to grow at a healthy albeit slowing pace, while Korea and the ASEAN region have not suffered much of a slowdown. If, as seems likely, Chinese growth holds above a 6% pace over the next year, then those countries with strong links to China should do fine. And it also points to reasonably steady commodity prices, supporting resource-dependent economies. Longer-run, there are reasons to be cautious about many emerging economies, particularly if the U.S. goes into recession 2019, as we fear. That would be associated with renewed weakness in commodity prices, and capital flight from those economies with high external debt such as Turkey and South Africa. As we stated a year ago, the heady days of emerging economy growth are in the past. Mr. X: It seems that both my daughter and I can find some areas of agreement with your views about the economic outlook. You share her expectation that the global growth outlook will stay healthy over the coming year, but you worry about a U.S.-led recession in 2019, something that I certainly sympathize with. But we differ on timing: I fear the downturn could occur even sooner and I know my daughter believes in a longer-lasting upturn. Let's now move onto what this all means for financial markets, starting with bonds. Bond Market Prospects Ms. X: I expect this to be a short discussion as I can see little attraction in bonds at current yields. Even though I expect inflation to stay muted, bonds offer no prospect of capital gains in the year ahead and even the running yield offers little advantage over the equity dividend yield. BCA: As you know, we have believed for some time that the secular bull market in bonds has ended. We expect yields to be under upward pressure in most major markets during 2018 and thus share your view that equities offer better return prospects. By late 2018, it might well be appropriate to switch back into bonds against a backdrop of higher yields and a likely bear market in equities. For the moment, we recommend underweight bond exposure. It is hard to like government bonds when the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries is less than 50 basis points above the dividend yield of the S&P 500 while the euro area bond yield is 260 basis points below divided yields (Chart 25). Real yields, using the 10-year CPI swap rate as a measure of inflation expectations, are less than 20 basis points in the U.S. and a negative 113 basis points in the euro area. Even if we did not expect inflation to rise, it would be difficult to recommend an overweight position in any developed country government bonds. One measure of valuation is to compare the level of real yields to their historical average, adjusted by the standard deviation of the gap. On this basis, the most overvalued markets are the core euro area countries, where real yields are 1.5 to 2 standard deviations below their historical average (Chart 26). There are only two developed bond markets where real 10-year government yields currently are above their historical average: Greece and Portugal. This is warranted in Greece where there needs to be a risk premium in case the country is forced to leave the single currency at some point. This is less of a risk for Portugal, making it a more interesting market. Real yields in New Zealand are broadly in line with their historical average, also making it one of the more attractive markets. Chart 25Bonds Yields Offer Little Appeal Chart 26Valuation Ranking Of Developed Bond Markets Mr. X: Given your expectation of higher inflation, would you recommend inflation-protected Treasuries? BCA: Yes, in the sense that they should outperform conventional Treasuries. The 10-year TIPS are discounting average inflation of 1.85% and we would expect this to be revised up during the coming year. However, the caveat is that absolute returns will still be mediocre. Ms. X: You showed earlier that corporate bonds had a reasonable year in 2017, albeit falling far short of the returns from equities. A year ago, you recommended only neutral weighting in investment-grade bonds and an underweight in high yield. But you became more optimistic toward both early in 2017, shifting to an overweight position. Are you thinking of scaling back exposure once again, given the tight level of spreads? BCA: Yes, we were cautious on U.S. corporates a year ago because valuation was insufficient to compensate for the deterioration in corporate balance sheet health. Nonetheless, value improved enough early in 2017 to warrant an upgrade to overweight given our constructive macro and default rate outlook. The cyclical sweet spot for carry trades should continue to support spread product for a while longer. Moreover, value is better than it appears at first glance. The dotted line in Chart 27 shows the expected 12-month option-adjusted spread for U.S. junk bonds after adjusting for our base case forecast for net default losses. At 260 basis points, this excess spread is in line with the historical average. In the absence of any further spread narrowing, speculative-grade bonds would return 230 basis points more than Treasurys in 2018. If high-yield spreads were to tighten by another 150 basis points, then valuations would be at a historical extreme, and that seems unwarranted. An optimistic scenario would have another 100 basis point spread tightening, delivering excess returns of 5%. Of course, if spreads widen, then corporates will underperform. If financial conditions tighten in 2018 as we expect then it will be appropriate to lower exposure to corporates. In the meantime, you should favor U.S. and U.K. corporate bonds to issues in the Eurozone because ECB tapering is likely to spark some spread widening in that market. Mr. X: What about EM hard-currency bonds? BCA: The global economic background is indeed positive for EM assets. However, EM debt is expensive relative to DM investment-grade bonds which, historically, has heralded a period of underperformance (Chart 28). We expect that relative growth dynamics will be more supportive of U.S. corporates because EM growth will lag. Any commodity price weakness and/or a stronger U.S. dollar would also weigh on EM bonds and currencies. Chart 27Not Much Value In U.S. Corporates Chart 28Emerging Market Bonds Are Expensive Mr. X: We have not been excited about the bond market outlook for some time and nothing you have said changes my mind. I am inclined to keep our bond exposure to the bare minimum. Ms. X: I agree. So let's talk about the stock market which is much more interesting. As I mentioned before, I am inclined to remain fully invested in equities for a while longer, while my father wants to start cutting exposure. Equity Market Outlook BCA: This is one of those times when it is important to draw a distinction between one's forecast of where markets are likely to go and the appropriate investment strategy. We fully agree that the conditions that have driven this impressive equity bull market are likely to stay in place for much of the next year. Interest rates in the U.S. and some other countries are headed higher, but they will remain at historically low levels for some time. Meanwhile, in the absence of recession, corporate earnings still have upside, albeit not as much as analysts project. However, we have a conservative streak at BCA that makes us reluctant to chase markets into the stratosphere. For long-term investors, our recommended strategy is to gradually lower equity exposure to neutral. However, those who are trying to maximize short-term returns should stay overweight and wait for clearer signs that tighter financial conditions are starting to bite on economic activity. Chart 29Reasons For Caution On U.S. Stocks Getting down to specifics, here are the trends that give us cause for concern and they are all highlighted in Chart 29. Valuation: Relative to both earnings and book value, the U.S. equity market is more expensive than at any time since the late 1990s tech bubble. The price-earnings ratio (PER) for the S&P 500 is around 30% above its 60-year average on the basis of both trailing operating earnings and a 10-year average of earnings. The market is not expensive on a relative yield basis because interest rates are so low, but that will change as rates inevitably move higher. Other developed markets are not as overvalued as the U.S., but neither are they cheap. Earnings expectations: The performance of corporate earnings throughout this cycle - particularly in the U.S. - has been extremely impressive give the weaker-than-normal pace of economic growth. However, current expectations are ridiculously high. According to IBES data, analysts expect long-run earnings growth of around 14% a year in both the U.S. and Europe. Even allowing for analysts' normal optimistic bias, the sharp upward revision to growth expectations over the past year makes no sense and is bound to be disappointed. Investor complacency: We all know that the VIX index is at a historical low, indicating that investors see little need to protect themselves against market turmoil. Our composite sentiment indicator for the U.S. is at a high extreme, further evidence of investor complacency. These are classic contrarian signs of a vulnerable market. Most bear markets are associated with recessions, with the stock market typically leading the economy by 6 to 12 months (Chart 30). The lead in 2007 was an unusually short three months. As discussed earlier, we do not anticipate a U.S. recession before 2019. If a recession were to start in mid-2019, it would imply the U.S. market would be at risk from the middle of 2018, but the rally could persist all year. Of course, the timing of a recession and market is uncertain. So it boils down to potential upside gains over the next year versus the downside risks, plus your confidence in being able to time the top. Chart 30Bear Markets And Recessions Usually Overlap We are not yet ready to recommend that you shift to an underweight position in equities. A prudent course of action would be to move to a broadly neutral position over the next few months, but we realize that Ms. X has a higher risk tolerance than Mr. X so we will leave you to fight over that decision. The timing of when we move to an underweight will depend on our various economic, monetary and market indicators and our assessment of the risks. It could well happen in the second half of the year. Mr. X: My daughter was more right than me regarding our equity strategy during the past year, so maybe I should give her the benefit of the doubt and wait for clearer signs of a market top. Thus far, you have focused on the U.S. market. Last year you preferred developed markets outside the U.S. on the grounds of relative valuations and relative monetary conditions. Is that still your stance? BCA: Yes it is. The economic cycle and thus the monetary cycle is far less advanced in Europe and Japan than in the U.S. This will provide extra support to these markets. At the same time, profit margins are less vulnerable outside the U.S. and, as you noted, valuations are less of a problem. In Chart 31, we show a valuation ranking of developed equity markets, based on the deviation of cyclically-adjusted PERs from their historical averages. The chart is not meant to measure the extent to which Portugal is cheap relative to the U.S., but it indicates that Portugal is trading at a PER far below its historical average while that of the U.S. is above. You can see that the "cheaper" markets tend to be outside the U.S. Japan's reading is flattered by the fact that its historical valuation was extremely high during the bubble years of the 1980s, but it still is a relatively attractive market. Chart 31Valuation Ranking Of Developed Equity Markets From a cyclical standpoint, we are still recommending overweight positions in European and Japanese stocks relative to the U.S., on a currency-hedged basis. Nevertheless, market correlations are such that a sell-off in the U.S. will be transmitted around the world (Chart 32). Chart 32When the U.S. Market Sneezes, The World Catches A Cold Ms. X: I would like to turn the focus to emerging equity markets. You have been cautious on these for several years and that worked out extremely well until 2017. I note from your regular EM reports that you have not changed your stance. Why are you staying bearish given that you see an improvement in global growth and further potential upside in developed equity prices? BCA: The emerging world did extremely well over many years when global trade was expanding rapidly, China was booming, commodity prices were in a powerful bull market and capital inflows were strong. Those trends fostered a rapid expansion in credit-fueled growth across the EM universe and meant that there was little pressure to pursue structural reforms. However, the 2007-09 economic and financial crisis marked a major turning point in the supports to EM outperformance. As we noted earlier, the era of rapid globalization has ended, marking an important regime shift. Meanwhile, China's growth rate has moderated and the secular bull market in commodities ended several years ago. We do not view the past year's rebound in commodities as the start of a major new uptrend. Many emerging equity markets remain highly leveraged to the Chinese economy and to commodity prices (Chart 33). Although we expect the Chinese economy to hold up, growth is becoming less commodity intensive. Finally, the rise in U.S. interest rates is a problem for those countries that have taken on a marked increase in foreign currency debt. This will be made even worse if the dollar appreciates. Obviously, the very term "emerging" implies that this group of countries has a lot of upside potential. However, the key to success is pursuing market-friendly reforms, rooting out corruption and investing in productive assets. Many countries pay only lip service to these issues. India is a case in point where there is growing skepticism about the Modi government's ability to deliver on major reforms. The overall EM index does not appear expensive, with the PER trading broadly in line with its historical average (Chart 34). However, as we have noted in the past, the picture is less compelling when the PER is calculated using equally-weighted sectors. The financials and materials components are trading at historically low multiples, dragging down the overall index PER. Emerging market equities will continue to rise as long as the bull market in developed markets persists, but we expect them to underperform on a relative basis. Chart 33Drivers Of EM Performance Chart 34Emerging Markets Fundamentals Mr. X: One last question on equities from me: do you have any high conviction calls on sectors? BCA: A key theme of our sector view is that cyclical stocks should outperform defensives given the mature stage of the economic cycle. We are seeing the typical late-cycle improvement in capital spending and that will benefit industrials, and we recommend an overweight stance in that sector. Technology also is a beneficiary of higher capex but of course those stocks have already risen a lot, pushing valuations to extreme levels. Thus, that sector warrants only a neutral weighting. Our two other overweights are financials and energy. The former should benefit from rising rates and a steeper yield curve while the latter will benefit from firm oil prices. If, as we fear, a recession takes hold in 2019, then obviously that would warrant a major shift back into defensive stocks. For the moment, the positive growth outlook will dominate sector performance. Ms. X: I agree that the bull market in equities, particularly in the U.S., is very mature and there are worrying signs of complacency. However, the final stages of a market cycle can sometimes be very rewarding and I would hate to miss out on what could be an exciting blow-off phase in 2018. As I mentioned earlier, my inclination is to stay heavily invested in equities for a while longer and I have confidence that BCA will give me enough of a warning when risks become unacceptably high. Of course, I will have to persuade my father and that may not be easy. Mr. X: You can say that again, but we won't bother our BCA friends with that conversation now. It's time to shift the focus to commodities and currencies and I would start by commending you on your oil call. You were far out of consensus a year ago when you said the risks to crude prices were in the upside and you stuck to your guns even as the market weakened in the first half. We made a lot of money following your energy recommendations. What is your latest thinking? Commodities And Currencies BCA: We had a lot of conviction in our analysis that the oil market would tighten during 2017 against a backdrop of rising demand and OPEC production cuts, and that view turned out to be correct. As we entered the year, the big reason to be bearish on oil prices was the bloated level of inventories. We forecast that inventories would drop to their five-year average by late 2017, and although that turned out to be a bit too optimistic, the market tightened by enough to push prices higher (Chart 35). Chart 35Oil Market Trends The forces that have pushed prices up will remain in force over the next year. Specifically, our economic view implies that demand will continue to expand, and we expect OPEC 2.0 - the producer coalition of OPEC and non-OPEC states, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia - to extend its 1.8 million b/d production cuts to at least end-June. On that basis, OECD inventories should fall below their five-year average by the end of 2018. We recently raised our 2018 oil price target to an average of $65 in 2018. Of course, the spot market is already close to that level, but the futures curve is backwardated and that is likely to change. We continue to see upside risks to prices, not least because of potential production shortfalls from Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq and Libya. Mr. X: The big disruptor in the oil market in recent years was the dramatic expansion in U.S. shale production. Given the rise in prices, could we not see a rapid rebound in shale output that, once again, undermines prices? BCA: Our modeling indicates that U.S. shale output will increase from 5.1 mb/d to 6.0 mb/d over the next year, in response to higher prices. This is significant, but will not be enough to materially change the global oil demand/supply balance. Longer run, the expansion of U.S. shale output will certainly be enough to prevent any sustained price rise, assuming no large-scale production losses elsewhere. A recent report by the International Energy Agency projected that the U.S. is destined to become the global leader in oil and gas production for decades to come, accounting for 80% of the rise in global oil and gas supply between 2010 and 2025. Ms. X: You have suggested that China's economic growth is becoming less commodity intensive. Also, you have shown in the past that real commodity prices tend to fall over time, largely because of technological innovations. What does all this imply for base metals prices over the coming year? BCA: The base metals story will continue to be highly dependent on developments in China. While the government is attempting to engineer a shift toward less commodity-intensive growth, it also wants to reduce excess capacity in commodity-producing sectors such as coal and steel. Base metals are likely to move sideways until we get a clearer reading on the nature and speed of economic reforms. We model base metals as a function of China's PMIs and this supports our broadly neutral stance on these commodities (Chart 36). Chart 36China Drives Metals Prices Mr. X: As usual, I must end our commodity discussion by asking about gold. Last year, you agreed that an uncertain geopolitical environment coupled with continued low interest rates should support bullion prices, and that was the case with a respectable 12% gain since the end of 2016. You also suggested that I should not have more than 5% of my portfolio in gold which is less than I am inclined to own. It still looks like a gold-friendly environment to me. Ms. X: Let me just add that this is one area where my father and I agree. I do not consider myself to be a gold bug, but I think bullion does provide a good hedge against shocks in a very uncertain economic and political world. I would also be inclined to hold more than 5% of our portfolio in gold. BCA: There will be opposing forces on gold during the coming year. On the positive side, it is safe to assume that geopolitical uncertainties will persist and may even intensify, and there also is the potential for an increase in inflation expectations that would support bullion. On the negative side, rising interest rates are not normally good for gold and there likely will be an added headwind from a firmer U.S. dollar. Gold appears to be at an important point from a technical perspective (Chart 37). It currently is perched just above its 200-day average and a key trend line. A decisive drop below these levels would be bearish. At the same time, there is overhead resistance at around 1350-1360 and prices would have to break above that level to indicate a bullish breakout. Traders' sentiment is at a broadly neutral level, consistent with no clear conviction about which way prices will break. There is no science behind our recommendation of keeping gold exposure below 5%. That just seems appropriate for an asset that delivers no income and where the risk/reward balance is fairly balanced. Ms. X: You referred to the likelihood of a firmer dollar as a depressant on the gold price. You also were bullish on the dollar a year ago, but that did not work out too well. How confident are you that your forecast will fare better in 2018? BCA: We did anticipate that the dollar would experience a correction at the beginning of 2017, but we underestimated how profound this move would be. A combination of factors explains this miscalculation. Chart 37Gold At A Key Level It first began with positioning. We should have paid more attention to that fact that investors were massively bullish and long the dollar at the end of 2016, making the market vulnerable to disappointments. And disappointment did come with U.S. inflation weakening and accelerating in the euro area. Additionally, there were positive political surprises in Europe, especially the presidential victory of Emmanuel Macron in France. In the U.S., the government's failure to repeal Obamacare forced investors to lower expectations about fiscal stimulus. As a result, while investors were able to price in an earlier first hike by the ECB, they cut down the number of rate hikes they anticipated out of the Fed over the next 24 months. In terms of the current environment, positioning could not be more different because investors are aggressively shorting the dollar (Chart 38). The hurdle for the dollar to deliver positive surprises is thus much lower than a year ago. Also, we remain confident that tax cuts will be passed in the U.S. by early 2018. As we discussed earlier, U.S. GDP will remain above potential, causing inflation pressures to build. This will give the Fed the leeway to implement its planned rate hikes, and thus beat what is currently priced in the market. This development should support the dollar in 2018. Ms. X: A bullish view on the U.S. dollar necessarily implies a negative view on the euro. However, the European economy seems to have a lot of momentum, and inflation has picked up, while U.S. prices have been decelerating. To me, this suggests that the ECB also could surprise by being more hawkish than anticipated, arguing against any major weakness in the euro. BCA: The European economy has indeed done better than generally expected in the past year. Also, geopolitical risks were overstated by market participants at the beginning of 2017, leaving less reason to hide in the dollar. However, the good news in Europe is now well known and largely discounted in the market. Investors are very long the euro, by both buying EUR/USD and shorting the dollar index (Chart 39). In that sense, the euro today is where the dollar stood at the end of 2016. Chart 38Too Much Pessimism On The Dollar Chart 39Positioning Risk In EUR/USD Valuations show a similar picture. The euro might appear cheap on a long-term basis, but not so much so that its purchasing power parity estimate - which only works at extremes and over long-time periods - screams a buy. Moreover, the euro has moved out of line with historical interest rate parity relationships, warning that the currency is at risk if the economy disappoints. Overall, we expect EUR/USD to trade around 1.10 in 2018. Long-run, the picture is different because a U.S. recession in 2019 would trigger renewed broad-based weakness in the dollar. Mr. X: I have been perplexed by the yen's firmness in the past year, with the currency still above its end-2016 level versus the dollar. I expected a lot more weakness with the central bank capping bond yields at zero and more or less monetizing the government deficit. A year ago you also predicted a weak yen. Will it finally drop in 2018? BCA: We were not completely wrong on the yen as it has weakened over the past year on a trade-weighted basis and currently is about 2% below its end-2016 level. But it has risen slightly against the U.S. dollar. In the past couple of years, the yen/dollar rate has been highly correlated with real bond yield differentials (Chart 40). These did not move against the yen as much as we expected because U.S. yields drifted lower and there was no major change in relative inflation expectations. Chart 40Bond Yield Differentials Drive The Yen The real yield gap is likely to move in the dollar's favor over the next year, putting some downward pressure on the yen. Meanwhile, the Bank of Japan will continue to pursue a hyper-easy monetary stance, in contrast to the Fed's normalization policy. However, it is not all negative: the yen is cheap on a long-term basis, and Japan is an international net creditor to the tune of more than 60% of GDP. Investors are also quite short the yen as it remains a key funding currency for carry trades. Thus, it will continue to benefit each time global markets are gripped with bouts of volatility. It remains a good portfolio hedge. Ms. X: Are any other currency views worth noting? BCA: The outlook for sterling obviously will be tied to the Brexit negotiations. Having fallen sharply after the Brexit vote, sterling looks cheap relative to its history. This has allowed it to hold in a broad trading range over the past 18 months, even though the negotiations with the EU have not been going well. At this stage, it is hard to know what kind of deal, if any, will emerge regarding Brexit so we would hedge exposure to sterling. Our optimism toward the oil price is consistent with a firm Canadian dollar, but developments in the NAFTA negotiations represent a significant risk. At the moment, we are overweight the Canadian dollar, but that could change if the NAFTA talks end badly. We still can't get enthusiastic about emerging market currencies even though some now offer reasonable value after falling sharply over the past few years. Mr. X: We can't leave currencies without talking about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. I like the idea of a currency that cannot be printed at will by governments. There are too many examples of currency debasement under a fiat money system and the actions of central banks in recent years have only served to increase my mistrust of the current monetary system. But I can't profess to fully understand how these cryptocurrencies work and that makes me nervous about investing in them. What are your thoughts? BCA: You are right to be nervous. There have been numerous cases of hackers stealing Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies. Also, while there is a limit to the number of Bitcoins that can be issued, there is no constraint on the number of possible cryptocurrencies that can be created. Thus, currency debasement is still possible if developers continue creating currencies that are only cosmetically different from the ones already in existence. Moreover, we doubt that governments will sit idly by and allow these upstart digital currencies to become increasingly prevalent. The U.S. Treasury derives $70 billion a year in seigniorage revenue from its ability to issue currency which it can then redeem for goods and services. At some point, governments could simply criminalize the use of cryptocurrencies. This does not mean that Bitcoin prices cannot rise further, but the price trend is following the path of other manias making it a highly speculative play (Chart 41). If you want more detail about our thoughts on this complex topic then you can read the report we published last September.2 Chart 41Bitcoin Looks Like Other Bubbles Ms. X: I don't fear bubbles and manias as much as my father and have made a lot of money during such episodes in the past. But I am inclined to agree that Bitcoin is best avoided. The topic of manic events presents a nice segue into the geopolitical environment which seems as volatile as ever. Geopolitics Ms. X: Which geopolitical events do you think will have the biggest impact on the markets over the coming year? BCA: Domestic politics in the U.S. and China will be very much in focus in 2018. In the U.S., as we discussed, the Republicans will pass tax cuts but it is unclear whether this will help the GOP in the November midterm elections. At this point, all of our data and modeling suggests that Democrats have a good chance of picking up the House of Representatives, setting a stage for epic battles with President Trump about everything under the sun. In China, we are watching carefully for any sign that Beijing is willing to stomach economic pain in the pursuit of economic reforms. The two reforms that would matter the most are increased financial regulation and more aggressive purging of excess capacity in the industrial sector. The 19th Party Congress marked a serious reduction in political constraints impeding President Xi's domestic agenda. This means he could launch ambitious reforms, akin to what President Jiang Zemin did in the late 1990s. While this is a low-conviction view, and requires constant monitoring of the news and data flow out of China, it would be a considerable risk to global growth. Reforms would be good for China's long-term outlook, but could put a significant damper on short-term growth. The jury is out, but the next several months will be crucial. Three other issues that could become market-relevant are the ongoing North Korean nuclear crisis, trade protectionism, and tensions between the Trump administration and Iran. The first two are connected because a calming of tensions with North Korea would give the U.S. greater maneuvering room against China. The ongoing economic détente between the U.S. and China is merely a function of President Trump needing President Xi's cooperation on pressuring North Korea. But if President Trump no longer needs China's help with Kim Jong-Un, he may be encouraged to go after China on trade. As for Iran, it is not yet clear if the administration is serious about ratcheting up tensions or whether it is playing domestic politics. We suspect it is the latter implying that the market impact of any brinkmanship will be minor. But our conviction view is low. Mr. X: We seem to be getting mixed messages regarding populist pressures in Europe. The far right did not do as well as expected in the Netherlands or France, but did well in Austria. Also, Merkel is under some pressure in Germany. BCA: We don't see much in the way of mixed messages, at least when it comes to support for European integration. In Austria, the populists learned a valuable lesson from the defeats of their peers in the Netherlands and France: stay clear of the euro. Thus the Freedom Party committed itself to calling a referendum on Austria's EU membership if Turkey was invited to join the bloc. As the probability of that is literally zero, the right-wing in Austria signaled to the wider public that it was not anti-establishment on the issue of European integration. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany only gained 12.6%, but it too focused on an anti-immigration platform. The bottom line for investors is that the European anti-establishment right is falling over itself to de-emphasize its Euroskepticism and focus instead on anti-immigration policies. For investors, the former is far more relevant than the latter, meaning that the market relevance of European politics has declined. One potential risk in 2018 is the Italian election, likely to be held by the end of the first quarter. However, as with Austria, the anti-establishment parties have all moved away from overt Euroskepticism. At some point over the next five years, Italy will be a source of market risk, but in this electoral cycle and not with economic growth improving. Ms. X: The tensions between the U.S. and North Korea, fueled by two unpredictable leaders, have me very concerned. I worry that name-calling may slide into something more serious. How serious is the threat? BCA: The U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations are a good analog for the North Korean crisis. The U.S. had to establish a "credible threat" of war in order to move Iran towards negotiations. As such, the Obama administration ramped up the war rhetoric - using Israel as a proxy - in 2011-2012. The negotiations with Iran did not end until mid-2015, almost four years later. We likely have seen the peak in "credible threat" display this summer between the U.S. and North Korea. The next two-to-three months could revisit those highs as North Korea responds to President Trump's visit to the region, as well as to the deployment of the three U.S. aircraft carriers off the coast of the Korean Peninsula. However, we believe that we have entered the period of "negotiations." It is too early to tell how the North Korean crisis will end. We do not see a full out war between either of the main actors. We also do not see North Korea ever giving up its nuclear arsenal, although limiting its ballistic technology and toning down its "fire and brimstone' rhetoric is a must. The bottom line is that this issue will remain a source of concern and uncertainty for a while longer. Conclusions Mr. X: This seems a good place to end our discussion. We have covered a lot of ground and your views have reinforced my belief that it would make good sense to start lowering the risk in our portfolio. I know that such a policy could leave money on the table as there is a reasonable chance that equity prices may rise further. But that is a risk I am prepared to take. Ms. X: I foresee some interesting discussions with my father when we get back to our office. At the risk of sounding reckless, I remain inclined to stay overweight equities for a while longer. I am sympathetic to the view that the era of hyper-easy money is ending and at some point that may cause a problem for risk assets. However, timing is important because, in my experience, the final stages of a bull market can deliver strong gains. BCA: Good luck with those discussions! We have similar debates within BCA between those who want to maximize short-run returns and those who take a longer-term view. Historically, BCA has had a conservative bias toward investment strategy and the bulk of evidence suggests that this is one of these times when long-run investors should focus on preservation of capital rather than stretching for gains. Our thinking also is influenced by our view that long-run returns will be very poor from current market levels. Our estimates indicate that a balanced portfolio will deliver average returns of only 3.3% a year over the coming decade, or 1.3% after inflation (Table 3). That is down from the 4% and 1.9% nominal and real annual returns that we estimated a year ago, reflecting the current more adverse starting point for valuations. There is a negligible equity risk premium on offer, implying that stock prices have to fall at some point to establish higher prospective returns. Table 310-Year Asset Return Projections The return calculations for equities assume profit margins decline modestly over the period and that multiples mean revert to their historical average. These assumptions may turn out to be too pessimistic if there is no redistribution of income shares from the corporate sector back to labor and/or PERs stay at historically high levels. In that case, equities obviously would do better than our estimates. In terms of the outlook for the coming year, a lot will depend on the pace of economic growth. We are assuming that growth is strong enough to encourage central banks to keep moving away from hyper-easy policies, setting up for a collision with markets. If growth slows enough that recession fears spike, then that also would be bad for risk assets. Sustaining the bull market requires a goldilocks growth outcome of not too hot and not too cold. That is possible, but we would not make it our base case scenario. Ms. X: You have left us with much to think about and I am so glad to have finally attended one of these meetings. My father has always looked forward to these discussions every year and I am very happy to be joining him. Many thanks for taking the time to talk to us. Before we go, it would be helpful to have a recap of your key views. BCA: That will be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: The environment of easy money, low inflation and healthy profit growth that has been so bullish for risk assets will start to change during the coming year. Financial conditions, especially in the U.S., will gradually tighten as decent growth leads to building inflation pressures, encouraging central banks to withdraw stimulus. With U.S. equities at an overvalued extreme and investor sentiment overly optimistic, this will set the scene for an eventual collision between policy and the markets. The conditions underpinning the bull market will erode only slowly which means that risk asset prices should continue to rise for at least the next six months. However, long-run investors should start shifting to a neutral exposure. Given our economic and policy views, there is a good chance that we will move to an underweight position in risk assets during the second half of 2018. The U.S. economy is already operating above potential and thus does not need any boost from easier fiscal policy. Any major tax cuts risk overheating the economy, encouraging the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates and boosting the odds of a recession in 2019. This is at odds with the popular view that tax cuts will be good for the equity market. A U.S. move to scrap NAFTA would add to downside risks. For the second year in a row, the IMF forecasts of economic growth for the coming year are likely to prove too pessimistic. The end of fiscal austerity has allowed the euro area economy to gather steam and this should be sustained in 2018. However, the slow progress in negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU poses a threat to the U.K. economy. China's economy is saddled with excessive debt and excess capacity in a number of areas. Any other economy would have collapsed by now, but the government has enough control over banking and other sectors to prevent a crisis. Growth should hold above 6% in the next year or two, although much will depend on how aggressively President Xi pursues painful reforms. The market is too optimistic in assuming that the Fed will not raise interest rates by as much as indicated in their "dots" projections. There is a good chance that the U.S. yield curve will become flat or inverted by late 2018. Bonds are not an attractive investment at current yields. Only Greece and Portugal currently have 10-year government bond real yields above their historical average. Corporate bonds should outperform governments, but a tightening in financial conditions will put these at risk in the second half of 2018. The euro area and Japanese equity markets should outperform the U.S. over the next year reflecting their better valuations and more favorable financial conditions. Developed markets should outperform the emerging market index. Historically, the U.S. equity market has led recessions by between 3 and 12 months. If, as we fear, a U.S. recession starts in the second half of 2019, then the stock market would be at risk from the middle of 2018. The improving trend in capital spending should favor industrial stocks. Our other two overweight sectors are energy and financials. The oil price will be well supported by strong demand and output restraint by OPEC and Russia. The Brent price should average $65 a barrel over the coming year, with risks to the upside. We expect base metals prices to trade broadly sideways but will remain highly dependent on developments in China. Modest positions in gold are warranted. Relative economic and policy trends will favor a firm dollar in 2018. Unlike at the start of 2017, investors are significantly short the dollar which is bullish from a contrary perspective. Sterling is quite cheap but Brexit poses downside risks. The key market-relevant geopolitical events to monitor will be fiscal policy and mid-term elections in the U.S., and reform policies in China. With the former, the Democrats have a good chance of winning back control of the House of Representatives, creating a scenario of complete policy gridlock. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 3.3% a year in nominal terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 10% a year between 1982 and 2017. Let us take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors November 20, 2017 1 This comprises consumer spending on durables, housing and business investment in equipment and software. 2 Please see 'Bitcoin's Macro Impact', BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, September 15, 2017.

特別レポート

Dear Client, In addition to this Special Report, we are publishing our monthly Tactical Asset Allocation table and supporting indicators today. These can be accessed directly from our website. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Megatrend #1: Population Aging. Aging has been deflationary over the past few decades, but will become inflationary over the coming years. Megatrend #2: Global Migration. International migration has the potential to lift millions out of poverty while boosting global productivity. However, if left unmanaged, it poses serious risks to economic stability. Megatrend #3: Social Fragmentation. Rising inequality, cultural self-segregation, and political polarization are imperilling democracy and threatening free-market institutions. On balance, these trends are likely to be negative for both bonds and equities over the long haul. Feature In today's increasingly short-term oriented world, it is easy to lose track of megatrends that are slowly shifting the ground under investors' feet. In this report, we tackle three key social/demographic trends. Megatrend #1: Population Aging Fertility rates have fallen below replacement levels across much of the planet. This has resulted in aging populations and slower labor force growth (Chart 1). In the standard neoclassical growth model, a decline in labor force growth pushes down the real neutral rate of interest, r*. This happens because slower labor force growth causes the capital stock to increase relative to the number of workers, resulting in a lower rate of return on capital.1 The problem with this model is that it treats the saving rate as fixed.2 In reality, the saving rate is likely to adjust to changes in the age composition of the workforce. Initially, as the median age of the population rises, aggregate savings will increase as more people move into their peak saving years (ages 30 to 50). This will put even further downward pressure on the neutral rate of interest. Eventually, however, savings will fall as these very same people enter retirement. This, in turn, will lead to a higher neutral rate of interest. If central banks drag their feet in raising policy rates in response to an increase in r*, monetary policy will end up being too stimulative. As economies overheat, inflation will pick up, leading to higher long-term nominal bond yields. Contrary to popular belief, spending actually increases later in life once health care costs are included in the tally (Chart 2). And despite all the happy talk about how people will work much longer in the future, the unfortunate fact is that the percentage of American 65 year-olds who are unable to lead active lives because of health care problems has risen from 8.8% to 12.5% over the past 10 years (Chart 3). Cognitive skills among 65 year-olds have also declined over this period. Chart 1Our Aging World Chart 2Savings Over The Life Cycle Chart 3Climbing Those Stairs Is Getting More And More Difficult We are approaching the inflection point where demographic trends will morph from being deflationary to being inflationary. Globally, the ratio of workers-to-consumers - the so-called "support ratio" - has peaked after a forty-year ascent (Chart 4). As the support ratio declines, global savings will fall. To say that global saving rates will decline is the same as saying that there will be more spending for every dollar of income. Since global income must sum to global GDP, this implies that global spending will rise relative to production. That is likely to be inflationary. The projected evolution of support ratios varies across countries. The most dramatic change will happen in China. China's support ratio peaked a few years ago and will fall sharply during the coming decade. Nearly one billion Chinese workers entered the global labor force during the 1980s and 1990s as the country opened up to the rest of the world. According to the UN, China will lose over 400 million workers over the remainder of the century (Chart 5). If the addition of millions of Chinese workers to the global labor force was deflationary in the past, their withdrawal will be inflationary in the future. The fabled "Chinese savings glut" will eventually dry up. Chart 4The Ratio Of Workers To Consumers Has Peaked Chart 5China On Course To Lose More Than 400 Million Workers Rising female labor force participation rates have blunted the effect of population aging in Europe and Japan. This has allowed the share of the population that is employed to increase over the past few decades. However, as female participation stabilizes and more people enter retirement, both regions will also see a rapid decline in saving rates. This could lead to a deterioration in their current account balances, with potential negative implications for the yen and the euro. Population aging is generally bad news for equities. The slower expansion in the labor force will reduce the trend GDP growth. This will curb revenue growth, and by extension, earnings growth. To make matter worse, to the extent that lower savings rates lead to higher real interest rates, population aging could reduce the price-earnings multiple at which stocks trade. This could be further exacerbated by the need for households to run down their wealth as they age, which presumably would include the sale of equities. Megatrend #2: Global Migration Economist Michael Clemens once characterized the free movement of people across national boundaries as a "trillion-dollar bill" just waiting to be picked up from the sidewalk.3 Millions of workers toil away in poor countries where corruption is rife and opportunities for gainful employment are limited. Global productivity levels would rise if they could move to rich countries where they could better utilize their talents. Academic studies suggest that less restrictive immigration policies would do much more to raise global output than freer trade policies. In fact, several studies have concluded that the removal of all barriers to labor mobility would more than double global GDP (Table 1). The problem is that many migrants today are poorly skilled. While they can produce more in rich countries than they can back home, they still tend to be less productive than the average native-born worker. This can be especially detrimental to less-skilled workers in rich countries who have to face greater competition - and ultimately, lower wages - for their labor. Chart 6 shows that the share of U.S. income accruing to the top one percent of households has closely tracked the foreign-born share of the population. Table 1Economic Benefits Of Open Borders Chart 6Immigration Versus Income Distribution Low-skilled migration can also place significant strains on social safety nets. These concerns are especially pronounced in Europe. The employment rate among immigrants in a number of European countries is substantially lower than for the native-born population (Chart 7). For example, in Sweden, the employment rate for immigrant men is about 10 percentage points lower than for native-born men. For women, the gap is 17 points. The OECD reckons that a typical 21-year old immigrant to Europe will contribute €87,000 less to public coffers in the form of lower taxes and higher welfare benefits than a non-immigrant of the same age (Chart 8). Chart 7Low Levels Of Immigrant Labor Participation In Parts Of Europe Chart 8Immigration Is Straining Generous European Welfare States All of this would matter little if the children of today's immigrants converged towards the national average in terms of income and educational attainment, as has usually occurred with past immigration waves. However, the evidence that this is happening is mixed. While there is a huge amount of variation within specific immigrant communities, on average, some groups have fared better than others. The children of Asian immigrants to the U.S. have tended to excel in school, whereas college completion rates among third-generation-and-higher, self-identified Hispanics are still only half that of native-born non-Hispanic whites (Chart 9). Across the OECD, second generation immigrant children tend to lag behind non-immigrant students, often by substantial margins (Chart 10). Chart 9Hispanic Educational Attainment Lags Behind Chart 10Worries About Immigrant Assimilation Immigration policies that place emphasis on attracting skilled migrants would mitigate these concerns. While such policies have been adopted in a number of countries, they have often been opposed by right-leaning business groups that benefit from cheap and abundant labor and left-leaning political parties that want the votes that immigrants and their descendants provide. Humanitarian concerns also make it difficult to curtail migration, especially when it is coming from war-torn regions. Chart 11The Projected Expansion In Sub-Saharan Population Europe's migration crisis has ebbed in recent months but could flare up at any time. In 2004, the United Nations estimated that sub-Saharan Africa's population will increase to 2 billion by the end of the century, up from one billion at present. In its 2017 revision, the UN doubled its projection to 4 billion. Nigeria's population is expected to rise to nearly 800 million by 2100; Congo's will soar to 370 million; Ethiopia's will hit 250 million (Chart 11). And even that may be too conservative because the UN assumes that the average number of births per woman in sub-Saharan Africa will fall from 5.1 to 2.2 over this period. For investors, the possibility that migration flows could become disorderly raises significant risks. For one, low-skill migration could also cause fiscal balances to deteriorate, leading to higher interest rates. Moreover, as we discuss in greater detail below, it could propel more populist parties into power. This is a particularly significant worry for Europe, where populist parties have often pursued business-sceptic, anti-EU agendas. Megatrend #3: ­­­Social Fragmentation In his book "Bowling Alone," Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam documented the breakdown of social capital across America, famously exemplified by the decline in bowling leagues.4 There is no single explanation for why communal ties appear to be fraying. Those on the left cite rising income and wealth inequality. Those on the right blame the welfare state and government policies that prioritize multiculturalism over assimilation. Conservative commentators also argue that today's cultural elites are no longer interested in instilling the rest of society with middle-class values. As a result, behaviours that were once only associated with the underclass have gone mainstream.5 Technological trends are exacerbating social fragmentation. Instead of bringing people together, the internet has allowed like-minded people to self-segregate into echo chambers where members of the community simply reinforce what others already believe. It is thus no surprise that political polarization has grown by leaps and bounds (Chart 12). Chart 12U.S. Political Polarization: Growing Apart When people can no longer see eye to eye, established institutions lose legitimacy. Chart 13 shows that trust in the media has collapsed, especially among right-leaning voters. Perhaps most worrying, support for democracy itself has dwindled around the world (Chart 14). It would be naïve to think that the public's rejection of the political establishment will not be mirrored in a loss of support for the business establishment. The Democrats "Better Deal" moves the party to the left on many economic issues. Nearly three-quarters of Democratic voters believe that corporations make "too much profit," up from about 60% in the 1990s (Chart 15). Chart 13The Erosion Of Trust In Media Chart 14Who Needs Democracy When You Have Tinder? Chart 15People Versus Companies The share of Republican voters who think corporations are undertaxed has stayed stable in the low-40s, but this may not last much longer. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the rest of the corporate establishment tend to lean liberal on social issues and conservative on economic ones - the exact opposite of a typical Trump voter. If Trump voters abandon corporate America, this will leave the U.S. without any major party actively pushing a pro-business agenda. That can't be good for profit margins. The fact that social fragmentation is on the rise casts doubt on much of the boilerplate, feel-good commentary written about the "sharing economy." For starters, the term is absurd. Uber drivers are not sharing their vehicles. They are using them to make money. Both passengers and drivers can see one another's ratings before they meet. This reduces the need for trust. As trust falls, crime rises. The U.S. homicide rate surged by 20% between 2014 and 2016 according to a recent FBI report.6 In Chicago, the murder rate jumped by 86%. In Baltimore, it spiked by 52%. Chart 16 shows that violent crime in Baltimore has remained elevated ever since riots gripped the city in April 2015. The number of homicides in New York, whose residents tend to support more liberal policing standards for cities other than their own, has remained flat, but that is unlikely to stay the case if crime is rising elsewhere. The multi-century decline in European homicide rates also appears to have ended (Table 2). Chart 16Do You Still Want To Move Downtown? Table 2Crime Rates Are Creeping Higher In Europe Chart 17Homicides And Inflation Much has been written about how millennials are flocking to cities to enjoy the benefits of urban life. But this trend emerged during a period when urban crime rates were falling. If that era has ended, urban real estate prices could suffer tremendously. It is perhaps not surprising that the increase in crime rates starting in the 1960s was mirrored in rising inflation (Chart 17). If governments cannot even maintain law and order, how can they be trusted to do what it takes to preserve the value of fiat money? The implication is that greater social instability in the future is likely to lead to lower bond prices and a higher equity risk premium. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 2 Another problem with the neoclassical model is that it assumes perfectly flexible wages and prices. This ensures that the economy is always at full employment. Thus, if the saving rate rises, investment is assumed to increase to fully fill the void left by the decline in consumption. In the real world, the opposite tends to happen: When households reduce consumption, firms invest less, not more, in new capacity. One of the advantages of the traditional Keynesian framework is that it captures this reality. And interestingly, it also predicts that aging will be deflationary at first, but will eventually become inflationary. Initially, slower population growth reduces the need for firms to expand capacity, causing investment demand to fall. Aggregate savings also rise, as more people move into their peak saving years. Globally, savings must equal investment. If desired investment falls and desired savings rise, real rates will decrease. At the margin, lower real rates will encourage investment and discourage saving, thus ensuring that the global savings-investment identity is satisfied. As savings ultimately begins to decline as more people retire, the equilibrium real rate of interest will rise again. 3 Michael A. Clemens, "Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?" Journal of Economic Perspectives Vol. 25, no.3, pp. 83-106 (Summer 2011). 4 Robert D. Putnam, "Bowling Alone: The Collapse And Revival Of American Community," Simon and Schuster, 2001. 5 Charles Murray has been a leading proponent of this argument. Please see "Coming Apart: The State Of White America, 1960-2010," Three Rivers Press, 2013. 6 Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime In The United States 2016" (Accessed October 25, 2017). Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

特別レポート

Highlights On Black Monday, October 19, 1987, equity bourses around the world plunged amid cascading bouts of selling, recording some of their largest single-day losses of the twentieth century. The plunge, exacerbated by derivatives transactions, and transmitted swiftly around the world, marked the first contemporary global financial crisis. BCA clients were well prepared. The Bank Credit Analyst steadily warned of increasing stock market vulnerabilities across all of 1987 even as it correctly predicted that the S&P 500 would most likely soar before eventually cracking. The Federal Reserve's immediate all-out effort to contain the damage ushered in a new central bank template for responding to quaking markets and helped give rise to the Greenspan put. While we do not fear a repeat of Black Monday, the U.S. equity market's long-term prospects are dramatically less appealing than they were in 1987. Investors should be prepared for an extended stretch of public market returns that pale beside the ones earned over the last 30-plus years. Feature 30 years ago today, Black Monday erupted around the world, reaching its nadir in New York, where relentless waves of selling drove the major indexes down 20%. The contagion had spread in a rapid relay from Hong Kong to Europe and then to New York, before fetching up in Auckland and other Asia-Pacific exchanges as Black Tuesday. The event was the centerpiece of what turned out to be sharp, albeit relatively brief, bear markets around the world (Charts 1 and 2). Confounding nearly every observer, however, the crash did not amount to much in a broader economic context and financial markets quickly regained their footing, with global equities vaulting to new highs in the '90s1 amidst speculative excesses that made the '80s' mania look demure. Chart 1Great Runs... Chart 2...And Sudden Stops Like all serious investors, BCA researchers are students of history. Black Monday was the first modern global financial crisis, and its 30th anniversary affords us the chance to study its run-up and aftermath for insights into future dives. It also gives us the chance to return to BCA's extensive archives and see how our forebears assessed conditions in real time. Their ex-ante analysis and forecasts were stellar, and reinforce the robustness of our approach. Their lagging ex-post performance highlights the need for investors to maintain a flexible mindset that can accommodate all possibilities. From Fear To Greed Black Monday marked the definitive end of a historically potent bull market (Table 1) that began, as the best ones do, in revulsion. Business Week's August 1979 cover story trumpeting the death of equities has become notorious, but the S&P 500 didn't bottom for three more years, during which it lost a quarter of its inflation-adjusted value. All told from the end of September 1968 to the end of July 1982, the S&P tumbled 62.5% in real terms (Chart 3). Inflation took a heavy toll on real growth over the 55 quarters of U.S. stocks' lost decade and a half (Chart 4, top panel), but the economy had expanded nonetheless, and stocks emerged from the ashes of the Volcker double-dip recession with a lot of ground to make up. Table 1A Bull With Speed And Stamina Chart 3A Lost Decade And A Half ... Chart 4...Despite Steady, If Unspectacular, Real Growth The ensuing five-year bull market (Chart 5, top panel) unfolded in two phases: the first, which burst out of the gate on a sudden repricing before taking a full year to catch its breath, had the support of earnings growth (Chart 5, middle panel) and re-rating; the second, which went on without pause for two and a half years, was all about re-rating (Chart 5, bottom panel). It finally ended in late August 1987, when skeptical investors could no longer stomach big gains derived entirely from multiple expansion, and stocks began to retreat in earnest in October, sliding 5% and 9% in the two weeks before Black Monday. Proximate triggers included sickly trade data, a competitive devaluation threat and proposed tax legislation that stood to make corporate takeovers a good deal more costly. The first two factors pushed the dollar down and yields up, as investors fretted that the Fed would be forced to raise rates (Chart 6), and the last pulled the plug on runaway speculation in takeover targets. Chart 5A Two-Act Bull Market Chart 6Be Careful What You Wish For The Echo Chamber, ... There is career safety in numbers, but portfolio danger. As the late Barton Biggs put it, there's no investment so good that it can't be destroyed by too much capital. Portfolio insurance may not have even been a good idea, as it didn't amount to anything more than a portfolio-sized stop-loss order, souped up with computer software and derivatives contracts. But by the fall of 1987, its widespread adoption had turned it into a very bad one. Portfolio insurance was developed in the late '70s by two finance professors who sought a method that would allow investors to participate in equity market gains while limiting their downside exposure. When stocks began to decline in the direction of a set downside limit, the portfolio insurance program would reduce net equity exposure via the sale of index futures. Once the market recovered and the program determined the coast was clear, it would unwind the futures positions. Although the technique had its flaws on a micro scale - futures trading wasn't costless, and there was considerable potential for whipsawing - it was doomed at the aggregate level because the index futures market wasn't deep enough to accommodate all the selling pressure that would be unleashed by a significant correction. ... Or, From Wall Street To LaSalle Street And Back Again There was more to Black Monday than portfolio insurance - the event was global, and the technique was not a factor on other bourses - but it helped to create a self-reinforcing spiral between the cash market in New York and the futures market in Chicago. Heavy selling of stocks in New York triggered heavy selling of index futures in Chicago, as insured portfolios sold futures to mitigate their direct cash exposures. The selling redounded back to New York as the futures buyers on the other side of the trade sold the underlying stocks to balance out their long futures positions2 and opportunistic investors seized the chance to front-run the mechanical portfolio insurers.3 The new sales pushed share prices even lower in New York, triggering more index futures selling in Chicago, and cinching the vicious circle. The View From Peel Street BCA, safely removed from the madding crowd in Montreal, foresaw something quite like the crash. The September 1986 and 1987 editions of our annual New York conferences bore the respective titles, "The Escalation in Debt and Disinflation: Prelude to Financial Mania and Crash?" and "Phase II in the Escalation of Debt, Disinflation and Market Mania: Prelude to Financial Crash?" Throughout all of 1987, the monthly Bank Credit Analyst warned of the U.S. equity market's increasing vulnerability and recommended that investors reduce exposure in a disciplined fashion ahead of the inevitable bust. The investment policy recommendation, issued in accord with prudent money management principles, differed from BCA's market forecast, which was for robust, potentially parabolic, gains before the bull market ended. BCA was not trying to have it both ways: it has long been a central tenet of our work that one's investment strategy can - and regularly should - be distinct from one's market forecast. We do not attempt to squeeze every last drop out of a bull or a bear market. Empirical evidence makes it abundantly clear that no one can consistently call tops or bottoms. In the words of turn-of-the-century trading legend Jesse Livermore: "One of the most helpful things that anybody can learn is to give up trying to catch the last eighth - or the first. These two are the most expensive eighths in the world.4" The opening paragraph of the March 1987 Bank Credit Analyst, published six months before the market peak, summarizes our ongoing advice: [I]nvestors who are overexposed should reduce positions to a level comfortable to ride out what will likely become a much more volatile phase of the secular bull market in stocks. ... At some point, it is likely that the U.S. stock market will experience a 1962-type correction - a sharp decline which comes out of the blue as a result of extreme overvaluation and excessive speculation. As then, it is unlikely to be associated with a credit crunch, as almost all post-war bear markets have been. ... At present, there is nothing in the data, either fundamental or technical, which suggests that such a shakeout is imminent. However, the key for investors in this bull market is to have positions which are sufficiently comfortable so that they can ride out sudden, dramatic corrections and participate in the long upward rise, which we feel has much further to go. (pp. 3-4) Eighteen months before the August 25th peak, the March 1986 Bank Credit Analyst's Section III was titled, "The Coming Financial Mania," and its strategy prescriptions were much more aggressive, even as it acknowledged the risks: Increasing volatility should be expected both because of the still lingering risks prevailing and the dramatic price movements in recent months. Hence, conservative investors should not overtrade. To fully capitalize on the ongoing revaluation of financial assets, it is important not to lose positions as a result of the necessary sharp corrections which will be experienced along the way. The stock and bond market potential over the next 2-3 years remains extraordinary. (p.11) The great dilemma for investors is, of course, how aggressively to play the game during the latter stages. The fascination, excitement and danger is the knowledge that vast fortunes are easily made right up to the end, but there is no reliable method to get out just before the crash. [...] Frequently the bubble goes on much longer and prices go far higher than anyone can imagine [...]. Yet, the vulnerabilities grow proportionately to the power of the manic phase. (p.26) Investment strategy in [a manic] environment must be based on the historically observed phenomenon that price appreciation generally accelerates to a climax or blowoff and that the hidden risks grow exponentially with price rises. Therefore, investors must constantly guard against the natural tendency to become increasingly greedy and careless in valuation standards as prices rise. (p.41) As good as BCA's near- and intermediate-term calls were in the run-up to the '87 crash, our longer-term calls were even better. We repeatedly argued that disinflation would be a secular trend, and that it would power secular bull markets in bonds and equities. Three decades on, with the Barclays Aggregate Index, the Barclays High Yield Index and the S&P 500 having produced real annualized total returns of 5%, 9.3% and 7.6%, respectively, the call has been vindicated (Table 2). As BCA foresaw, the harsh monetary medicine administered by the Volcker Fed to slay the inflation dragon has paid hefty market dividends. Table 2A Great Three Decades For Financial Assets The Trouble With The Austrians For all that BCA achieved ahead of Black Monday, and as correct as our long-term calls from the '80s turned out to be, it must be acknowledged that we missed the boat on getting back into equities after the crash. Part of the miss is understandable: one wouldn't expect the strategist with the most prescient call ahead of a downturn to be the first one to identity the beginning of the subsequent rally. The best investors are the ones with the supplest minds, however, and the BCA archives reveal a bias that may have gotten in the way of embracing more bullish near-term outcomes. To wit, one cannot read the 1988 and 1989 Bank Credit Analysts, and indeed, our original leaders' output, without detecting strong sympathies for the Austrian School of Economics (Box 1). BOX 1 An Austrian's Lonely Lot The Austrian School of Economics most saliently parts company with neoclassical economics in its adamant opposition to government intervention and its fraught relationship with credit. Instead of intervening to counter business cycles, Austrians would prefer to let busts run their course so as to cleanse the economy of the excesses embedded in booms. They occupy the Mellonian, purge-the-rottenness-out-of-the-system end of the continuum in opposition to the Debt Supercycle's unconditional forgiveness. Austrians regard banking and credit with some measure of suspicion, as Austrian Business Cycle Theory holds that artificially low interest rates are the raw material of destabilizing booms. Encouraged by central bankers seeking to steer an economy out of recession with a bare minimum of discomfort, borrowers take on debt to invest in projects that may not be able to pay their own way were it not for intervention. Once rates rise after policy accommodation fades, the economy slows and the extent of the malinvestment is revealed. The Debt Supercycle prescribes more of the hair of the dog to alleviate the suffering from malinvestment. The debt overhang is thereby never eliminated; it instead continues to silt up, requiring larger and larger interventions. Unchecked, the degree of intervention required to keep the plates spinning will eventually exceed capacity. This analysis is logically sound, but it so thoroughly contradicts the reigning orthodoxy that an investor who becomes emotionally invested in it is at risk of serially tilting at windmills. There is nothing wrong with the Austrian School per se. We rather like its outsider status, and actively seek heterodox inputs and perspectives so as to stay out of the ruts of the well-worn consensus path. Even its pessimistic bent has its uses; investors are surely exposed to enough cheerleading. Its prescriptions are so bracing, however, that a little goes a long way and real-world users should handle them with care. A popular pair of You Tube videos of actors portraying Keynes and Hayek issuing dueling raps about their respective ideologies (Keynes: I want to steer markets/Hayek: I want them set free!) provide an entertaining example of the Austrian-inspired investor's dilemma. Keynes, drink after drink in hand, is the exuberant life of the party, while the sallow Hayek stares into the bottom of his glass, unable to capture any other partygoers' attention. The simple conceit animating the video - Keynesianism is fun; Austrians are dour scolds - resonates deeply with elected officials. Voters love free drinks, but hate being told to eat their vegetables. The Austrian School, therefore, is a poor guide to the path that policy is likely to take. It also has the problematic effect of introducing an element of moral judgment into what should be a purely objective sphere. Investors should have a laser-like focus on what is most likely to happen and should strive to suppress extraneous notions about what should happen. The Debt Supercycle is a brilliantly incisive way of viewing the interaction between constituents' desires and officials' incentives, and has predicted the long-run direction of policy to a T. Only someone with a focus on money flows, informed by exposure to Austrian Business Cycle Theory, could have come up with it. In the hands of BCA editors in the late '80s, however, it seemed to feed a desire to see the American economy get its comeuppance. Setting aside that desire for punishment - and value judgments altogether - is the clearest way that we could have done better in the aftermath of the crash 30 years ago, when BCA essentially sat out the December '87 - July '90 equity bull market. We should strive to be dispassionate and unbiased observers of the economy and markets. After all, the process illustrated by the Debt Supercycle concept has surely helped put the wind at equities' back throughout the postwar era (Chart 7). Making sense of it without decrying it could help us to provide even better counsel. Chart 7Equity Investing Is An Optimists' Game Then And Now Does 2017 look like 1987? Is another crash lurking just around the corner? Our answers are "no," and "no." We think the resemblances between then and now are merely superficial. The good news is that the probability of a Black Monday-style crash is remote, and we think that even a run-of-the-mill bear market is not likely until our most reliable recession leading indicators, which are still dormant, begin to flash red.5 While that view may come as a short-term relief, 1987's long-term market outlook was vastly superior. While both today's bull market and the '82-'87 bull market began with forward earnings multiples at multi-year lows, the trough multiple in 1982 was in the low sixes, nearly two standard deviations below the mean (Chart 8). Even though it more than doubled by the August '87 peak, it only just reached what is now the mean level for the entire series. This bull market has seen the S&P 500's forward multiple rise to a full standard deviation above the mean. Valuation is not everything, of course. It is a lousy short-term indicator and only issues a reliable intermediate-term signal at extremes. Long-term returns correlate closely with the cyclically-adjusted P/E ("CAPE"), however, and it is currently at levels only previously reached ahead of the 1929 and 2000 peaks (Chart 9). The frothy CAPE portends a tepid long-run U.S. equity outlook. Chart 8Not A Lot Of Room To Grow Chart 9Not The Stuff Of Secular Rallies Both of the bull markets emerged from the ashes of nasty recessions (Chart 10), but the periods' primary economic threats were polar opposites, as were the policy settings adopted to counteract them. The Volcker Fed tightened monetary conditions to the point of pain in the early '80s, plunging the economy into a double-dip recession for the express purpose of eradicating the scourge of double-digit inflation (Chart 11). After the financial crisis, on the other hand, the clear and present danger was the potential for the credit bust to trigger a deflationary spiral. The Bernanke Fed pursued unprecedentedly accommodative policy in response. Chart 10Similarly Nasty Recessions ... Chart 11... But Opposite Inflation Backdrops The policy measures of the early '80s were an example of swapping near-term pain for long-term gain, and they set the stage for secular rallies in financial assets that continue to this day. Once inflation was removed from the equation, interest rates had to fall, and they did so for 35 years. The extraordinary accommodation in the wake of the crisis was an attempt to stave off hysteresis, which boils down to mitigating near-term pain as an insurance policy against long-term pain.6 It may well have worked, but there is no such thing as a free lunch, and the Fed's exertions have likely pulled forward much of the bond and stock markets' future returns. Black Monday And The Fed Put Before the October 20th open, the Fed issued the following statement: The Federal Reserve, consistent with its responsibilities as the Nation's central bank, affirmed today its readiness to serve as a source of liquidity to support the economic and financial system. Although it was only 30 words long, the statement packed a punch. It signaled the Fed's willingness to fulfill its function as the lender of last resort and may also have prodded skittish banks into fulfilling their responsibilities as intermediaries. Behind the scenes, the Federal Reserve Banks of New York and Chicago were doing their utmost to keep the system functioning. New York Fed president Corrigan was twisting lenders' arms to keep credit flowing so the crash would not infect the banking system and the real economy.7 Meanwhile, the Chicago Fed wasn't letting the letter of the law keep it from "help[ing to] engineer a solution" when one of the biggest derivatives market participants "ran short of cash.8" The statement, and the vigorous offstage exertions, countered the Fed's determinedly low profile. These were the days, after all, when monetary policy actions were still regarded as something akin to state secrets. Wall Street firms employed "Fed watchers," who were charged with studying the tea leaves to determine if the Fed had adjusted policy. As late as January 1990, the Bank Credit Analyst could devote an entire Section III to the question, "Has the Federal Reserve Eased?" Some of Alan Greenspan's comments in his memoir may reflect after-the-fact boasting or burnishing, but Black Monday can be viewed as a policy watershed. After it, the Fed's conduct of monetary policy has become transparent to the point of oversharing. More meaningfully for investors, it marked the origin of the "Greenspan Put," the widespread notion among market participants that the Fed would do its best to ward off or mitigate financial market downdrafts. Are ETFs The New Portfolio Insurance? Responsibility for the crash cannot be precisely apportioned among factors, but all post-mortem analyses agree that portfolio insurance played a leading role. While it may well have proven harmless if pursued on a modest scale by a limited number of players, it morphed into a destabilizing force once a critical mass of investors embraced it. On Black Monday, it became a paradox of safety akin to the paradox of thrift: prudent and rational when practiced by one individual, but a metastasizing disaster when followed by a crowd. A reasonable roadmap for someone trying to spot parallels between then and now is to identify market products that may have become overly popular. Wall Street's tendency to wring every last drop out of financing innovations, coupled with investors' tendency to move in herds, can lead to excesses. The latest innovation to achieve wild popularity is the ETF. Is it possible that ETFs could exert the same destabilizing influence as portfolio insurance if investors' ardor for them suddenly cools? We think not. As our Global ETF Strategy service has argued, the claims about passive investing's dangers are overheated.9 The notion that index tracking is undermining price discovery disregards the power of incentives. Passive investing strikes us as the best cure for passive investing: if so many people are pursuing it that index-trackers begin to drown out active investors, the prospective returns to active investing will soar and money will rotate out of index-tracking strategies in sufficient quantity to correct the imbalance. Chatter about a passive bubble also fails to consider the source of fund flows into index-tracking ETFs. The oft-repeated statement, "so much money is flowing into ETFs that it's distorting prices across the board," does not hold up to scrutiny. Away from Japan and Switzerland, where QE purchases of ETFs are being funded with new yen and franc notes, ETFs are not being purchased with new investment capital that has materialized out of thin air. They are being purchased with existing investment capital that has merely been reallocated away from actively managed mutual funds (Chart 12). Chart 12Mirror Image Bubbles are always the result of speculative, excess-profit-seeking activity. Index-tracking ETFs are vehicles intended to deliver market returns. They are the opposite of a get-rich-quick scheme; they're the instrument investors turn to when they give up on quick riches. We do not worry that ETFs are the object of a bubble, or that they are in any way analogous to portfolio insurance in the fall of 1987. Investment Implications Black Monday was a one-off event that remained contained within the financial markets despite widespread fears that it would spread to constrict the broader financial system and the real economy. A lot has changed in 30 years, but the collision of algorithms, derivatives and global pressures squarely places it in our time. It is entirely possible that its elements could come together to create another massive single-day drop. A key difference between future single- or intra-day swoons, and the ones that have already occurred since the crisis, is that they will arrive while the Fed is tightening policy at the margin. The future swoons, then, may not be as likely to disappear quickly without leaving much of a mark. It may go too far to say that market infrastructure is vulnerable, but it would be too optimistic to assume that it has kept pace with the advances in rapid-fire trading and the increasing prevalence of algorithms. It may make sense for investors with less tolerance for risk to maintain an extra cash buffer to protect against swoons and to ensure that they have dry powder to exploit them when they materialize. We remain constructive on the global economy, however, and our house view recommends overweighting risk assets while maintaining below-benchmark duration within bond portfolios. We sympathize with investors who lament that nothing in the public markets is cheap, but synchronized global acceleration remains intact. None of our models are warning of imminent danger. We therefore remain fully invested but vigilant, seeking out signs that the long bull market may be running out of steam. After reviewing our shortcomings in the aftermath of Black Monday, however, we will seek with an open mind and will not attenuate our efforts by awaiting the rapture of a final reckoning, when the sheep and the goats will be separated according to their virtue. The whole point of policy makers' efforts to engineer a rising tide is to keep the goats, and the broader economy, from harm. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President Global ETF Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Except in New Zealand, where Black Tuesday popped a bubble of such notable excess that the MSCI New Zealand Index today trades at less than two-thirds of its September 1987 high, and Japan, where the mania lasted until December 1989 and the MSCI Japan Index is still nearly 40% below its all-time high. 2 Index arbitrageurs would have followed the same pattern, but they were sidelined by delayed price quotes and the failure of the NYSE's automated order execution system, which kept them from accurately identifying and exploiting true arbitrage opportunities. 3 Portfolio insurance was no secret - it was estimated that $90 billion of assets were following the strategy - and its potential to amplify selling pressures in a vicious circle had been the subject of a widely followed Wall Street Journal column published a week before the crash. 4 Lefevre, Edwin. Reminiscences of a Stock Operator, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken (NJ), pp. 57-8. Until 1997, the prices of NYSE-listed stocks were quoted in eighth-of-a-dollar increments. 5 For details on the interaction between recessions and equity bear markets, please see the August 16, 2017 Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "A Guide to Spotting and Weathering Bear Markets," available at etf.bcaresearch.com. 6 Hysteresis is the process by which a negative cyclical phenomenon, if left unchecked, can evolve into a secular phenomenon. 7 Greenspan, Alan. The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, Penguin (New York): 2007, p.108. Greenspan disavowed knowledge of the details, but suggested that Corrigan, "the Fed's chief enforcer," "bit off a few earlobes" while encouraging bankers to keep in mind that, "'if you shut off credit to a customer just because you're a little nervous about him, but with no concrete reason, he's going to remember that'." 8 Greenspan, p. 110.

Highlights Either China's growth will slump soon, capping budding inflationary pressures, or policymakers will have to hike interest rates meaningfully to tackle inflation. If the PBoC drags its feet and does not hike interest rates amid rising inflation, the RMB will come under major selling pressure. EM/China corporate profits have expanded predominantly due to price increases. However, rapid price increases warrant higher interest rates. The latter is a formidable risk to share prices. The U.S. dollar has made a major bottom. Stay short select EM currencies. The EM equity rally momentum remains strong but the risk-reward is quite unfavorable. We expect the external backdrop - metals prices and portfolio flows to EM - to deteriorate inhibiting the current easing cycle in Peru. Stay underweight this bourse within the EM universe (page 13). Feature A key question for investors at the current juncture is whether the global economic backdrop is moving toward inflation or deflation - or whether it will remain in its present "goldilocks" state. One can cite numerous examples that support each of the three scenarios. Proponents of deflation cite low consumer price inflation in the U.S., euro area and Japan, as well as very weak money growth in China and the U.S. as being leading indicators of budding deflationary pressures. Advocates of goldilocks - improving growth with low inflation - point to robust global trade and low consumer price inflation, as well as benign financial market dynamics in the form of higher share prices and low bond yields. Last but not least, inflationists can cite very tight labor markets among advanced economies as well as rising core and services consumer price inflation rates in China (Chart I-1). Chart I-1China: Inflation Is Grinding Higher At BCA's annual conference in New York held last week, the broad consensus was that there is a lack of considerable inflationary pressures worldwide amid improving global growth. This is consistent with the goldilocks outcome currently priced by the financial markets - i.e., a combination of robust growth and low inflation. Given the current pricing in financial markets, one economic variable that could disturb benign global financial dynamics is inflation. This report examines inflationary dynamics in China and briefly touches on the U.S. and euro area inflation outlooks. Our take is as follows: Unless China's money and credit growth slow further and generate another deflationary slump in China and world trade, the odds are that the balance both globally and within China will tilt toward inflation in the next 12 months. To be clear, our main theme remains that a material slowdown in China's growth will dampen China/EM growth, derail the EM corporate profit recovery and cap inflationary pressures in China, at least. Therefore, to some extent, this report is counter-factual - it examines what may happen if a meaningful growth deceleration in China does not transpire. Our analysis also addresses the question of what may happen if policymakers in China allow money/credit to accelerate again, without permitting the economy to slow too much. The short response: Inflation is already slowly but surely rising in China and it will soon become a constraint, limiting Chinese policymakers' options. China/Asia Recovery: Prices Or Volumes? China's industrial revival, as well as Asia's export recovery over the past 12-18 months, has largely been due to price increases amid modest volume growth. In particular: China's manufacturing production volume growth has not improved at all, but manufacturing producer prices have surged, producing substantial recovery in nominal output growth (Chart I-2). This is strictly within manufacturing, and does not include mining and ferrous metal production, where output cuts have led to surging prices for raw materials. In brief, one can observe higher inflation beyond the steel and coal industries. Furthermore, producer price inflation has improved for consumer goods (Chart I-3, top panel), and for the first time in 17 years ex-factory producer price deflation has ended in durable consumer goods as well as in electronics goods and communication equipment (Chart I-3, middle and bottom panels). Chart I-2China's Industrial Recovery: Surging ##br##Prices Amid Subdued Volume Growth Chart I-3China: Producer Price ##br##Inflation Is Broad-Based Notably, China's core (ex-food and energy) consumer price inflation has moved above 2%, and consumer services price inflation has risen to 3% (Chart I-1 on page 1). Importantly, these consumer inflation measures have risen, even though food prices are deflating in China and energy prices are stable. This entails that consumer price inflation pressures are genuine and reasonably broad-based. In Asian trade, the dichotomy between prices and volumes is especially apparent in the case of Korea's exports. The U.S. dollar value of Korean exports has mushroomed, but there has been only modest revival in export volumes (Chart I-4). Remarkably, both the 2014-'15 slump and the 2016-'17 recovery in Korean exports were largely due to prices, not volumes. The latter have been expanding modestly in recent years, while prices crashed in 2013-'15 and surged in 2016-'17. Finally, Korean and Taiwanese export prices as well as U.S. import prices from Asia have risen in the past 12-18 months, following years of deflation (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Korean Export Recovery: Prices Versus Volumes Chart I-5Asian Export Prices: A Reversal? Beyond higher prices for steel and other commodities, Korea's export prices are climbing because of skyrocketing DRAM semiconductor prices (Chart I-6). Price changes are much more important to corporate profits than volume changes. For example, a 5% rise in prices boosts corporate profits by much more than a 5% gain in output volume. By the same token, profits decline more when prices drop by 2% than when volumes fall by 2%. We discussed this phenomenon and illustrated an example in our January 28, 2016 report.1 Rising prices across various commodities and manufactured goods have allowed Chinese and Asian companies to deliver strong profits in the past 12 months. China's industrial profits have ballooned, even though output volume growth has been modest. On the whole, the enormous money/credit injection in China in the past two years has hindered lingering price deflation and led to rising prices for various goods and services. Chart I-7 illustrates that the recovery in corporate pricing power and, hence, mushrooming industrial corporate earnings can be attributed to the mainland's credit/money impulses. Chart I-6DRAM Semi Price Has ##br##Surged 4-Fold In Last 12 Months Chart I-7China: A Peak In Producer ##br##Prices And Industrial Profits? If pricing power deteriorates, as the money/credit impulse is signaling, corporate earnings will be at risk. In such a scenario, inflation will not be a problem, as deflationary pressures will resurface. However, corporate profits will shrink. Bottom Line: EM/China corporate profits have expanded predominantly due to price increases. Investors have celebrated it by flocking into EM/Chinese stocks. However, rapid price increases warrant higher interest rates. The latter is a formidable risk to share prices. Barring a material growth deceleration in China, which is our baseline view, odds are that inflation will rise further. Why Now? Inflation is rising in China because of rampant money/credit creation complemented with a weak productivity growth rate. In addition, policymakers have engineered a reversal in raw materials price deflation since early 2016. It is impossible to know if the Chinese economy has reached a point where growth rates of 6-6.5% and above will lead to inflation. It is hard to estimate potential GDP growth rates and output gaps for advanced countries, but it is practically impossible to do so in the case of China. Its economy has undergone multiple dramatic structural transformations in the past 30 years, changes that continue today. That said, it is possible to argue that China may have reached a point where further rampant money and credit creation leads to higher inflation. The key thesis is that productivity growth has slowed because of the following: Channeling credit to SOEs - which often misallocate capital - and to property markets does not boost productivity. Infrastructure projects will take years to produce productivity gains, even if they are well thought out. Chart I-8 illustrates that in recent years an increasing share of investment has been on structures and installations rather than equipment and new technologies. Investment in structures does not boost productivity as much as equipment purchases. Meanwhile, private capital spending has been in the doldrums over the past four years, as has been the case for manufacturing investment (Chart I-9). This argues for less efficiency/productivity and, thereby, diminished potential growth. Chart I-8Unfavorable Mix For Productivity Growth Chart I-9Private And Manufacturing Capex Remain Weak Historically, it was private investment and manufacturing capacity expansion that fostered productivity gains in China. Private projects are often more efficient than public investment, and it is much easier to achieve higher productivity in manufacturing than in the service sector. This is not to argue that there are no innovation and rapid technological changes in China. A lot of innovation and technological advancement is happening but it might not be sufficient to boost productivity growth above 6% (Chart I-10). China's extremely fast productivity gains in the past 20 years have largely been due to rapid expansion of manufacturing and construction. Manufacturing cannot rise fast because it is hard for China to gain more market share in global trade without causing political backslashes. In turn, construction has been driven by excessive credit expansion and property market speculation and policymakers want to reduce this. It is imperative to understand that in any country productivity is much lower in the service sector than in manufacturing and construction. A shift away from manufacturing and construction toward services will surely lead to much lower productivity and, hence, potential economic growth. If policymakers allow/encourage rapid money/credit expansion to achieve growth rates above 6-6.5% or so, the outcome will be inflation. Implications For Chinese Policymakers If economic growth does not slow, odds are that inflation will continue to rise in China due to a lower potential GDP growth rate. As such, policymakers will have to tackle inflation by raising interest rates. The deposit rate in China is at 1.5%, and is presently negative when deflated by core consumer price inflation (Chart I-11). This is occurring for the first time in ten years. Chart I-10Potential Growth = Labor Force + ##br##Productivity Growth Chart I-11China: Deposit Rate In ##br##Real Terms Is Negative If inflationary pressures continue building up and policymakers do not hike interest rates, households will become even more dissatisfied by negative deposit rates and opt for converting their RMB deposits into foreign currency, or buying real estate. Both scenarios will eventually lead to financial instability, which policymakers are trying to avoid. Chart I-12 demonstrates that the current level of foreign exchange reserves of US$ 3.3 trillion is equal to only 34% of household deposits and 15% of total (corporate and household) deposits, and 10% of our broad M3 money measure. In brief, the failure to proactively hike deposit rates will likely lead to capital flight. Policymakers realize that the Chinese banking system has created so much money that even the sheer size of foreign currency reserves is insufficient to defend the currency if and when households and companies choose to convert their liquid savings into foreign currency. This argues for higher interest rates in China, unless growth downshifts very soon and caps inflation. Bottom Line: Either China's growth will slump soon, capping budding inflationary pressures, or policymakers will have to hike interest rates meaningfully to avoid another run on the exchange rate. What About DM And Non-Asian EM? In the majority of non-Asian EM economies, inflation is either muted or under control. The exceptions are Turkey and central European economies. We have discussed the inflation outbreak in central Europe in detail in past reports (also see Chart I-13 below), and will be revisiting Turkey next week.2 Chart I-12Too Much Money Has Been Created Chart I-13Inflation Outbreak In Central Europe The basis is that there has been little recovery in Latin American economies as well as Russia and South Africa for inflationary pressures to transpire. While some may be prone to structural inflation, cyclical business conditions are still too weak to warrant rising pricing power. In the Euro Area, investors should closely monitor German wage dynamics. Manufacturing wages and core consumer price inflation in central Europe are ramping up (Chart I-13). If and when labor shortages and rising wages in central Europe discourage German manufacturing companies from relocating/outsourcing production to the former, it will put more pressure on the already very tight German labor market and will lead to higher wages. As a result, genuine inflation in the largest European economy will heighten. In the U.S., the tight labor market and vibrant growth argue for higher inflation ahead. The Trump administration's proposed tax cuts amid robust growth will boost demand and rekindle inflation. Bottom Line: Inflation expectations are very depressed worldwide, and it will not take much in the way of upward inflation surprises to re-price interest rate expectations and, consequently, financial assets. Financial Markets Ramifications The Foreign Exchange Market: The U.S. dollar has probably made a major bottom and will stage a multi-month rally (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Will The Greenback Find ##br##Support At Current Levels? The Federal Reserve will be the first central bank to hike interest rates if global inflation or inflation expectations rise. In turn, the European Central Bank and the People's Bank of China will likely move slower in tightening policy. Such a proactive policy stance of the Fed, especially relative to its peers, will benefit the greenback. Furthermore, the potential appointment of Kevin Warsh as Fed Chairman could lead to higher interest rate expectations in the U.S., and will be currency bullish. In short, the potential mix of tight monetary policies and easy fiscal policies is bullish for the dollar. In the interim, U.S. bond yields are likely to move higher. This is true in the near term, even if Chinese growth disappoints. It will take time until China's growth deceleration caps the upside in U.S./global bond yields. Consistent with our U.S. dollar view, we believe commodities prices have reached a major peak. In sum, the path of least resistance for the U.S. dollar is up. Stay long the U.S. dollar versus a basket of EM currencies: ZAR, TRY, MYR, IDR, BRL and CLP. Local Currency Bonds: As and when EM currencies depreciate versus the greenback and U.S. bond yields grind higher, EM high-yielding local currency bonds could sell off. Chart I-15 reveals that the spread between the EM-GBI local currency benchmark yield and five-year U.S. Treasurys has fallen to a 10-year low. The risk-reward is not attractive for U.S. dollar- and euro-based investors. EM credit versus U.S. investment grade bonds. On August 16, 2017, we advised shifting our underweight EM sovereign bonds recommendation away from U.S. high yield to U.S. investment grade corporate credit. This strategy remains intact. This is consistent with EM currencies depreciating versus the U.S. dollar, U.S. bond yields moving higher and commodities prices softening. Continue underweighting EM stocks versus DM: A stronger U.S. dollar and rising U.S. bond yields will reverse EM equities' relative outperformance versus DM. In fact, manufacturing PMIs certify that EM manufacturing growth remains subdued relative to DM (Chart I-16). Chart I-15EM Local Currency Bonds: Little Yield Advantage Chart I-16EM Equities Versus DM: A Sign Of Reversal? If this coincides with inflation or growth concerns in China, it will create a perfect storm for all EM risk assets. As to EM stocks' absolute performance, we are approaching a major top, even though the exact timing of a major relapse is uncertain. Flows into EM equities remain robust, but they will reverse if one or more of the following transpires: rising U.S. interest rate expectations, a stronger U.S. dollar, high and rising inflation in China and policy tightening, or the opposite - an imminent growth slump in China and a relapse in commodities prices. All in all, the EM equity rally momentum remains strong but the risk-reward is quite unfavorable. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Peru: External Backdrop Holds The Key The external environment has been and will remain key to the performance of Peruvian financial markets. The Peruvian bourse has rallied massively, outperforming the EM equity benchmark over the past year, even as domestic demand in Peru has been weakening. Despite stronger global growth and higher commodities prices, GDP growth along with consumer and capital growth have not recovered at all (Chart II-1). Meanwhile, bank loan growth remains very weak (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Peru: Weak Domestic Demand... Chart II-2...Corroborated By Weak Credit Growth If metals prices stay firm and strong capital flows in EM persist, Peru's currency will remain under appreciation pressure. This will provide the central bank with more room to ease policy by cutting interest rates and adding liquidity to the banking system as it accumulates foreign exchange reserves (Chart II-3). Continued policy easing by the central bank will in turn revive bank loan growth, and the economy will recover. Chart II-3FX Reserve Accumulation = Liquidity Easing Our baseline scenario, however, is that industrial metals prices in general and copper prices in particular will relapse materially in the next 12 months. Furthermore, odds are that U.S. bond yields will drift higher and the U.S. dollar will strengthen (as discussed on pages 11-12). Under such a scenario: The Peruvian sol would come under depreciation pressure if and when metals prices relapse (Chart II-4). With precious and industrial metals representing 60% of total exports, a drop in metals prices will lead to considerable deterioration in Peru's trade balance and FDI inflows will slump. The central bank is committed to maintaining a stable exchange rate due to high foreigner ownership of government local currency bonds and a still-partially dollarized economy. Hence, if the currency comes under attack, the central bank will defend the sol by selling its international reserves, which will deplete local currency liquidity (Chart II-3). Consequently, local rates will rise and banks will curtail bank loan growth, which in turn will preclude any recovery in domestic demand. Overall, the external environment and its impact on the exchange rate holds the key for a domestic-led recovery. A relapse in industrial metals and copper prices and ensuing depreciation pressure on the currency will undo the recent loosening in monetary policy and stall a potential domestic demand recovery. In terms of financial markets strategy, we recommend the following: Despite domestic demand weakness, the Peruvian equity market has been on a tear, led by banking and mining stocks. Given our negative view on industrial metals and copper prices, we recommend staying underweight Peruvian equities relative to the EM benchmark (Chart II-5). Chart II-4Terms Of Trade Dictate The Currency Chart II-5Has Peru's Relative Equity Performance Peaked? With respect to our absolute call on bank stocks and our relative trade versus Colombian banks, we recommend closing both trades with large losses. Finally, we recommend being long Peru credit relative to Brazilian sovereign credit. Public debt burden is much lower in Peru (24% of GDP) than in Brazil (74% of GDP). Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "Corporate Profits: Recession Is Bad, Deflation Is Worse," dated January 28, 2016, link available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Central Europe: Beware Of An Inflation Outbreak," dated June 21, 2017, and Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, dated September 6, 2017; pages 15-18; links are available on page 18. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The sharp rally in Chinese developer stocks this year reflects a combination of the unwinding of "doomsday" bets and notable improvement in fundamentals rather than a bubble formation. The positive re-rating has further to run. Tighter policy imposed by local governments will probably keep developers in dormancy, but a major downturn is highly unlikely simply because there is not much excess to begin with. Urbanization still provides a powerful tailwind for residential construction from a long-term perspective. Chinese housing market will continue to experience cyclical swings, but the powerful structural tailwind will make the cyclical downturn shallow and fleeting. Feature Chart 1A Sharp Re-Rating Of Developer Stocks Chinese real estate developer stocks have more than doubled so far this year, making them the best performing sector in the investable universe - easily outpacing even the world-beating Chinese technology sector (Chart 1). The recent moves in developer stock prices have become parabolic, which combined with recent measures by some major cities to further tighten housing transactions raises the odds of profit-taking and a technical correction in the near term. However, the sharp rally since the beginning of the year has largely been a mean-reverting positive re-rating process rather than an overshoot. Moreover, the latest housing tightening measures are unlikely to have a long-lasting impact on housing demand. Therefore developer stocks should continue to advance after a period of consolidation. Beyond the cyclical horizon, residential development will remain a long-term growth driver for Chinese business activity. Positive Re-Rating Has Further To Run Chart 2Improvement In Developers' Fundamentals It is tempting to dismiss this year's sharp rally in developer stocks as a speculative frenzy, as the dramatic boom in stock price has been accompanied by cooling property sales and moderating home prices amid regulatory tightening in various cities. In our view, the sharp rally in property stocks has been a powerful positive re-rating in multiples after being deeply depressed for several consecutive years. The bottom panel of Chart 1 shows strong multiples expansion of developer stocks since the beginning of 2017. The message here is that China's cyclical improvement in the past two years has led to an aggressive repricing of Chinese equities, particularly in some of the hardest hit sectors. Investors' overwhelming bearishness towards China's macro situation in previous years took a heavy toll on Chinese investable stocks. The market had essentially priced in a chaotic hard-landing scenario, which is now being reversed due to growth improvement. In recent years we have consistently argued that the risk premium embedded in Chinese equities was exceptionally high and ultimately unsustainable, and one of our major investment themes has been a "positive re-rating in Chinese equities" - a view that has been quickly validated. Moreover, developers' stock prices have also reflected some notable improvements in earnings and balance sheet fundamentals, which can also be observed among their domestically listed peers (Chart 2): Deleveraging: The median liabilities-to-assets ratio of developers has dropped notably from the peak of 2015. Destocking: Developers have been focusing on selling inventories, and have been cautious on new projects. The median inventory-to-assets ratio has dropped from a peak of 63% in late 2015 to below 50% currently. Stronger cash positions: Aggressive de-stocking and conservative expansion have also significantly improved developers' cash flows. Cash position as a share of total assets has improved significantly, returning to the all-time highs reached in 2010. Total profits have also recovered strongly with strengthening margins.1 In short, the rally in developer stocks reflects a combination of the unwinding of "doomsday" bets and notable improvement in fundamentals rather than a bubble formation. There is little froth in the marketplace just yet. In fact, property stocks still remain quite cheap based on some conventional valuation indicators - even after this year's sharp rally. Property stocks are trading at 13 times trailing earnings and nine times forward earnings, and are still trading at hefty discounts to bottom-up net-asset-value (NAV) estimates. This means the bull market should have more legs in the coming months. Will Policy Constraints Lead To Another Major Downturn? Recent policy tightening on the residential market clearly creates some headwinds for the sector, and policy risk has been a key factor driving developer stock prices in previous tightening cycles. Historically, the government's tightening campaigns have typically restricted land supplies and bank credit to developers, and have been combined with tighter lending standards and higher interest rates for mortgage borrowers - and even outright bans on household investment demand for residential properties in major cities. In the current tightening cycle that began early last year, regulations on developers have remained largely unchanged, while the rein on households has been much tighter. Mortgage interest rates have also begun to inch higher (Chart 3). In the latest round of tightening measures announced late last week, eight major cities tightened controls on home sales, with a ban on reselling of homes within two to five years of purchase. The government's tightening measures have already led to a moderation in both home sales and prices, as shown in Chart 3, and the impact needs to be closely monitored. For now, our view is that policy constraints will not lead to major negative surprises both for developer stock prices and overall construction activity. On the demand side, household residential demand has been exceptionally strong of late. The central bank's most recent survey showed that a record high percentage of households intend to buy a home in the near future, a dramatic turnaround since the beginning of 2016 (Chart 4). The reason for the surge in home-buying intentions is not clear - we suspect it is the combination of pent-up demand accumulated in previous years and the herd-following mentality that typically follows a period of rapid increase in home prices. On the supply side, developers' inventory de-stocking and stronger cash positions have improved their ability to deal with sales slowdowns. In fact, home sales have significantly outpaced housing completions since 2015, leading to a sharp decline in inventories. Even including floor space under construction, the sellable inventories-to-sales ratio has dropped to its lowest level since 2010 (Chart 5). In our view, the sharp decline in inventories has been a key reason for the rampant increase in home prices since early last year. Chart 3Housing Market Has Been Moderating Chart 4Booming Demand For Home Purchases Taken together, with no inventory overhang and strong demand, we expect the impact of the current episode of housing tightening to be limited. In fact, real estate investment has been pretty subdued in recent years, despite surging home sales and improvement in business confidence among developers (Chart 6). Previous housing tightening measures were often implemented after a prolonged period of construction boom, leading to a sudden halt in investment and construction activity. This time around, tighter policy will probably keep developers in dormancy, but a major downturn is highly unlikely simply because there is not much excess to begin with. Chart 5Housing Destocking Becomes Advanced Chart 6Real Estate Investment Will Unlikely Slump Anew It's The Supply Side, Stupid! It appears that Chinese policymakers as well as global investors have perpetual fears of a "housing bubble" in China. The authorities are deeply worried about potential housing excesses and the negative impact on macro stability. Investors share similar concerns, and chronically worry about the global repercussions of a Chinese housing bust. Some have taken aggressive bets against Chinese developers and other asset classes that are leveraged on Chinese construction activity. While there are some idiosyncrasies in the motives of every tightening cycle in recent years, there is one common theme: the authorities' repeated attempts to cool off the housing sector are deeply rooted in the belief that both residential supplies and home prices were excessive, and therefore tighter controls on both supply and demand were warranted. Remarkably, concerns about housing excesses began to emerge almost immediately after the residential sector was privatized and a housing "market" began to develop in the early 2000s. In a special report dated April 29th 2004 titled, "What Housing Bubble?",2 I disputed for the first time the then-prevailing view on Chinese housing excesses. Fast forwarded 13 years and China's urban landscape has changed profoundly - yet the arguments for a "housing bubble" have remained essentially unchanged: speculative demand, excess supply, parabolic price increases and extreme unaffordability. To some China watchers, the housing sector's remarkable resilience despite repeated policy attacks from the early 2000s was simply an accumulation of a bigger accident waiting to eventually happen. In our analysis in recent years, we have repeatedly emphasized that the supply side shortages have been a key reason for the massive increase in Chinese home prices. While the government's various tightening measures to restrict speculators and cool off demand are well warranted, harsh supply side restrictions during various tightening campaigns have proven counterproductive, as they have amplified supply shortages, creating even more upward pressure on prices. Indeed, the supply-side restrictions are fairly easy to observe. China's leadership is fundamentally concerned about self-sufficiency of agricultural products, and therefore is reluctant to sacrifice farmland for urban development. Moreover, land supplies zoned for residential construction have accounted for an increasingly smaller share of total land supply, due to competition from infrastructure, industrial and commercial projects (Chart 7). Similarly, land purchased by developers plateaued in the early 2000s, and has dropped substantially in recent years. As a highly levered business by nature, developers have also been constantly challenged by limited access to bank loans due to regulatory restrictions. Loans to developers account for about 7% of banks' total loan book, largely unchanged in the past decade despite the massive construction boom. Tight credit controls have forced developers to other "shadow" financing options, which are both costlier and less reliable than formal bank loans, further limiting their ability to bring new housing projects to market. The prevailing heightened concerns on residential excesses and tougher regulations have pushed real estate companies to increasingly shift to commercial and industrial property development. Residential accounted for almost 80% of total real estate development in the early 2000s; the share has dropped to below 70% in recent years (Chart 8). Finally, the government's ill-informed judgement on the degree of excessive supply and speculative demand in the residential sector also prevented them from formulating a multi-tier residential market. Rental residential properties owned by professional institutional investors are rare, and "renters" often suffer discrimination for some public services, making homeownership essentially the only way for new families to establish themselves in urban areas. Chart 7Residential Land Supply Has Been Shrinking Chart 8Residential Construction's Dwindling Importance From a big-picture point of view, China is still in the midst of a spectacular urbanization process. Residential development is not only part of the growth process, but also an essential component to accommodating the massive increase in the urban population. Mainstream media often hype about "ghost towns" but ignore the fact that millions of young migrant workers still reside in dorm rooms provided by employers in sub-standard living conditions. Adjusting for the increase in the urban population, China's new residential construction in recent years has been a lot smaller than in other countries such as Japan and Korea at the prime stage of their respective urbanization process, according to our calculations (Chart 9) - likely the critical reason why Chinese home prices have remained stubbornly high, despite numerous rounds of government crackdowns. Chart 9China's Construction Boom In Perspective Since last year it appears the Chinese authorities have been paying more attention to increasing residential housing supply by providing more funding for social housing projects and shanty town reconstruction, as well as increasing land supply for residential projects. Meanwhile, there are recent proposals to develop rental markets in some major cities, allowing developers to build solely for rental, rather than for sales. In our view, policies boosting residential supplies will be a lot more effective in improving housing affordability for urban citizens. All in all, after the massive boom in recent years, home prices in certain major cities certainly feel a lot more "bubbly" than any time before, and it is easy to make a bearish structural case, as many have been doing over the past decade. However, urbanization still provides a powerful tailwind for residential construction from a long-term perspective. The Chinese housing market will continue to experience cyclical swings, but powerful structural tailwinds will make the cyclical downturn shallow and fleeting, as repeatedly demonstrated in previous policy tightening cycles. Looking forward, construction will remain an important growth driver for China for decades to come. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: Earnings Scorecard And Market Tea Leaves", dated September 7, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "What Housing Bubble?" dated April 29, 2004, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

特別レポート

The Federal Reserve faces unprecedented turnover in its Board of Governors over the coming year. The recent resignation of Stanley Fischer occurred when three of the Board's positions were already vacant and there is the additional issue that Janet Yellen's term as Chair ends in January. It remains far from clear that she will be offered another term or would even choose to stay if given the chance.1 Even Governor Lael Brainard's position could change - her willingness to stay on at the Fed may depend on who is the next Chair and on the other Board appointments. The point is that President Trump has the opportunity to choose the people who will run the nation's monetary policy for years to come. The first Board appointment will be Randal Quarles, nominated to be vice-chair for supervision, a position created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act to oversee the banking industry. His nomination was recently cleared by the Senate Banking Committee and he should soon be accepted by the full Senate. Quarles has indicated that his position on financial regulations is much softer than that of Yellen. Not surprisingly, there are widespread concerns about the looming changes to the Fed's Board. There are fears that new appointments may lack appropriate expertise and/or that they will have an intellectual bias that could result in overly tight or overly easy policies. Most Fed Chairmen have been highly-regarded economists with extensive experience in policymaking. One notable exception was G. William Miller, who served as Fed Chair from March 1978 until August 1979. Mr. Miller, appointed by President Jimmy Carter, came from a business background - he was CEO of the conglomerate Textron Inc. His short tenure at the Fed was regarded as a failure because he did not take tough action to deal with a growing inflation problem. That challenge was left to his successor, Paul Volcker. Many names have been touted as possible successors to Janet Yellen, including former Fed Governors Kevin Warsh and Larry Lindsey, Professors John Taylor and Glen Hubbard, and former bank CEOs Richard Davis and John Allison. Media reports suggest that the previous front-runner, Gary Cohn, is out of consideration following his criticism of President Trump's response to the Charlottesville clash between right-wing extremists and their objectors. How much will it matter to the economy and markets which person is chosen? The Fed's Scorecard Monetary policy is important because its sets the short-term price of a very important commodity - money! If the price is set too low, then financial excesses are virtually inevitable and if the price is set too high then economic activity is choked off. Yet knowing exactly where to set that price is no simple matter. The appropriate level of short-term interest rates is not observable and is a function of many variables, including the amount of slack in the economy, inflationary pressures, the level of financial conditions, and international factors. The Fed uses different economic models to help its decision making, but these have proved to be of dubious value. As we highlighted in an earlier report this year, the Fed has failed to forecast every recession during the past 60 years (Table 1).2 Yes, the Fed has been successful in achieving low and relatively stable inflation, but only after major policy errors during the 1960s and 1970s allowed inflation to spiral out of control. Table 1Fed Economic Forecasts Versus Outcomes The Fed's Open Market Committee (FOMC) is not run as a dictatorship, yet the person at the helm does have real power. Weak leadership was partly responsible for the inflationary policy errors of the 1960s and 1970s and the strong hand of Paul Volcker was important in launching the attack on inflation in the 1980s. The aura of invincibility surrounding Alan Greenspan during the second half of his tenure as Fed Chair cowed opposition from other FOMC members and contributed to the major error of weak regulatory oversight during a massive buildup of financial imbalances in the 2000s. Central bankers have long believed that price stability is a key prerequisite for maximizing an economy's potential. If we judge the effectiveness of post-WWII Fed leaders solely by the performance of inflation during their tenure, then Chart 1 shows we must give failing grades to those in charge during the 1950s, 60s and 70s - William McChesney Martin (1951-1970), Arthur Burns (1970-78) and G. William Miller (1978-79). Subsequent Chairs get passing grades - Paul Volcker (1979-87), Alan Greenspan (1987-06), Ben Bernanke (2006-2014) and Janet Yellen (2014-). However, it is not quite as simple as that. The Fed has a dual mandate - the Federal Reserve Act requires that policy achieves maximum employment as well as stable prices. And the Fed also plays an important regulatory role in maintaining financial stability. Chart 1The Fed's Record With Its Dual Mandate If we also take account of trends in the labor market and financial stability, the performance of Fed Chairs alters a bit. The second panel of Chart 1 shows the difference between the unemployment rate and its full employment level (based on estimates by the Congressional Budget Office). The Chairs who presided over rising inflation also managed to keep unemployment low for most of the time. And the cost of Volcker's attack on inflation was a deep recession and spike in unemployment. On average, Greenspan's record on growth and thus unemployment was good, but as we noted, he allowed an unprecedented buildup of financial excesses. This helped to create the conditions for the deepest economic and financial downturn since the 1930s but it was his successor, Ben Bernanke, who had to deal with that problem. Another way to assess the Fed's record is to compare the actual funds rate to the level implied by the Taylor Rule. Professor John Taylor's rule calculates the appropriate funds rate based on the deviation of inflation from 2% and the gap between real GDP and its full employment level. The starting point is the assumption that the real equilibrium rate is 2%. If, for example, inflation was above target and the economy was operating above potential, then the rule would require a real funds rate above 2%. There is a widely-accepted view that the real equilibrium rate declined after the 2007-09 downturn so, in our calculations, we use a level of 0.5% after 2007.3 Chart 2 shows that rising inflation of the 1950s, 60s and 70s coincided with the funds rate being kept below the level implied by the Taylor Rule estimate. Not surprisingly, Volcker had to push the funds rate far above normal to start the disinflation process. Subsequently, both Greenspan and Bernanke kept the funds rate relatively close to the Taylor-implied level. Yellen has kept the rate below our estimate and Taylor has been a critic of the Fed's easy money policies. However, some studies suggest that the real equilibrium rate may be even lower than the 0.5% we have assumed. Chart 2The Fed Funds Rate: Actual Versus The Taylor Rule Which Fed Chair was best for investors? Chart 3 shows real return indexes for bonds and equities. Not surprisingly, bond returns performed poorly during the periods of rising inflation and Volcker's reign coincided with the start of a long-term bull market. The equity market rose strongly under Martin, helped by a healthy economy, but in terms of annualized returns during the various Chairs, Volcker takes first place. The real returns for both markets are summarized in Table 2. Although the market did well under Greenspan, the severe bear market of 2000-02 occurred under his watch and, as previously noted, his regulatory lapses set the scene for the 2007-09 market debacle. Yellen had the second-best returns among the Fed Chairs listed for both bonds and stocks, highlighting the power of zero interest rates and quantitative easing! Chart 3The Fed And Market Returns Table 2Fed Chairs And Market Returns So What? The errors made by policymakers to some extent reflect the biases created during their formative years. For example, for those in charge during the 1950s and 60s, fears of renewed depression probably outweighed those of inflation. And the experience of runaway inflation in the 1970s cemented a powerful anti-inflation bias in those central bankers who gained experience during that time. Volcker was in the Fed before inflation took root, but one could argue that whoever had taken over from William Miller would have been forced to take tough action. Inflation was such a severe problem that no Fed Chair could have allowed it to continue. While Volcker deserves a lot of praise, it should be noted that inflation declined in virtually all industrial countries during the 1980s and beyond, even in cases where central banks had not yet achieved independence. The U.S. was in the vanguard of fighting inflation, but the trend in inflation rates was broadly the same in the U.S. and in the median of 18 other industrial countries (Chart 4). Chart 4The Fed Was Not Unique In Driving Down Inflation At the swearing-in ceremony for Fed Chair Arthur Burns, President Richard Nixon reportedly said "I respect his independence. However, I hope that independently he will conclude that my views are the ones that should be followed". Burns did indeed take an overly soft line on inflation. It is widely assumed that President Trump would prefer someone who will maintain a low interest rate policy in order to support economic growth. It would be a particular concern if the U.S. Administration were to fill the Fed Board with people who had little or no economic and/or policy experience. With the looming departure of Stanley Fischer, there already is a worrying dearth of policy expertise and institutional memory on the Board. President Trump has shown a predilection to favor successful businesspeople for senior cabinet posts and the William Miller's record is not encouraging in that regard. However, it is doubtful that the Senate would approve a full slate of new Board members that is completely devoid of appropriate experience. Moreover, some of the people being touted as possible successors to Yellen, most notably John Taylor, Kevin Warsh and Glenn Hubbard are respected economists who would not be political puppets in pursued of irresponsible policies. If Quarles joins the Fed Board he will push for an easing in bank regulations and will likely get the support from the Chair if a former bank CEO replaces Yellen. However, there would be severe pushback from the staff and other Governors. With memories of the 2007-09 downturn still relatively fresh, Congress also may be wary of a major rollback of regulations. Some Dodd-Frank regulations may be eased - especially for community banks - but we do not anticipate a return to a systemically-dangerous lax regime. What about the Fed's vulnerability to attempted interference from the Administration? Even if President Trump managed to install a new Chair that he deemed loyal and who shared his policy visions, this person would face challenges. The Fed staff is powerful and would make strong arguments against policies they believed to be inappropriate. Importantly, the policymaking process is a lot more transparent now than in the days when Fed Chairs Burns and Miller bowed to political influence. The publication of Fed economic forecasts and detailed meeting minutes would quickly highlight internal policy disagreements and financial market pressures would come into play. And while the Administration gets to nominate people to the Fed's Board, it is not able to remove them. A bigger concern is the possibility that Congress could pass legislation to audit the Fed, including its policy decisions. Earlier this year, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform approved the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2017, a bill sponsored by Rand Paul, a frequent Fed critic. The bill "directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to complete, within 12 months, an audit of the Federal Reserve Board and Federal Reserve banks. In addition, the bill allows the GAO to audit the Federal Reserve Board and Federal Reserve banks with respect to: (1) international financial transactions; (2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters; (3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; and (4) discussions or communications among Federal Reserve officers, board members, and employees regarding any of these matters." Attempts to pass similar legislation in the past have failed, but President Trump is apparently in favor, as are many in Congress. The Fed Chair already faces twice-yearly interrogations by the House and Senate Banking Committees and that has not impacted policy decisions. Nevertheless, any politicization of Fed decisions would be a problem. At the moment, detailed transcripts of Fed meetings are released with a five-year time lag. Publication of internal Fed deliberations within a year of the bill's passage could compromise the willingness of FOMC participants to take unpopular decisions. The Policy Outlook The reality is that Fed policy will largely be constrained by economic environment, regardless of who is the Chair. A lackluster economic expansion and softer-than-expected wage growth and inflation have supported the maintenance of accommodative policies. But, in the absence of a new downturn, the Fed will stick to its plan of winding down its balance sheet and slowly raising interest rates. If anything, market expectations of a fed funds rate of only 1.5% by the end of 2018 seem too low. Dollar weakness and a strong stock market have meant an easing in overall financial conditions and the fiscal environment is set to become more stimulative. Whoever is leading the Fed next year will be under pressure to communicate a more hawkish stance to the markets. The long-run outlook for monetary policy is a more open question. There will be another recession - possibly as soon as 2019 - and that could be quite a deflationary affair. The next generation of central bankers will have spent more of their formative policy years in an environment when inflation was not a major economic problem and they will have come to terms with the extreme monetary actions needed during the 2007-09 collapse. And with massive quantitative easing failing to deliver the high inflation that many feared, any barriers to even more desperate measures may be limited. Thus, the next downturn may sow the seeds of a return to much higher inflation. Given that demographic trends and a political failure to reign in entitlements will lead to rapidly growing public sector debt, higher inflation would be welcomed by the political establishment. The bottom line is that looming changes in the composition of the Fed's Board of Governors is important, but we doubt that the overall integrity of the Fed will be seriously compromised by bad appointments. However, at this stage, it is futile to guess who the Administration will choose. Regardless of who controls the Fed, there always will be the potential for errors because their economic models (along with everybody else's) are imprecise, data can be unreliable, and the policy tools are crude. Some uptick in inflation is likely and would even be desirable, but it will not be allowed to get out of control. The bigger uncertainty is what will happen after the next economic downturn because even the most hawkish policymakers may be forced to embrace inflationary policies that will make the past cycle's actions pale by comparison. Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com 1 Yellen's renomination chances may have been undermined by her recent Jackson Hole speech defending the current financial regulatory regime because that puts her at odds with the Administration's desire to unwind some of the Dodd-Frank rules. 2 This table was originally shown in our Special Report "Beware the 2019 Trump Recession", March 7, 2017. 3 There are several variants of the Taylor Rule, depending on smoothing co-efficients and the choice of the real equilibrium rate. We base our estimates on the formula used by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, with the one change of lowering the real equilibrium rate to 0.5% after 2007. The FRB Atlanta data can be accessed at https://www.frbatlanta.org/cqer/research/taylor-rule.aspx