Corporate Profits

Highlights Chinese monetary conditions have tightened on the margin, but have remained fairly stimulative compared with previous years, likely the key reason why overall growth has remained reasonably robust. Listed Chinese firms reported strong and broad based H1 earnings growth. The profit recovery is of fundamental importance to the Chinese economy, and the positive feedback between profits and business activity has further to run. Collectively the markets are likely flashing further upside in China’s growth cycle. At a minimum, there is no sign of an imminent downturn. The macro backdrop of economic and market fundamentals are conducive for higher equity prices in general, and Chinese equities in particular. Feature Recent manufacturing PMIs from a number of major countries confirm that the global economy is on a synchronized upturn. As an increasingly important driving force of the world economy, how China's growth outlook pans out matters materially. On this front, the most recent news has been encouraging. Chinese manufacturing PMIs, both official and private, accelerated in August and remained above the expansion/contraction threshold. Meanwhile, earnings of Chinese-listed companies in the first half of the year increased strongly from a year earlier across all major sectors, with both stronger sales and higher margins, confirming that the Chinese profit cycle upturn is firmly in place. This should further support business activity, especially among private enterprises. In addition, some market signals from global assets that are traditionally sensitive to Chinese growth trends have been fairly strong of late, likely signaling further upside in the Chinese business cycle. All of this is conducive for higher prices for Chinese equities, and paints a bullish backdrop for global risk assets. A Closer Look At The PMI The stronger-than-expected August Chinese PMI numbers set a firmer tone for the economic data to be released in the coming weeks. They also herald that economic growth in the third quarter will likely remain comfortably above the government's target, setting an ideal political environment for the country's top leadership going into the 19th Communist Party Congress in October. The policy setting will likely be maintained at status quo, and downside risks remain low. It is important to note that the recent rise in PMI has occurred in tandem with a continued decline in Chinese broad money growth, suggesting the improvement in Chinese industrial activity has little to do with money and credit stimuli (Chart 1). Some analysts have been preoccupied with inventing some obscure measures of "credit impulse" to guestimate China's near-term growth outlook, which in our view is misguided.1 Instead, China's growth improvement since last year has to a larger extent been due to marked easing in monetary conditions - a combination of lower real rates and a cheaper trade-weighted RMB. In this vein, Chinese monetary conditions have begun to tighten on margin, but have remained fairly stimulative compared with previous years. This is likely the key reason why overall growth has remained reasonably robust, despite falling monetary aggregates. It is particularly noteworthy that the trends of new orders and finished products inventory have diverged of late. New orders have stayed at close to multi-year highs, while inventory PMI has remained well below 50 since 2012, and has relapsed anew in recent months, leading to a significant rise in the new orders-to-inventory ratio (Chart 2). In other words, manufacturers remain decisively in a destocking mood, despite the improvement in new orders. Looking forward, this should supercharge production should new orders remain strong, and create a buffer for manufacturing activity should orders roll over. Chart 1Chinese PMI: Monetary Conditions ##br##Matter More Than Money Supply Chart 2Manufacturers Remain Decisively ##br##In Destocking Mood Another important development is that there appears to be some regained pricing power among service providers, which historically has been a leading indicator for manufacturers' producer prices (PPI), as shown in Chart 3. It appears that PPI may continue to downshift toward year end and regain some strength early next year. PPI has been a key signpost for China's reflation trend, and matters materially for manufacturers' profit margins and the real cost of funding. Any sign of PPI improvement will likely be viewed as a positive development from a market perspective. The market relevance of the PMI survey is that it often leads net earnings revisions of listed Chinese companies by bottom-up analysts (Chart 4). If history is any guide, net earnings revisions will likely improve further, notwithstanding earnings of listed companies have already recovered strongly in the first half of the year. Chart 3Early Signs Of PPI Bottoming? Chart 4PMI Leads Net Earnings Revisions Earnings Reality Check Chart 5A Sharp Profit Upturn By now, all listed firms in Chinese domestic stock exchanges have released financial statements for the first half of the year. Our calculations show that total earnings increased by 18% year-over-year for all listed firms, or 36% if banks and petroleum firms are excluded - both sharply higher compared with a year earlier. This is largely in line with the profit upturn reported by the national statistics agency2 (Chart 5, top panel). A few observations can be made: First, the sharp increase in earnings is due to a combination of rising sales and improving margins, underscoring a marked ease in deflationary pressures and a significant pickup in business activity in nominal terms. (Chart 5, bottom two panels). It is noteworthy that revenue growth stagnated for several consecutive years before the strong recovery since mid-last year. Similarly, profit margins dropped to close to record low levels between 2012 and mid-2016, and have since largely recovered. Profit margins, however, do not yet look overly excessive from a historical perspective. Second, the improvement in earnings is broad-based, as shown in Table 1. Materials producers and energy concerns have experienced a massive profit boom, particularly steelmakers. With the only notable exception being utilities, largely thermal power plants, whose profit margins have been squeezed by rising coal costs, most other sectors have also booked healthy profit gains. This means the profit upturn has been driven by improvement in the broader economy rather than specific government policies that benefit select industries. Finally, the banking sector has also experienced a pickup in earnings growth, especially among large state-controlled banks. More importantly, asset quality of bank loans has also improved, albeit marginally. Our calculation shows that non-performing loans (NPL) and "special-mention-loans," which banks place closer scrutiny on as borrowers face higher risks of default, have both begun to decline (Chart 6). This should not be surprising, given the corporate sector's rising profits. Leaders in the current profit recovery are mining companies, materials producers and some industrial firms, all of which have been regarded as major trouble spots in banks' loan books.3 It may be premature to declare the peak of China's NPL problem, but the profit improvement has certainly helped banks mend their balance sheets. Table 1Earnings Scorecard Chart 6Marginal Improvement##br## In Banks' Asset Quality In short, we maintain the view that profit recovery is of fundamental importance to the Chinese economy, a key pillar in our positive stance on China's cyclical outlook.4 Rising profits restore entrepreneurial confidence, boost private-sector capital spending, ease balance sheet stress of asset-heavy enterprises and de-escalate banking sector risk. It is certainly unrealistic to expect profit growth to perpetually accelerate, but there are no signs of a sudden contraction in profits anytime soon. We expect the positive feedback loop between profits and business activity has further to run. Reading Market Tea Leaves Stronger Chinese growth is also reflected in asset prices well beyond its borders. Some asset classes that are traditionally highly sensitive to Chinese growth cycles have been showing remarkable strength of late. Metals prices have been firm across the board. The London Metal Exchange Index has historically been a reliable leading indicator of China's business cycle (Chart 7). Stock prices of metals producers in major producing countries have significantly outperformed their respective benchmarks, likely pointing to an imminent upturn in China's leading economic indicator (Chart 8) The Baltic Dry Index, the benchmark for bulk shipping rates that is largely driven by Chinese materials demand, has stayed elevated, probably a sign that China's bulk commodities intake has remained fairly robust (Chart 9) Turning to the Chinese equity market, real estate developers have been among the star performers in the Chinese equity universe so far this year - historically, the relative performance of Chinese developers has been an excellent leading indicator for home sales, which in turn drives real estate investment (Chart 10). Chart 7Metals Point To Further Upside##br## In Chinese Business Cycle... Chart 8...So Do Metal Producers Chart 9Baltic And Chinese Commodity Imports Chart 10Developers' Relative Performance ##br##Leads Home Sales Collectively the markets are likely flashing further upside in China's growth cycle. At a minimum, there is no sign of an imminent downturn. Currently, global equity markets, including those in the Greater China region, are clouded by the escalating geopolitical risk over the Korean Peninsula, where the near term outlook remains volatile and unpredictable.5 Barring an extreme scenario, the macro backdrop of economic and market fundamentals are conducive for higher equity prices in general, and Chinese equities in particular. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "A Chinese Slowdown: How Much Downside?" dated June 8, 2017, and Special Report, "Focusing On Chinese Money Supply", dated July 27, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Closer Look At Chinese Equity Valuations", dated August 31, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Stress-Testing Chinese Banks", dated July 27, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Weekly Report, "China: The 2017 Outlook, And The Trump Wildcard", dated January 12, 2017, and "China Outlook: A Mid-Year Revisit", dated July 13, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China's Geopolitical Pressure Points: Knowns, Unknowns And A Hedge", dated August 17, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Chart 1"Trump Trade" Progress Report One of our seven investment themes for 2017, published in a Special Report last December, is that the combination of strong U.S. growth and accommodative Fed policy creates a cyclical sweet spot in which risk assets will outperform. After last week's GDP revisions we now know that real growth averaged 2.1% in the first half of the year, solidly above the Fed's 1.8% estimate of trend. Meanwhile, weak inflation has caused markets to discount an exceptionally shallow path for Fed rate hikes - only 19 bps of rate hikes are priced for the next 12 months. This divergence between growth and inflation is reflected in Treasury yields. The real 10-year yield is 24 bps above its pre-election level, while the compensation for inflation protection is only 5 bps higher (Chart 1). Not surprisingly, the cyclical sweet spot has led corporate bonds to outperform duration-matched Treasuries by 296 bps since the election. The persistence of the cyclical sweet spot leads us to believe that last month's politically-driven spread widening should be seen as an opportunity to increase exposure to corporate bonds. Remain at below-benchmark duration and overweight spread product in U.S. fixed income portfolios. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 62 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to 146 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 8 bps on the month to reach 110 bps. In last week's report,1 we demonstrated that to properly assess corporate bond valuations it is not sufficient to simply look at the average index spread. We need to adjust for the fact that both the average credit rating and duration of the index change over time. We also need to consider corporate spreads relative to other similar stages of the economic cycle, not relative to long-run averages. In this respect, considering the breakeven spread2 for each credit tier relative to where it traded in the early stages of prior Fed tightening cycles gives us the best sense of the value proposition in corporate bonds. At present, this analysis shows that while Aaa corporate spreads are expensive, the other investment grade credit tiers all appear fairly valued (Chart 2). Corporate profit data for the second quarter was released last week and showed a big jump in our measure of EBITD (panel 4). This makes it extremely likely that net corporate leverage declined in Q2. All else equal, this lengthens the window for corporate bond outperformance Table 3.3 Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 67 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to 378 bps. The index option adjusted spread widened 26 bps to end the month at 378 bps, 55 bps above the mid-2014 cycle low. Back in March4 we tested a strategy of buying the High-Yield index relative to Treasuries whenever spreads widened by more than 20 bps in a single month, and then holding the trade for a period of one, two or three months. We found that this "buy the dips" strategy works very well when inflationary pressures are low, but performs poorly when inflation is high and rising. When inflation is low the Fed needs to support the recovery by adopting a more dovish posture whenever financial conditions tighten. With the St. Louis Fed Price Pressures Measure5 at only 6% (Chart 3), we expect a "buy the dips" strategy will continue to work for some time. In terms of valuation, our estimated default-adjusted spread stands at 245 bps. Historically, this level is consistent with excess returns of just under 3% versus duration-matched Treasuries over the subsequent 12 months. Our estimated default-adjusted spread is based on an expected default rate of 2.6%, and an expected recovery rate of 49%. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -9 bps. The conventional 30-year MBS yield fell 13 bps in August, driven by an 18 bps decline in the rate component. This was partially offset by a 4 bps increase in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) and a 1 bp widening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS). The Fed is likely to announce the run-off of its balance sheet when it meets later this month. For its part, the market has been pricing-in this eventuality for most of the year, leading to a significant widening in MBS OAS. More recently, the option cost component of MBS spreads has joined in, widening alongside falling mortgage rates and expectations of rising prepayments (Chart 4). In this sense, the Fed's commitment to proceed with balance sheet normalization no matter the outlook for the future pace of rate hikes is doubly negative for MBS spreads. OAS are biased wider as Fed buying exits the market, while low rates encourage faster prepayments and a higher option cost component of spreads. Going forward, the option cost component of spreads will decline as mortgage rates cease their downtrend, but OAS still appear too tight relative to trends in net issuance. Despite robust issuance so far this year and the Fed backing away as a buyer, the conventional 30-year MBS OAS remains well below its pre-crisis mean (panel 2). While MBS are starting to look more attractive, especially relative to Aaa credit (panel 3), we think it is still too soon to buy. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 154 bps. The Foreign Agency and Local Authority sectors drove the index outperformance in August. Both beat the duration-matched Treasury benchmark by 12 bps. Sovereigns outperformed the benchmark by 3 bps, Supranationals outperformed by 1 bp, and Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 2 bps. We took a detailed look at the Sovereign index in a recent report,6 both at the aggregate and individual country levels. At the aggregate level, the two main factors we consider when deciding whether to add USD-denominated sovereigns to our portfolio at the expense of domestic U.S. credit are relative valuation and the outlook for the U.S. dollar (Chart 5). At present, relative valuation is skewed heavily in favor of domestic U.S. credit (panel 2). Added to that, given downbeat Fed rate hike expectations, we view further dollar weakness as unlikely on a 6-12 month horizon. Taken together, we continue to favor U.S. credit over USD-denominated Sovereign debt. At the country level, we identified several countries where USD-backed debt appears attractive. We found that Finland, Mexico and Colombia all offer attractive spreads. However, the spread pick-up available in Mexican and Colombian debt is compensation for heightened exchange rate volatility. Finnish debt appears the most attractive on a risk/reward basis. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 40 basis points in August (before adjusting for the tax advantage). Munis have outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 144 bps, year-to-date. The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio held flat in August, and it remains extremely tight relative to its post-crisis trading range (Chart 6). The M/T yield ratio remains very low despite the fact that state & local government net borrowing continues to rise. Net borrowing increased to $209 billion in Q2, the highest level since the second quarter of last year. Further, the Trump administration appears to be finally tackling the issue of tax reform. While comprehensive tax reform is probably too ambitious, some form of corporate and personal tax cuts seems likely, probably in the first half of next year. Lower tax rates are obviously a negative for municipal bonds, but some of the negative impact could be offset if current tax deductions (such as the deduction of state & local income tax) are removed. All else equal, fewer available tax deductions elsewhere makes the tax exemption of municipal bonds look more attractive. Of course, the municipal bond tax exemption itself could also be threatened, but at least so far this appears less likely. The bottom line is that current M/T yield ratios are far too low given the looming risks of rising state & local government borrowing and looming federal tax cuts. Remain underweight. Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull flattened in August. The 2/10 slope flattened 17 bps and the 5/30 slope flattened 2 bps. The market moved to discount an even shallower path for Fed rate hikes in August. At the end of July the market had expected 27 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months, and that number has now fallen to 19 bps (Chart 7). Consequently, our recommendation to short the July 2018 fed funds futures contract has suffered. The position is now 17 bps in the red, but we continue to believe that the market's expected rate hike path is too benign. From current levels, a position short the July 2018 fed funds futures contract will return 35 bps if there are two hikes between now and next July and 61 bps if there are 3 hikes. We also continue to recommend a position long the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell on the view that the Treasury curve will steepen as inflation and TIPS breakevens move higher. This position has earned 28 bps since initiation last December, but valuation is starting to look less attractive. Our butterfly spread model7 suggests that the 5-year bullet is now slightly expensive compared to the 2/10 barbell (panel 3). Or put differently, that the 2/10 Treasury slope will have to steepen by more than 20 bps during the next 6 months for our trade to earn a positive return. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 36 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -169 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 6 bps on the month and, at 1.76%, it remains well below its pre-crisis trading range of 2.4% to 2.5%. Despite robust growth, extremely weak realized inflation has caused breakevens to tighten this year. Last week's July PCE release was yet another disappointment. The year-over-year core inflation rate fell from 1.51% to 1.41% and the year-over-year trimmed mean rate fell from 1.68% to 1.64% (Chart 8). However, measures of pipeline inflation pressure such as the supplier deliveries and prices paid components of the ISM Manufacturing survey point towards higher inflation. The supplier deliveries component increased from 55.4 to 57.1 in August (panel 4) while the prices paid component held firm at an elevated 62 (panel 3). Adding it all up, and incorporating the fact that employment growth should stay strong enough to maintain downward pressure on the unemployment rate, we think it is very likely that core inflation will soon reverse course and resume the steady uptrend that began in early 2015. TIPS breakevens will widen alongside. At present, our TIPS Financial model suggests that breakevens are trading in line with other financial market instruments (panel 2). In other words, there is no apparent mis-valuation in breakevens relative to other financial markets, and higher realized inflation is likely required before breakevens move sustainably wider. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 71 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the benchmark by 10 bps in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 63 bps. Meanwhile, non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 26 bps in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 147 bps. Credit card ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 10 bps in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 69 bps. Auto loan ABS outperformed by 12 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 71 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 4 bps on the month, and remains well below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 9). At 36 bps, the option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS is now the same as the option-adjusted spread for conventional 30-year Agency MBS. Meanwhile, lending standards are now tightening for both auto loans and credit cards. Further, the New York Fed's Household Debt and Credit Report for the second quarter revealed that "flows of credit card balances into both early and serious delinquencies climbed for the third straight quarter - a trend not seen since 2009."8 While overall credit card charge-offs in ABS collateral pools remain low (panel 4), it is clear that the cyclical winds are shifting against consumer ABS. If the trends of tightening lending standards and rising delinquencies continue, then it will soon be time to reduce consumer ABS exposure, possibly shifting into Agency MBS. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 116 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 2 bps on the month, and is approaching one standard deviation below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 10). The combination of tightening lending standards and weaker demand for commercial real estate (CRE) loans (as evidenced by the Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey) suggests that credit concerns are starting to mount in the CRE space. Meanwhile, CMBS delinquency rates have leveled-off during the past few months and remain much lower in the multi-family space (panel 5). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 79 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread for the Agency CMBS index held flat at 48 bps on the month. This compares favorably to the 36 bps offered by both Aaa-rated consumer ABS and conventional 30-year Agency MBS. Not only does the Agency CMBS sector continue to offer an attractive spread relative to both consumer ABS and Agency MBS, but its agency guarantee and concentration in the multi-family space (where delinquencies are still low) makes it look particularly attractive. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (which is based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.67% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model (not shown), which also includes the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.68%. The Global Manufacturing PMI rose to 53.1 in August, from 52.7 in July, reaching a 75-month high (panel 3). Meanwhile, bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar continues to plunge (bottom panel). Taken together, these two factors suggest that not only is global growth accelerating but that the global economic recovery is increasingly broad based. This is an extremely bond-bearish development. A broad based global recovery means that when U.S. data finally start surprising positively, it is less likely that any increase in Treasury yields will be met with an influx of foreign demand. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Models", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.16%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy Reflections", dated August 29, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The 12-month breakeven spread is the basis point widening required over a 12-month period before a corporate bond delivers losses relative to a duration-matched Treasury security. We assume no impact from convexity and calculate the breakeven spread as OAS divided by duration. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Low Inflation And Rising Debt", dated June 13, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Keep Buying Dips", dated March 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 The Price Pressures Measure is a composite indicator which shows the percent chance that PCE inflation will exceed 2.5% during the next 12 months. 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Upside Of A Weaker Dollar", dated August 15, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 For further details on our models please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/hhdc Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

特別レポート

Feature Healthy consumer spending driving a booming sales environment, along with the operating leverage that high revenue growth produces, have been the key underpinnings of the nascent revival in the S&P 500 margin expansion. This has occurred against the backdrop of muted wage growth in most sectors which has amplified margin expansion. We recently showed that S&P 500 operating leverage has historically added $1.4 of earnings for every $1 of incremental revenues (please see our Weekly Report of April 17, 2017 for more details). On a trailing 12-month basis, the S&P 500 has added more than $3 of earnings for every $1 of incremental revenues, more than double the historical average operating leverage. Clearly this pace of margin expansion is unsustainable, particularly since the tight labor market seems likely to force a reacceleration in wage growth. A common narrative among investors has been that late-cycle dynamics will soon force a mean reversion in S&P 500 operating margins. However, and while every economic cycle is different, true mean reversion only happens in recessions (Chart 1). Chart 1Margins Can Expand From Here Further, the absolute margin level of the S&P 500 is far from being without precedent. Since the 1970's, margins have typically peaked for the cycle only after approaching one standard deviation above the trend and the current S&P500 margin is just past halfway there. It is also worth noting that margins can stay extended for a considerable time; margins have surpassed one standard deviation above trend twice this decade without a material retrenchment. Chart 2 shows the high, low and current trailing operating margins of the S&P 500 and the eleven GICS1 sectors. At first glance, it appears that margins are particularly high in the heavyweight financials and IT sectors. Some context is required; both sectors experienced bubbles in the last two decades that saw operating profits plumb extreme lows in the subsequent busts, making their profit ranges appear unusually broad. Chart 3 corrects to exclude two-standard deviation events for all sectors. The message is clear: margins still have significant room to run. Chart 2High, Low And Current Trailing S&P 500 Operating Margins Chart 3High, Low And Current Trailing S&P 500 Operating Margins, Normalized Operating margins in isolation only tell part of the story. In Chart 4, we compare profitability to the capital deployed in pursuit of said profits. Capital deployed and its earned return should theoretically plot on a linear function; plotting above the fitted regression line implies insufficient returns, while plotting below the line indicates excess returns. In our analysis, most sectors plot relatively closely to the market line with a few notable outliers. Financials are likely earning significant excess returns on capital, while utilities are waving a warning flag. We reiterate our overweight and underweight ratings on these two sectors, respectively (Chart 4). Chart 4Capital Intensity Of Profits The upshot of high margins and low capital requirements is above-average return on capital. Consequently, rising valuation multiples move in tandem with ROIC and vice-versa. Our analysis bears that out; financials are relatively far along the continuum along which most of the S&P 500 sectors plot, though still modestly below the fitted regression line indicating fair value. Conversely, real estate, while attractive from a return on capital perspective, is highly overvalued (Chart 5). Chart 5Margin Efficiency And Valuation This Special Report takes a sector-by-sector view on the margin outlook that supports our thesis of ongoing margin gains delivering an earnings-driven stock market rally. Chris Bowes, Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy chrisb@bcaresearch.com Chart 6Oil Stocks Look Set To Decline Chart 7Capital Formation Should Take Off Chart 8Consumers Have Opened Their Wallets Chart 9Surging Global Manufacturing Chart 10Real Estate Rents Look##br## Set To Decline Chart 11The Right Conditions For Industrial##br## Margin Expansion Chart 12Dark Clouds On The Horizon ##br##For Health Care Margins Chart 13Utilities Margins Are##br## Likely To Contract S&P Energy (Overweight) Chart 14S&P Energy Energy operating profit margins have been on a wild ride, collapsing with the underlying commodity and then partially recovering as the industry rationalized. Analysts are forecasting more of the same, with the industry forecast to generate profits for the first time in more than two years. Pricing power has spiked higher, though from an extremely low base, as the aforementioned industry rationalization has taken hold. Wage growth looks fairly tepid and the net margin impact supports the forecast view of margin expansion. Rampant cost inflation appears to be a thing of the past. Accordingly, the essential component for margin recovery will be top line growth. The key factors in a top-line growth scenario for the energy sector will be a demand-driven recovery in crude oil prices, supported by continued supply-side discipline. The current global economic revival and pause in the U.S. dollar bull market are catalysts for the former while OPEC 2.0 supply cuts (with effective compliance) and lower crude supply are catalysts for the latter. Encouragingly, the rig count remains well below peak levels, Cushing crude oil inventories are contracting on a year-over-year basis and OECD oil stocks appear poised to contract in late autumn/early winter (Chart 6). Net, we are constructive on energy sector margins (Chart 14). S&P Financials (Overweight) Chart 15S&P Financials Margins, though below historic peak levels, have improved dramatically. The stock market has not rewarded the sector for the solid performance, making financials a standout sector where earnings have led prices higher, rather than multiple expansion. A healthy consumer, housing market and corporate sector should lead to strong capital formation which, in turn, implies improving revenue growth for financials. This is captured by our loans & leases model which points to the largest upswing in credit growth of the past 30 years (Chart 7) Banks in particular benefit from a healthy economy as very low unemployment should be accompanied by solid loan quality which makes the industry's margin gains more durable (Chart 7). We expect banks, as the largest segment of the financials sector, to lead the index higher. Pricing power and wage growth have recently been diverging with the former moving steeply positive and the latter falling to the slowest growth of the past 5 years. These moves bode well for future margin expansion; analysts agree, with forecasts pointing to margins approaching twenty-year highs (Chart 15). S&P Consumer Discretionary (Overweight) Chart 16S&P Consumer Discretionary Consumer discretionary margins have inflated dramatically and, despite a moderation in actual and forecast profitability, they remain more than one standard deviation above normal. Wage growth is declining from fairly eye-watering levels but still remains faster than the muted sector pricing power. The net of these points is falling margins, in line with analyst forecasts. Spending has recently poked higher as a much improved household balance sheet and wage growth have made the consumer feel flush enough to start spending some of their accumulated savings of the past few years (Chart 8). This resurgence in demand should mean, barring any external shock, that pricing power will recover, though a tight labor market could present a considerable offset via above-normal wage growth. Within the index, margin strength is particularly notable in Home Improvement Retail and Cable & Satellite; both are benefitting from the themes noted above and have seen revenue growth driving wider margins. The Auto Components index is a rare underperformer with margins shrinking as the companies adjust to slowing North American light vehicle production. Net, we remain positive on consumer discretionary profit growth (Chart 16). S&P Consumer Staples (Overweight) Chart 17S&P Consumer Staples Consumer staples margins have seen a general upward trajectory over the past three years, though have recently rolled over. The key culprits have been food & drug deflation with retail struggling to maintain profits. Forecasts are pointing to a resumption of the upward margin trend, in line with our improving proxy measure (Chart 17, bottom panel). Eventually staples will regain some share of the consumer's wallet. The wage bill is moving in the right direction and even a modest uptick in sector pricing power could trigger margin expansion. It is worth noting that consumer staples is our only remaining overweight defensive index as we have drifted toward cyclical sectors with our increasingly bullish stance over the course of the year. Still, we remain confident of a modest sector margin recovery, though expect consumer discretionary to have a better profit growth profile. S&P Telecommunication Services (Neutral) Chart 18S&P Telecom Services S&P telecom services is at the very bottom of the GICS1 sector EPS growth table this year despite easy comparable quarters in 2016; this is reflected in the index's steady downward drift (Chart 18, top panel). Still, margins have started staging a recovery and the sell-side appears reasonably optimistic. The issue is pricing, the weakness of which is taking profits down regardless of margin resilience. Encouragingly, selling prices cannot contract at 10% per annum indefinitely and recent anecdotal evidence from earnings calls suggests that the peak deflationary impulse is likely behind the industry. Impressive labor cost discipline along with even a modest pricing power rebound signal that a grinding higher margin backdrop is likely in the coming months, though our margin proxy is weighed down by still-falling pricing power (Chart 18, bottom panel). S&P Materials (Neutral) Chart 19S&P Materials Margins in the S&P materials index have recovered sharply from their recent lows, with analysts forecasting continued margin expansion. Said margin expansion will be dependent on the industry holding on to the pricing power gains it has made over the past year; we think odds are good this can happen. A global manufacturing rebound appears to be underway; the global manufacturing PMI has recently reaccelerated and jumped to a six year high (Chart 9). Further, it looks likely that a coordinated central bank tightening cycle has begun which should make U.S. exports relatively more attractive, even if the greenback moves laterally from current levels. With respect to chemicals, the dominant materials component industry, a wave of global mergers (Chart 9) should limit price competition while also stripping out some overcapacity which has been a perennial margin overhang. As well, domestic operating conditions have taken a turn for the better as U.S. chemical production has troughed and utilization rates have improved (Chart 9). Still, inventories have surged in advance of the manufacturing recovery (not shown) and any demand misstep could have serious margin implications. Our materials margin proxy points to modest margin gains (Chart 19). S&P Real Estate (Neutral) Chart 20S&P Real Estate The S&P Real Estate index comprises mostly REITs and does not compare well to the other sectors on an operating margin basis, owing to the vastly different business model. Still, a discussion of drivers of both revenues and costs is worthwhile. Real estate occupancy rates have crested and generationally high supply additions in the apartment space are all but certain to push vacancies higher still (Chart 10). The implication is that rental inflation will remain under intense downward pressure, as has been the case since the beginning of 2016. Worrisomely, credit quality in select commercial real estate (CRE) segments is deteriorating at the margin (Chart 10). Should the trend worsen, REIT margins will deteriorate. According to a recent Fed Senior Loan Officer Survey, bankers are less willing to extend CRE credit. In fact, if one excludes the GFC spike, the tightening in CRE lending standards is near the two previous recessionary highs (Chart 10 on page 8). If banks continue to close the credit taps, CRE prices will suffer a setback. Nevertheless, the tight labor market and accelerating industrial production should keep the appetite for CRE upbeat and prices may have a bit more room to run before reaching a cyclical peak (Chart 20). S&P Industrials (Neutral) Chart 21S&P Industrials A demand revival, both domestic and globally, has helped drive a recovery of S&P industrials margins from the mini manufacturing recession of 2015/early-2016. The U.S. dollar bull market has paused (Chart 11), global demand and credit growth has recovered (Chart 11) and domestic optimism abounds (Chart 11); all the conditions look supportive of the consistent margin profile forecast by the sell-side. However, the margin expansion thesis is not without risk; pricing power gains appear to have rolled over while the wage bill, the weakness of which was a significant margin driver, has spiked. The result is that our industrials margin proxy has eased, though we discount the measure as it has not correlated well with observed margins. Still, if demand continues to remain upbeat, the operating leverage impact on the relatively high fixed cost sector should offset labor cost spikes. Net, we expect margins to drift mostly sideways (Chart 21). S&P Health Care (Underweight) Chart 22S&P Health Care S&P health care margins are showing warning signs of a potential retreat. Pricing power has worsened significantly since recent highs in 2016 which could warn of a top line contraction, particularly in the context of drug price inflation. Chart 12 shows that since 2005 drug prices have nearly doubled and the slope has actually steepened since 2011. Health care spending in the U.S. comprises over 17% of GDP, the highest in the world, but it has likely plateaued. Real health care spending is decelerating in absolute terms, and had been contracting compared with overall PCE earlier this year (Chart 12). This suggests that selling price blues are demand driven and will likely continue to weigh on health care profits. Not only are selling prices softening, but also the health care sector wage bill is on fire, pushing multi-year highs. Taken together, operating margins will continue to compress, sustaining the recent down drift. Should margins worsen as we expect, the recent updraft in the index price should follow earnings downward (Chart 22). S&P Utilities (Underweight) Chart 23S&P Utilities In earlier sections of this report, we have discussed the beneficiaries of growing ebullience in global economic expectations; utilities are at the opposite end of the spectrum. Now that the Fed is ready to start unwinding its balance sheet, the ECB is preparing the waters for QE tapering and a slew of CBs are on the cusp of a new tightening interest rate cycle, there are high odds that fixed income proxies, utilities among them, will continue to suffer. From a profit perspective, our margin proxy is pointing to a pricing driven recovery. However, contracting natural gas prices, the marginal price setter for the industry, suggest that recent utilities pricing power gains are running on empty (Chart 13). Tack on waning productivity, with labor additions handily outpacing electricity production, and the ingredients for a margin squeeze are in place (Chart 13). Importantly, industry utilization rates are probing multi-decade lows and overcapacity is negative for pricing power. Chart 13 confirms that utilities construction is relentless at a time when turbine and generator inventories have been hitting all-time highs. This is a deflationary backdrop, and suggests that sell-side analyst optimism is wrong footed. Net, we think margin weakness should persist (Chart 23). S&P Information Technology (Underweight) Chart 24S&P Information Technology Margins in the S&P information technology index are pushing their 20-year highs. However, the sector is a story of leaders and laggards. The technology hardware, storage & peripherals sub-index (almost entirely AAPL), for example, has seen their operating margin roughly double in the past ten years. Conversely, communications equipment is in the midst of a collapse in pricing power as intense competition has engulfed telcos (their principal customer group) and the uncertainty in the federal government has held back outlays. Our margin proxy is pointing to a modest margin contraction, a result of slipping sector pricing power partially offset by a flat to slightly negative sector wage bill. This stands in contrast to sell-side forecasts who expect margins to hit record levels in the next year. We view the sell-side as overly sanguine with respect to margins and expect pricing power to weigh in coming months (Chart 24).

Highlights Some caution warranted here. Hurricane Harvey's impact on the economy and markets. Tensions in North Korea will linger. NIPA and S&P now telling same story on profits, margins. Is the August employment report enough for the Fed? Feature The impact of Hurricane Harvey will ripple through the economic data in the coming months, but will not impact the overall trajectory of the economy or the Fed. However, elevated equity valuations, escalating tensions in North Korea, a widening disconnect between the bond market and the Fed and profit growth that is poised to peak in the second half of the year warrants careful attention from investors. Nonetheless, we remain slightly overweight stocks and favor stocks over bonds. Caution On Risk Assets We recommend that clients be prudent, paring back any overweight positions and holding some safe-haven assets within diversified portfolios. BCA research has demonstrated that U.S. Treasuries, Swiss bonds and JGBs were the best performers during a crisis (Chart 1). The same is true for the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen, such that the currency exposure should not be hedged in these cases. The dollar is more nuanced. It tends to perform well during financial crises, but not in geopolitical crises or recessions. Chart 1Gold Loves Geopolitical Crises Gold tends to perform well in geopolitical events, although not in recessions or financial crunches. Our base case projects stocks outperforming cash and bonds over the next 6-12 months. BCA's dollar and duration positions have disappointed so far this year. Much hinges on U.S. inflation. Investors appear to have adopted the stance that structural headwinds to inflation will forever dominate the cyclical pressures. Therefore, the bond market is totally unprepared for any upside shocks on the inflation landscape. Admittedly, a rise in bond yields may not be imminent, but the risks appear to be predominantly to the upside. Harvey's Lingering Aftermath History shows that natural disasters such as Hurricane Harvey have a temporary effect on the U.S. economy, the financial markets and the Fed. Ultimately, the macro environment in place before the storm will reassert itself. Nonetheless, it may be a few months before investors determine the long-term impact of the record rainfall and flooding in Houston. Chart 2 shows the ranking of Harvey's preliminary damage estimate of $30B versus other storms of similar magnitude. We are still several weeks away from the peak of the Atlantic hurricane season (mid-September) and two of the most destructive storms in the past 25 years made landfall in mid-to-late October (Wilma and Sandy). Chart 2Economic Impact From Major Hurricanes Chart 3 shows the performance of key economic, inflation and financial market indicators in the past two years and also around five major hurricanes since 1992. Most of the activity-related economic statistics are volatile in the aftermath of the storms and then they recover. The Citi economic surprise index initially moves higher after a storm, and then fades (Chart 3A). There are big swings in housing starts and industrial production and employment growth slows. Inflation tends to climb post-landfall (Chart 3B). In prior episodes, core PCE and core CPI have accelerated along with gasoline prices. Consumer confidence dips initially, but then recovers. Wages are volatile, but tend to accelerate after several months. Chart 3C shows that stocks drift lower for several months following hurricanes and subsequently recoup the losses. The stock-to-bond ratio also moved lower, but regains its pre-storm heights about two months later. Treasury yields fall after storms, but we note that yields have been in a secular decline for 25 years. Chart 3AMajor Hurricane Impact##BR##On Activity Data Chart 3BMajor Hurricane Impact On##BR##Sentiment And Inflation Data Chart 3CMajor Hurricane Impact On##BR##Financial Markets & The Fed Hurricane Harvey will not shake the Fed. Nonetheless, the central bank will acknowledge the disaster in the FOMC statement, the FOMC minutes, and/or in Fed Chair Janet Yellen's news conference. We are unchanged in our view that policymakers will begin to pare its balance sheet later this month and bump up rates again in December, assuming that core inflation shows some signs of strength between now and then. History shows (Chart 3C) that, on average, the Fed funds rate tends to move higher in the months after storms hit, but the primary message is that the Fed just continues to do whatever it was doing before the storm. The Fed cut rates in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in 1992 in what turned out to be the final rate reduction of the cycle that began in 1989. Ivan hit in September 2004, but the monetary authority raised rates in the final three FOMC meetings of 2004, including at the meeting only a week after the hurricane made landfall. Similarly, the Fed clung to its rate hike regime after Wilma in October 2005. In 2008, Ike arrived in Texas two days before Lehman Brothers collapsed in mid-September. The Fed, which had been cutting rates since September 2007, lowered rates in the final months of 2008. The Fed announced QE3 in late summer 2012 and continued with the program after Sandy came ashore at the end of October 2012. Harvey will be a game changer in some respects: the devastation reduces the odds of a government shutdown or of failing to increase the debt ceiling. We have maintained that there were extremely low odds that the debt ceiling would not be raised. We stated that there was a 25% chance of a government shutdown between October 1, when the current funding expires, and sometime in mid-October when the debt ceiling will hit according to the Congressional Budget Office. However, it would be unfathomable to shut down the government and force the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to cease operations. The resulting outrage would damage the Republicans, especially in Texas. Bottom Line: Harvey may have a near-term impact on the economy, but the Fed will stick to its plan. The catastrophe makes it increasingly likely that the debt ceiling will be raised and a resolution will be passed to keep the government operating into the new fiscal year. Thus, equity investors can safely ignore these two risks, and focus on the key risk in the outlook: North Korea. North Korea Could Linger Over Markets BCA believes that the probability of a war on the Korean Peninsula is very low,1 but it may take a while before the uncertainty in Northeast Asia is resolved. Between now (escalating tensions) and then (a negotiated settlement), there will be more provocations and market volatility. There are long-standing constraints to war. The first is a potentially high death toll: Pyongyang can inflict massive civilian casualties in Seoul with a conventional artillery barrage. Furthermore, U.S. troops, and Japanese forces and civilians, would also suffer. Secondly, China is unlikely to remain neutral. Strategically, China will not tolerate a U.S. presence on its border with North Korea. Nevertheless, Washington must establish a credible threat of military action if it is to convince Pyongyang that negotiations offer a superior outcome. It is unclear how long it will take Trump to convince North Korea that the threat of a U.S. preemptive strike is credible. Chart 4 shows the arc of diplomacy2 that the U.S. took with Iran between 2010 and 2014. From an investor perspective, it will be difficult to gauge whether the brinkmanship and military posturing are part of this territorial threat display or evidence of real preparations for an actual attack. More market volatility may occur, but for the time being, we do not think that the tensions in the Korean peninsula will end the bull market in global equities. Positions in traditional safe-haven assets, such as gold, U.S. Treasuries, Swiss francs and (perhaps) Japanese yen, should be considered as hedges against increased market swings. Chart 4Arc Of Diplomacy: Tensions Ramp Up As Nuclear Negotiations Begin Update: Equity Valuations, Sentiment And Technicals U.S. equity valuations are stretched, but elevated valuations alone are not enough to prompt a sell-off in stocks. The BCA valuation indicator is in overvalued territory, where it has been since late 2013. History shows3 that stocks can stay overvalued for extended periods, even when the Fed is raising rates, but policy is still accommodative as it is today. BCA's composite valuation indicator is still shy of the +1 standard deviation level that defines extremely over-valued (Chart 5). However, this is due to the components that compare equity prices with bond yields. The other three elements of the equity indicator, which are unrelated to bond yields, suggest that stock valuation is stretched (Chart 5 panels 2, 3 and 4). That said, equities are attractively priced relative to competing assets, such as corporate bonds and Treasuries (Chart 6). Chart 5U.S. Equities##BR##Are Overvalued... Chart 6...But Look Less Expensive##BR##Relative To Competing Assets Valuation is not a reliable tool to time market turning points and, absent a significant deterioration in the economic, profit and margin environment, we do not forecast a sustained pullback in stocks. Looking beyond BCA's tactical 6-12 month window, above-average market multiples alone imply below-average returns for stocks across a strategic time horizon. Chart 7No Strong Signal From##BR##Sentiment Or Technicals BCA's technical and sentiment indicators are not at extremes (Chart 7). The BCA technical indicator, while above zero, is not at a level that in the past has triggered a stock pullback. Similarly, the BCA investor sentiment composite index, while at the top end of its bull market range, is not at an extreme. Moreover, only 50% of the stocks in the NYSE composite are above their 10-week moving average, a level which has not been previously associated with major equity sell-offs. Bottom Line: The solid earnings backdrop remains in place for U.S. stocks as measured by either the S&P or the national accounts. We anticipate that profit growth has peaked according to S&P 500 data on a 4-quarter moving total basis due to tough comparisons although it will slip only modestly in the second half of the year. Next year will see EPS growth drop back into the mid-single digit range. The consensus estimate for 2018 EPS growth is 11%. While valuations are elevated, neither sentiment nor technical indicators are flashing red. We recommend stocks over bonds in the next 6-12 months, but acknowledge that risks to BCA's stance are climbing. A Reconnection In Q2 The Q2 data show that the NIPA and S&P earnings measures have reconnected. In our July 3, 2017 Weekly Report "Summer Stress Out"4 we highlighted the apparent disconnect between the S&P and NIPA, sales earnings and margin data through Q1 2017. The release of the Q2 corporate profits data in the national accounts and the end the Q2 S&P 500 reporting season allow us to provide an update. The year-over-year reading on the NIPA earnings measure ticked up in Q2 while the S&P-based metric ticked down. That said, while there are marked differences in annual growth rates between the two measures, the levels were close to the same point in the second quarter of 2017 (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 9 shows that a wide difference persists between corporate sales measured by S&P and the national accounts. Margins calculated on the S&P basis climbed in Q2 while NIPA margins held steady. Even so, a modest gap still remains between NIPA margins at 15.2% and S&P margins at 13.2%. Most of the divergence is related to the denominator of the calculation. The NIPA denominator is corporate sector Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This is a value-added concept that is different from sales. It is not clear why, but GDP has grown much faster than sales since the end of 2014. Chart 8S&P And NIPA##BR##Profit Comparison Chart 9Denominator Explains##BR##S&P/NIPA Margin Divergence We believe that the S&P statistics are painting a more accurate picture because sales are easier to measure while value-added is more complicated. The slow growth of sales is not a bullish point for stocks. Nonetheless, it does not appear that financial engineering has distorted bottom-up company data to such an extent that the S&P readings are falsely signaling strong profit growth. We expect the secular mean-reversion of margins to re-assert itself in the S&P data, perhaps beginning early in 2018. Nonetheless, the profit backdrop is positive for stocks for now. Is The August Jobs Report Enough For The Fed? Chart 10Labor Market Conditions##BR##Favor Risk Assets U.S. payrolls expanded by 156,000 in August. Relative to the underlying growth rate in the labor force, this is still a healthy pace of jobs growth. Nevertheless, it fell short of expectations for a 180,000 increase and the prior two months saw a cumulative downward revision of 41,000. The August data were not impacted by Hurricane Harvey. Aggregate hours worked, a measure of total labor inputs based on changes in employment and the workweek, fell by 0.2% m/m. That said, aggregate hours worked are up 1.3% at a quarterly annualized rate thus far in Q3. This is consistent with GDP growth of a bit over 2%, which has been the trend in the current economic expansion. Meanwhile, wage gains remain muted. Average hourly earnings rose just 0.1% m/m. Annual wage inflation has been steady at 2.5% for several months now (Chart 10, bottom panel). If productivity is expanding modestly around 1%, the current pace of wage gains would suggest that unit labor costs are growing around 1.5%. This will make it difficult for general price inflation to accelerate to the Fed 2% target. Nonetheless, the reacceleration in the 3-month change in average hourly earnings from 1.9% in January 2017 to 2.6% in August supports the Fed's view on inflation. Finally, the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.4% from 4.3%. This was because the separate household survey showed a 74,000 drop in employment. The participation rate held steady at 62.9% in August. Bottom Line: While falling short of expectations in August, U.S. employment growth remains solid and job gains are continuing at a pace consistent with the 2% GDP growth rate of recent years. However, muted wage gains mean that progress to the Fed's 2% inflation target is looking suspect. We anticipate that the Fed will announce the process of running down its balance sheet at the September FOMC meeting. Rate hikes are on hold at least until the December FOMC meeting, and even then only if core inflation shows some signs of strength in the next few months. U.S. risk assets should continue to benefit from moderate growth, low inflation and a "go slow" approach by the Fed. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?", August 16, 2017. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets? ,"May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Sizing Up The Second Half", July 10, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Summer Stress Out", July 3, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

特別レポート

Dear Client, In addition to this Special Report written by my colleague Mark McClellan, we are sending you an abbreviated weekly report, which includes the Tactical Global Asset Allocation Monthly Update. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to one school of thought, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation. If true, it could mean that central banks are almost powerless to reach their inflation targets. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. In theory, positive supply shocks should not have more than a temporary impact on inflation if the price level is indeed a monetary phenomenon in the long term. But a series of positive supply shocks could make it appear for quite a while that low inflation is structural in nature. We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence at the macro level. The admittedly inadequate measures of online prices available today do not suggest that e-commerce sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points. Moreover, it does not appear that the disinflationary impact of competition in the retail sector has intensified over the years. Today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. However, the fact that retail margins are near secular highs outside of department stores argues against this thesis. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High profit margins for the overall corporate sector and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. Feature Anecdotal evidence is all around us. The global economy is evolving and it seems that all of the major changes are deflationary. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. Central banks in the major advanced economies are having difficulty meeting their inflation targets, even in the U.S. where the labor market is tight by historical standards. Based on the depressed level of bond yields, it appears that the majority of investors believe that inflation headwinds will remain formidable for a long time. One school of thought is that low inflation reflects a lack of demand growth in the post-Great Financial Crisis (GFC) period. Another school points to the supply side of the economy. A recent report by Prudential Financial highlights "...obvious examples of ... new business models and new organizational structures, whereby higher-cost traditional methods of production, transportation, and distribution are displaced by more nontraditional cost-effective ways of conducting business." 1 A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to this school, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation (i.e., the Phillips Curve). Employees are less aggressive in their wage demands in a world where robots are threatening humans in a broadening array of industrial categories. Many feel lucky just to have a job. In a highly sensationalized article called "How The Internet Economy Killed Inflation," Forbes argued that "the internet has reduced many of the traditional barriers to entry that protect companies from competition and created a race to the bottom for prices in a number of categories." Forbes believes that new technologies are placing downward pressure on inflation by depressing wages, increasing productivity and encouraging competition. There are many factors that have the potential to weigh on prices, but analysts are mainly focusing on e-commerce, robotics, artificial intelligence, and the gig economy. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. The latter refers to the advent of new business models that cut out layers of middlemen between producers and consumers. Amazonification E-commerce has grown at a compound annual rate of more than 9% over the past 15 years, and now accounts for about 8½% of total U.S. retail sales (Chart 1). Amazon has been leading the charge, accounting for 43% of all online sales in 2016 (Chart 2). Amazon's business model not only cuts costs by eliminating middlemen and (until recently) avoiding expensive showrooms, but it also provides a platform for improved price discovery on an extremely broad array of goods. In 2013, Amazon carried 230 million items for sale in the United States, nearly 30 times the number sold by Walmart, one of the largest retailers in the world. Chart 1E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share Chart 2Amazon Dominates With the use of a smartphone, consumers can check the price of an item on Amazon while shopping in a physical store. Studies show that it does not require a large price gap for shoppers to buy online rather than in-store. Amazon appears to be impacting other retailers' ability to pass though cost increases, leading to a rash of retail outlet closings. Sears alone announced the closure of 300 retail outlets this year. The devastation that Amazon inflicted on the book industry is well known. It is no wonder then, that Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods Market, a grocery chain, sent shivers down the spines of CEOs not only in the food industry, but in the broader retail industry as well. What would prevent Amazon from applying its model to furniture and appliances, electronics or drugstores? It seems that no retail space is safe. A Little Theory Before we turn to the evidence, let's review the macro theory related to positive supply shocks. The internet could be lowering prices by moving product markets toward the "perfect competition" model. The internet trims search costs, improves price transparency and reduces barriers to entry. The internet also allows for shorter supply chains, as layers of wholesalers and other intermediaries are removed and e-commerce companies allow more direct contact between consumers and producers. Fewer inventories and a smaller "brick and mortar" infrastructure take additional costs out of the system. Economic theory suggests that the result of this positive supply shock will be greater product market competition, increased productivity and reduced profitability. In the long run, workers should benefit from the productivity boost via real wage gains (even if nominal wage growth is lackluster). Workers may lower their reservation wage if they feel that increased competitive pressures or technology threaten their jobs. The internet is also likely to improve job matching between the unemployed and available vacancies, which should lead to a fall in the full-employment level of unemployment (NAIRU). Nonetheless, the internet should not have a permanent impact on inflation. The lower level of NAIRU and the direct effects of the internet on consumer prices discussed above allow inflation to fall below the central bank's target. The bank responds by lowering interest rates, stimulating demand and thereby driving unemployment down to the new lower level of NAIRU. Over time, inflation will drift back up toward target. In other words, a greater degree of the competition should boost the supply side of the economy and lower NAIRU, but it should not result in a permanently lower rate of inflation if inflation is indeed a monetary phenomenon and central banks strive to meet their targets. Still, one could imagine a series of supply shocks that are spread out over time, with each having a temporary negative impact on prices such that it appears for a while that inflation has been permanently depressed. This could be an accurate description of the current situation in the U.S. and some of the other major countries. We have sympathy for the view that the internet and new business models are increasing competition, cutting costs and thereby limiting price increases in some areas. But is there any hard evidence? Is the competitive effect that large, and is it any more intense than in the past? There are a number of reasons to be skeptical because most of the evidence does not support Forbes' claim that the internet has killed inflation. 1. E-commerce affects only a small part of the Consumer Price Index As mentioned above, online shopping for goods represents 8.5% of total retail sales in the U.S. E-commerce is concentrated in four kinds of businesses (Table 1): Furniture & Home Furnishings (7% of total retail sales), Electronics & Appliances (20%), Health & Personal Care (15%), and Clothing (10%). Since goods make up 40% of the CPI, then 3.2% (8% times 40%) is a ballpark estimate for the size of goods e-commerce in the CPI. Table 1E-Commerce Market Share Of Goods Sector Table 2 shows the relative size of e-commerce in the service sector. The analysis is complicated by the fact that the data on services includes B-to-B sales in addition to B-to-C.2 However, e-commerce represents almost 4% of total sales for the service categories tracked by the BLS. Services make up 60% of the CPI, but the size drops to 26% if we exclude shelter (which is probably not affected by online shopping). Thus, e-commerce in the service sector likely affects 1% (3.9% times 26%) of the CPI. Table 2E-Commerce Market Share Of Service Sector Adding goods and services, online shopping affects about 4.2% of the CPI index at most. The bottom line is that the relatively small size of e-commerce at the consumer level limits any estimate of the impact of online sales on the broad inflation rate. 2. Most of the deceleration in inflation since 2007 has been in areas unaffected by e-commerce Table 3 compares the average contribution to annual average CPI inflation during 2000-2007 with that of 2007-2016. Average annual inflation fell from 2.9% in the seven years before the Great Recession to 1.8% after, for a total decline of just over 1 percentage point. The deceleration is almost fully explained by Energy, Food and Owners' Equivalent Rent. The bottom part of Table 3 highlights that the sectors with the greatest exposure to e-commerce had a negligible impact on the inflation slowdown. Table 3Comparison Of Pre- And Post-Lehman Inflation Rates 3. The cost advantages for online sellers are overstated Bain & Company, a U.S. consultancy, argues that e-commerce will not grow in importance indefinitely and come to dominate consumer spending.3 E-commerce sales are already slowing. Market share is following a classic S-shaped curve that, Bain estimates, will top out at under 30% by 2030. First, not everyone wants to buy everything online. Products that are well known to consumers and purchased on a regular basis are well suited to online shopping. But for many other products, consumers need to see and feel the product in person before making a purchase. Second, the cost savings of online selling versus traditional brick and mortar stores is not as great as many believe. Bain claims that many e-commerce businesses struggle to make a profit. The information technology, distribution centers, shipping, and returns processing required by e-commerce companies can cost as much as running physical stores in some cases. E-tailers often cannot ship directly from manufacturers to consumers; they need large and expensive fulfillment centers and a very generous returns policy. Moreover, online and offline sales models are becoming blurred. Retailers with physical stores are growing their e-commerce operations, while previously pure e-commerce plays are adding stores or negotiating space in other retailers' stores. Even Amazon now has storefronts. The shift toward an "multichannel" selling model underscores that there are benefits to traditional brick-and-mortar stores that will ensure that they will not completely disappear. 4. E-commerce is not the first revolution in the retail sector The retail sector has changed significantly over the decades and it is not clear that the disinflationary effect of the latest revolution, e-commerce, is any more intense than in the past. Economists at Goldman Sachs point out that the growth of Amazon's market share in recent years still lags that of Walmart and other "big box" stores in the 1990s (Chart 3).4 This fact suggests that "Amazonification" may not be as disinflationary as the previous big-box revolution. 5. Weak productivity growth and high profit margins are inconsistent with a large supply-side benefit from e-commerce As discussed above, economic theory suggests that a positive supply shock that cuts costs and boosts competition should trim profit margins and lift productivity. The problem is that the margins and productivity have moved in the opposite direction that economic theory would suggest (Chart 4). Chart 3Comparison Of Pre- And Post-Lehman Inflation Rates Chart 4Incompatible With A Supply Shock By definition, productivity rises when firms can produce the same output with fewer or cheaper inputs. However, it is well documented that productivity growth has been in a downtrend since the 1990s, and has been dismally low since the Great Recession. A Special Report from BCA's Global Investment Strategy 5 service makes a convincing case that mismeasurement is not behind the low productivity figures. In fact, in many industries it appears that productivity is over-estimated. If e-commerce is big enough to "move the dial" on overall inflation, it should be big enough to see in the aggregate productivity figures. Chart 5Retail Margin Squeeze Only In Department Stores One would also expect to see a margin squeeze across industries if e-commerce is indeed generating a lot of deflationary competitive pressure. Despite dismally depressed productivity, however, corporate profit margins are at the high end of the historical range across most of the sectors of the S&P 500. This is the case even in the retailing sector outside of department stores (Chart 5). These facts argue against the idea that the internet has moved the economy further toward a disinflationary "perfect competition" model. 6. Online price setting is characterized by frictions comparable to traditional retail We would expect to observe a low price dispersion across online vendors since the internet has apparently lowered the cost of monitoring competitors' prices and the cost of searching for the lowest price. We would also expect to see fairly synchronized price adjustments; if one vendor adjusts its price due to changing market conditions, then the rest should quickly follow to avoid suffering a massive loss of market share. However, a recent study of price-setting practices in the U.S. and U.K. found that this is not the case.6 The dataset covered a broad spectrum of consumer goods and sellers over a two-year period, comparing online with offline prices. The researchers found that market pricing "frictions" are surprisingly elevated in the online world. Price dispersion is high in absolute terms and on par with offline pricing. Academics for years have puzzled over high price rigidities and dispersion in retail stores in the context of an apparently stiff competitive environment, and it appears that online pricing is not much better. The study did not cover a long enough period to see if frictions were even worse in the past. Nonetheless, the evidence available suggests that the lower cost of monitoring prices afforded by the internet has not led to significant price convergence across sellers online or offline. Another study compared online and offline prices for multichannel retailers, using the massive database provided by the Billion Prices Project at MIT.7 The database covers prices across 10 countries. The study found that retailers charged the same price online as in-store in 72% of cases. The average discount was 4% for those cases in which there was a markdown online. If the observations with identical prices are included, the average online/offline price difference was just 1%. 7. Some measures of online prices have grown at about the same pace as the CPI index The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does include online sales when constructing the Consumer Price Index. It even includes peer-to-peer sales by companies such as Airbnb and Uber. However, the BLS admits that its sample lags the popularity of such services by a few years. Moreover, while the BLS is trying to capture the rising proportion of sales done via e-commerce, "outlet bias" means that the CPI does not capture the price effect in cases where consumers are finding cheaper prices online. This is because the BLS weights the growth rate of online and offline prices, not the price levels. While there may be level differences, there is no reason to believe that the inflation rates for similar goods sold online and offline differ significantly. If the inflation rates are close, then the growing share of online sales will not affect overall inflation based on the BLS methodology. The BLS argues that any bias in the CPI due to outlet bias is mitigated to the extent that physical stores offer a higher level of service. Thus, price differences may not be that great after quality-adjustment. All this suggests that the actual consumer price inflation rate could be somewhat lower than the official rate. Nonetheless, it does not necessarily mean that inflation, properly measured, is being depressed by e-commerce to a meaningful extent. Indeed, Chart 6 highlights that the U.S. component of the Billion Prices Index rose at a faster pace than the overall CPI between 2009 and 2014. The Online Price Index fell in absolute and relative terms from 2014 to mid-2016, but rose sharply toward the end of 2016. Applying our guesstimate of the weight of e-commerce in the CPI (3.2% for goods), online price inflation added to overall annual CPI inflation by about 0.3 percentage points in 2016 (bottom panel of Chart 6). There is more deflation evident in the BLS' index of prices for Electronic Shopping and Mail Order Houses (Chart 7). Online prices fell relative to the overall CPI for most of the time since the early 1990s, with the relative price decline accelerating since the GFC. However, our estimate of the contribution to overall annual CPI inflation is only about -0.15 percentage points in June 2017, and has never been more than -0.3 percentage points. This could be an underestimate because it does not include the impact of services, although the service e-commerce share of the CPI is very small. Chart 6Online Price Index Chart 7Electronic Shopping Price Index Another way to approach this question is to focus on the parts of the CPI that are most exposed to e-commerce. It is impossible to separate the effect of e-commerce on inflation from other drivers of productivity. Nonetheless, if online shopping is having a significant deflationary impact on overall inflation, we should see large and persistent negative contributions from these parts of the CPI. We combined the components of the CPI that most closely matched the sectors that have high e-commerce exposure according to the BLS' annual Retail Survey (Chart 8). The sectors in our aggregate e-commerce price proxy include hotels/motels, taxicabs, books & magazines, clothing, computer hardware, drugs, health & beauty aids, electronics & appliances, alcoholic beverages, furniture & home furnishings, sporting goods, air transportation, travel arrangement and reservation services, educational services and other merchandise. The sectors are weighted based on their respective weights in the CPI. Our e-commerce price proxy has generally fallen relative to the overall CPI index since 2000. However, while the average contribution of these sectors to the overall annual CPI inflation rate has fallen in the post GFC period relative to the 2000-2007 period, the average difference is only 0.2 percentage points. The contribution has hovered around the zero mark for the past 2½ years. Surprisingly, price indexes have increased by more than the overall CPI since 2000 in some sectors where one would have expected to see significant relative price deflation, such as taxis, hotels, travel arrangement and even books. One could argue that significant measurement error must be a factor. How could the price of books have gone up faster than the CPI? Sectors displaying the most relative price declines are clothing, computers, electronics, furniture, sporting goods, air travel and other goods. We recalculated our e-commerce proxy using only these deflating sectors, but we boosted their weights such that the overall weight of the proxy in the CPI is kept the same as our full e-commerce proxy discussed above. In other words, this approach implicitly assumes that the excluded sectors (taxis, books, hotels and travel arrangement) actually deflated at the average pace of the sectors that remain in the index. Our adjusted e-commerce proxy suggests that online pricing reduced overall CPI inflation by about 0.1-to-0.2 percentage points in recent years (Chart 9). This contribution is below the long-term average of the series, but the drag was even greater several times in the past. Chart 8BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index Chart 9BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index Admittedly, data limitations mean that all of the above estimates of the impact of e-commerce are ballpark figures. Conclusions We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence. The available data are admittedly far from ideal for confirming or disproving the "Amazonification" thesis. Perhaps better measures of e-commerce pricing will emerge in the future. Nonetheless, the measures available today do not suggest that online sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points, and it does not appear that the disinflationary impact has intensified by much. One could argue that lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. Nonetheless, if this were the case, then we would expect to see significant margin compression in the retail sector. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High corporate profit margins and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Finally, today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. Rising online activity means that we need fewer shopping malls and big box outlets to support a given level of consumer spending. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. To the extent that central banks were slow to recognize that equilibrium rates had fallen to extremely low levels, then policy was behind the curve and this might have contributed to the current low inflation environment. Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Robert F. DeLucia, "Economic Perspective: A Nontraditional Analysis of Inflation," Prudential Capital Group (August 21, 2017). 2 Business to business, and business to consumer. 3 Aaron Cheris, Darrell Rigby and Suzanne Tager, "The Power Of Omnichannel Stores," Bain & Company Insights: Retail Holiday Newsletter 2016-2017 (December 19, 2016) 4 "US Daily: The Internet and Inflation: How Big is the Amazon Effect?" Goldman Sachs Economic Research (August 2, 2017). 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame the Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Viacheslav Sheremirov, and Oleksandr Talavera, "Price Setting In Online Markets: Does IT Click?" Journal of the European Economic Association (July 2016). 7 Alberto Cavallo, "Are Online and Offline Prices Similar? Evidence from Large Multi-Channel Retailers," NBER Working Paper No. 22142 (March 2016).

Highlights Financial markets have slipped into a 'risk off' phase. The upbeat second quarter earnings season in the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone was overwhelmed by a number of negative events. Equity bear markets are usually associated with recessions. On that score, we do not see any warning signs of an economic downturn. However, geopolitical risks are rising at a time when valuation measures suggest that risk assets are vulnerable. We do not see the debt ceiling or the failure of movement on U.S. tax reform as posing large risks for financial markets. However, trade protectionism and, especially, North Korea are major wildcards. We don't believe the tensions in the Korean peninsula will end the cyclical bull market in global equities. Nonetheless, investors should expect to be tested numerous times over the next year to 18 months. BCA Strategists debated trimming equity exposure to neutral. However, the majority felt that, while there will be near-term volatility, the main equity indexes are likely to be higher on a 6-12 month horizon. Riding out the volatility is a better approach than trying to time the short-term ups and downs. That said, it appears prudent to be well shy of max overweight positions and to hold some safe haven assets within diversified portfolios. On a positive note, we have upgraded our EPS growth forecasts, except in the Eurozone where currency strength will be a significant drag in the near term. The Fed faced a similar low inflation/tight labor market environment in 1999. Policymakers acted pre-emptively and began to tighten before inflation turned up. This time, the FOMC will want to see at least a small increase in inflation just to be sure. Wages may be a lagging indicator for inflation in this cycle. Watch a handful of other indicators we identify that led inflection points in inflation in previous long economic expansions. This year's euro strength is unlikely to delay the next installment of ECB tapering, which we expect in early in 2018. Investors seem to be taking an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude toward the U.S. inflation outlook, which has led to very lopsided rate expectations. Keep duration short. Feature Chart I-1Trump Popularity Headwind For Tax Reform A 'risk off' flavor swept over financial markets in August. The upbeat second quarter earnings season in the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone was overwhelmed by a number of negative events, from President Trump's Charlottesville controversy to the never-ending staff changes in the White House to North Korean tensions to the Texas flood and the terror attack in Spain. Trump's popularity rating is steadily declining, even now among Republican voters (Chart I-1). This has raised concerns that none of his business-friendly policies, tax cuts or initiatives to boost growth will be successfully enacted. It is even possible that the debt ceiling will be used as a bargaining chip among the various Republican factions. The political risks are multiplying at a time when the equity and corporate bond markets are pricey. Valuation measures do not help with timing, but they do inform on the potential downside risk if things head south. At the moment, we do not see any single risk as justifying a full retreat into safe havens and a cut in risk asset allocation to neutral or below. Nonetheless, there is certainly a case to be cautious and hold some traditional safe haven assets. Timing The Next Equity Bear Market It is rare to have an equity bear market without a recession in the U.S. There have been plenty of market setbacks that did not quite meet the 20% bear-market threshold, but were nonetheless painful even in the absence of recession (Black Monday, LTCM crisis, U.S. debt ceiling showdown and euro crises). Unfortunately, these corrections are very difficult to predict. At least with recessions, investors have a fighting chance in timing the exit from risk exposure. The slope of the yield curve and the Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) are classic recession indicators, and for good reason (Chart I-2). Over the past 50 years they have both successfully called all seven recessions with just one false positive. We can eliminate the false positive signals by combining the two indicators and follow a rule that both must be in the red to herald a recession.1 Chart I-2The Traditional Recession Indicators Have Worked Well It will be almost impossible for the yield curve to invert until the fed funds rate is significantly higher than it is today. Thus, it may be the case that a negative reading on the LEI, together with a flattening (but not yet inverted) yield curve, will be a powerful signal that a recession is on the way. Neither of these two indicators are warning of a recession. Global PMIs are hovering at a level that is consistent with robust growth. The erosion in the Global ZEW and the drop in the diffusion index of the Global LEI are worrying signs, but at the moment are consistent with a growth slowdown at worst (Chart I-3). Financial conditions remain growth-friendly and subdued inflation is allowing central banks to proceed cautiously when tightening (in the case of the Fed and Bank of Canada) or tapering (ECB). As highlighted in last month's Overview, the global economy has entered a synchronized upturn that should persist for the next year. The U.S. will be the first major economy to enter the next recession, but that should not occur until 2019 or 2020, barring any shocks in the near term. That said, risk asset prices have been bid up sharply and are therefore vulnerable to a correction. Below, we discuss five key risks to the equity bull market. (1) Is All Lost For U.S. Tax Cuts? Our recent client meetings highlight that investors are skeptical that any fiscal stimulus or tax cuts will see the light of day in the U.S. Tax cuts and infrastructure spending appear to have been priced out of the equity market, according to the index ratios shown in Chart I-4. We still expect a modest package to eventually be passed, although time is running out for this year. Tax reform is a major component of Trump's and congressional Republicans' agenda. If it fails, Republicans will have to go to their home districts empty-handed to campaign for the November 2018 midterm elections. Chart I-3Some Worrying Signs On Growth Chart I-4Fiscal Stimulus Largely Priced Out One implication of Tropical Storm Harvey is that it might force Democrats and Republicans to cooperate on an infrastructure bill for rebuilding. Even a modest spending boost or tax reduction would be equity-market positive given that so little is currently discounted. The dollar should also receive a lift, especially given that the Fed might respond to any fiscally-driven growth impulse with higher interest rates. (2) Who Will Lead The Fed? There is a significant chance that either Yellen will refuse to stay on when her term expires next February or that Trump will appoint someone else anyway. In this case, we would expect the President to do everything he can to ensure that the Fed retains its dovish bias. This means that he is likely to favor a non-economist and a loyal adviser, like Gary Cohn, over any of the more traditional, and hawkish, Republican candidates. Cohn could not arrive at the Fed and change the course of monetary policy on day one. The FOMC votes on rate changes, but in reality decisions are formed by consensus (with one or two dissents). The only way Cohn could implement an abrupt change in policy is if the Administration stacks the Fed Governors with appointees that are prepared to "toe the line" (the Administration does not appoint Regional Fed Presidents). Stacking the Governorships would take time. Nonetheless, it is not clear why President Trump would take a heavy hand in monetary policy when the current FOMC has been very cautious in tightening policy. The bottom line is that we would not see Cohn's appointment to the Fed Chair as signaling a major shift in monetary policy one way or the other. (3) The Debt Ceiling A more immediate threat is the debt ceiling. Recent fights over Obamacare and tax reform have pit fiscally conservative Republicans against the moderates, and it is possible that the debt ceiling is used as a bargaining chip in this battle. While government shutdowns have occurred in the past, the debt ceiling has never been breached. At the end of the day, the debt ceiling will always be raised because no government could stand the popular pressure that would result from social security checks not being mailed out to seniors or a halt to other entitlement programs. Even the Freedom Caucus, the most fiscally conservative grouping in the House, is considerably divided on the issue. This augurs well for a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling as the Republican majority in the House is 22 and the Freedom Caucus has 31 members. Democrats will not stand in the way of passage in the Senate. The worst-case scenario for the market would be a two-week shutdown in the first half of October, just before the debt ceiling is hit. We would not expect a shutdown to have any lasting impact on the economy, although it could provide an excuse for the equity market to correct. That said, the risk of even a shutdown has been diminished by events in Houston. It would be very difficult and damaging politically to shut down the government during a humanitarian emergency. (4) Trade And Protectionism The removal of White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon signals a shift in power toward the Goldman clique within the Trump Administration. National Economic Council President Gary Cohn, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross are now firmly in charge of economic policy. The mainstream media has interpreted this shift within the Administration as reducing the risk of trade friction. We do not see it that way. President Trump still sounds hawkish on trade, particularly with respect to China. Our geopolitical experts point out that there are few constraints on the President to imposing trade sanctions on China or other countries. He could use such action to boost his popularity among his base heading into next year's midterm elections. On NAFTA, the Administration took a hard line as negotiations kicked off in August. This could be no more than a negotiating tactic. Our base case is that it will be some time before investors find out if negotiations are going off the rails. That said, the situation is volatile for both NAFTA and China, and we can't rule out a trade-related risk-off phase in financial markets over the next year. (5) North Korea North Korea's missile launch over Japan highlights that the tense situation is a long way from a resolution. The U.S. is unlikely to use military force to resolve the standoff. There are long-standing constraints to war, including the likelihood of a high death toll in Seoul. Moreover, China is unlikely to remain neutral in any conflict. However, the U.S. will attempt to establish a credible threat in order to contain Kim Jong-un. From an investor's perspective, it will be difficult to gauge whether the brinkmanship and military displays are simply posturing or evidence of real preparations for war.2 We don't believe the tensions in the Korean peninsula will end the cyclical bull market in global equities. Nonetheless, investors should expect to be tested numerous times over the next year to 18 months. Adding it all up, there is no shortage of things to keep investors awake at night. We would be de-risking our recommended portfolio were it not for the favorable earnings backdrop in the major advanced economies. Profit Outlook Update Chart I-5EPS Growth Outlook Second quarter earnings season came in even stronger than our upbeat models suggested in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan. This led to upward revisions to our EPS growth forecast, except in the Eurozone where currency strength will be a significant drag in the near term. The U.S. equity market enjoyed another quarter of margin expansion in Q2 2017 and the good news was broadly based. Earnings per share were higher versus Q2 2016 in all 11 sectors. Results were particularly strong in energy, technology and financials. Looking ahead, an update of our top-down model suggests the EPS growth will peak just under 20% late this year on a 4-quarter moving average basis, before falling to mid-single digits by the end of 2018 (Chart I-5). The peak is predicted to be a little higher than we previously forecast largely due to the feed-through of this year's pullback in the dollar. In Japan, a solid 70% of reporting firms beat estimates. Chart I-6 shows that Japan led all other major stock markets in positive earnings surprises in the second quarter. Manufacturing sectors, such as iron & steel, chemicals and machinery & electronics, were particularly impressive in the quarter, reflecting yen weakness and robust overseas demand. Japanese earnings are highly geared to the rebound in global industrial production. Moreover, Japan's nominal GDP growth accelerated in the second quarter and the latest PPI report suggested that corporate pricing power has improved. Twelve-month forward EPS estimates have risen to fresh all times highs, and have outperformed the U.S. in local currencies so far this year. Corporate governance reform - a key element of Abenomics - can take some credit for the good news on earnings. The share of companies with at least two independent directors rose from 18% in 2013 to 78% in 2016. The number of companies with performance-linked pay increased from 640 to 941, while the number that publish disclosure policies jumped from 679 to 1055. Analysts have been slow to factor in these positive developments. We expect trailing EPS growth to peak at about 25% in the first half of 2018 on a 4-quarter moving total basis, before edging lower by the end of the year. This is one reason why we like the Japanese market over the U.S. in local currency terms. Second quarter results in the Eurozone were solid, although not as impressive as in the U.S. and Japan. The 6% rise in the trade-weighted euro this year has resulted in a drop in the earnings revisions ratio into negative territory. Our previous forecast pointed to a continued rise in the 4-quarter moving average growth rate into the first half of 2018. However, we now expect the growth rate to dip by year end, before picking up somewhat next year. If the euro is flat from today's level, our model suggests that the drag on EPS growth will hover at 3-4 percentage points through the first half of next year as the negative impact feeds through (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Chart I-6Japan Led In Q2 Earning Surprises Chart I-7Currency Effects On Eurozone EPS Our top-down EPS model highlights that Eurozone earnings are quite sensitive to swings in the currency. In Chart I-7, we present alternative scenarios based on the euro weakening to EUR/USD 1.10 and strengthening to EUR/USD 1.30. For demonstration purposes we make the extreme assumption that the trade-weighted value of the euro rises and falls by the same amount in percentage terms. Profit growth decelerates by the end of 2017 in all three scenarios because of the lagged effect of currency swings. The projections begin to diverge only in 2018. EPS growth surges to around 20% by the end of next year in the euro-bear case, as the tailwind from the weakening currency combines with continuing robust economic growth. Conversely, trailing earnings growth hovers in the 5-8% range in the euro bull scenario, which is substantially less than we expect in the U.S. and Japan over the next year. EPS growth remains in positive territory because the assumed strength in European and global growth dominates the drag from the euro. The strong euro scenario would be negative for Eurozone equity relative performance versus global stocks in local currencies, although Europe might outperform on a common currency basis. The bottom line is that 12-month forward earnings estimates should remain in an uptrend in the three major economies. This means that, absent a negative political shock, the equity bull phase should resume in the coming months. Monetary policy is unlikely to spoil the party for risk assets, although the bond market is a source of risk because investors seem unprepared for even a modest rise in inflation. FOMC Has Seen This Before The Minutes from the July FOMC meeting highlighted that the key debate still centers on the relationship between labor market tightness and inflation, the timing of the next Fed rate hike and how policy should adjust to changing financial conditions. Chart I-8The FOMC Has Been Here Before The majority of policymakers are willing for now to believe that this year's soft inflation readings are driven largely by temporary 'one-off' factors. The hawks worry that a further undershoot of unemployment below estimates of full employment could suddenly generate a surge of inflation. They also point to the risk that low bond yields are promoting excess risk taking in financial markets. Moreover, the recent easing in financial conditions is stimulative and should be counterbalanced by additional Fed tightening. The hawks are thus anxious to resume tightening, despite current inflation readings. Others are worried that inflation softness could reflect structural factors, such as restraints on pricing power from global developments and from innovations to business models spurred by advances in technology. In this month's Special Report beginning on page 18, we have a close look at the impact of "Amazonification" in holding down overall inflation. We do not find the evidence regarding e-commerce compelling, but the jury is still out on the impact of other technologies. If robots and new business strategies are indeed weighing on inflation, it would mean that the Phillips curve is very flat or that the full employment level of unemployment is lower than the Fed estimates (or both). Either way, the doves would like to see the whites-of-the-eyes of inflation before resuming rate hikes. The last time the Fed was perplexed by a low level of inflation despite a tight labor market was in the late 1990s (Chart I-8). The FOMC cut rates following the LTCM financial crisis in late 1998, and then held the fed funds rate unchanged at 4¾% until June 1999. Core inflation was roughly flat during the on-hold period at 1% to 1½%, even as the unemployment rate steadily declined and various measures pointed to growing labor shortages. The FOMC 's internal debate in the first half of 1999 sounded very familiar. The minutes from meetings at that time noted that some policymakers pointed to the widespread inability of firms to raise prices because of strong competitive pressures in domestic and global markets. Some argued that significant cost saving efforts and new technologies also contributed to the low inflation environment for both consumer prices and wages. One difference from today is that productivity growth was solid at that time. The FOMC decided to hike rates in June 1999 by a quarter point, despite the absence of any clear indication that inflation had turned up. Policymakers described the tightening as "a small preemptive move... (that) would provide a degree of insurance against worsening inflation later". The Fed went on to lift the fed funds rate to 6½% by May 2000. Interestingly, the unemployment rate in June 1999 was 4.3%, exactly the same as the current rate. There are undoubtedly important differences in today's macro backdrop. The Fed is also more fearful of making a policy mistake in the aftermath of the Great Recession and financial crisis. Nonetheless, the point is that the Fed has faced a similar low inflation/tight labor market environment before, but in the end patience ran out and policymakers acted pre-emptively. Inflation Warning Signs During Long-Expansions We have noted in previous research that inflation pressures are slower to emerge in 'slow burn' recoveries, such as the 1980s and 1990s. In Chart I-9, we compare the core PCE inflation rate in the current cycle with the average of the previous two long expansion episodes (the inflection point for inflation in the previous cycles are aligned with June 2017 for comparison purposes). The other panels in the chart highlight that, in the 1980s and 1990s, wage growth was a lagging indicator. Economic commentators often assume that inflation is driven exclusively by "cost push" effects, such that the direction of causation runs from wage pressure to price pressure. However, causation runs in the other direction as well. Households see rising prices and then demand better wages to compensate for the added cost of living. This is not to say that we should totally disregard wage information. But it does mean that we must keep an eye on a wider set of data. Indicators that provided some leading information in the previous two long cycles are shown in Chart I-10. To this list we would also add the St. Louis Fed's Price Pressure index, which is not shown in Chart I-10 because it does not have enough history. At the moment, the headline PPI, ISM Prices Paid and BCA's pipeline inflation pressure index are all warning that inflation pressures are gradually building. However, this message is not confirmed by the St. Louis Fed's index and corporate selling prices. We are also watching the velocity of money, which has been a reasonably good leading indicator for U.S. inflation since 2000 (Chart I-11). Chart I-9In The 80s & 90s Wage Growth ##br##Gave No Early Warning On Inflation Chart I-10Leading Indicators Of Inflation ##br##In "Slow Burn" Recoveries Chart I-11Money Velocity And Inflation Our Fed view remains unchanged from last month; the FOMC will announce its balance sheet diet plan in September and the next rate hike will take place in December. Nonetheless, this forecast hangs on the assumption that core inflation edges higher in the coming months. Some indicators are pointing in that direction and recent dollar weakness will help. Wake Me When Inflation Picks Up Investors seem to be taking an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude toward the U.S. inflation outlook. They also believe that persistent economic headwinds mean that monetary policy will need to stay highly accommodative for a very long time. Only one Fed rate hike is discounted between now and the end of 2018, and implied forward real short-term rates are negative until 2022. While we do not foresee surging inflation, the risks for market expectations appear quite lopsided. We expect one rate hike by year end, followed by at least another 50 basis points of tightening in 2018. The U.S. 10-year yield is also about almost 50 basis points below our short-term fair value estimate (Chart I-12). Moreover, over the medium- and long-term, reduced central bank bond purchases will impart gentle upward pressure on equilibrium bond yields. Twenty-eighteen will be the first time in four years in which the net supply of government bonds available to private investors will rise, taking the U.S., U.K., Eurozone and Japanese markets as a group. This year's euro strength is unlikely to delay the next installment of ECB tapering, which we expect in early in 2018. The currency appreciation will keep a lid on inflation in the near term. However, we see the euro's ascent as reflective of the booming economy, rather than a major headwind that will derail the growth story. Overall financial conditions have tightened this year, but only back to levels that persisted through 2016 (Chart I-13). Chart I-12U.S. 10-year Yield Is Below Fair Value Chart I-13Financial Conditions It will take clear signs that the economy is being negatively affected by currency strength for the ECB to back away from tapering. Indeed, the central bank has little choice because the bond buying program is approaching important technical limits. European corporate and peripheral bond spreads are likely to widen versus bunds as a result. The implication is that global yields have significant upside potential relative to forward rates, especially in the U.S. market. Duration should be kept short. JGBs are the only safe place to hide if global yields shift up because the Bank of Japan is a long way from abandoning its 10-year yield peg. Treasury yields should lead the way higher, which will finally place a bottom under the beleaguered dollar. Nonetheless, we are tactically at neutral on the greenback. Conclusions Chart I-14Gold Loves Geopolitical Crises In light of rising geopolitical risk, the BCA Strategists recently debated trimming equity exposure to neutral. Some argued that the risk/reward balance has deteriorated; the upside is limited by poor valuation, while there is significant downside potential if the North Korean situation deteriorates alarmingly. However, the majority felt that, while there will be near-term volatility, the main equity indexes are likely to be higher on a 6-12 month horizon. Riding out the volatility is a better approach than trying to time the short-term ups and downs. That said, it appears prudent to be well shy of max overweight positions and to hold some safe haven assets within diversified portfolios. BCA research has demonstrated that U.S. Treasurys, Swiss bonds and JGBs have been the best performers in times of crisis (Chart I-14).3 The same is true for the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen, such that the currency exposure should not be hedged in these cases. The dollar is more nuanced. It tends to perform well during financial crises, but not in geopolitical crises or recessions. Gold has tended to perform well in geopolitical events and recessions, although not in financial crises. We continue to prefer Japanese to U.S. stocks in local currency terms, given that EPS growth will likely peak in the U.S. first. Japanese stocks are also better valued. Europe is a tough call because this year's currency strength will weigh on earnings in the next quarter or two. However, the negative impact on earnings will reverse if the euro retraces as we expect. EM stocks have seen the strongest positive earnings revisions this year. We continue to worry about some of the structural headwinds facing emerging markets (high debt levels, poor governance, etc.). However, the cyclical picture remains more upbeat. Chinese H-shares remain our favorite EM market, trading at just 7.5 times 2017 earnings estimates. Our dollar and duration positions have been disappointing so far this year. Much hinges on U.S. inflation. Investors appear to have adopted the idea that structural headwinds to inflation will forever dominate the cyclical pressures. This means that the bond market is totally unprepared for any upside surprises on the inflation landscape. Admittedly, a rise in bond yields may not be imminent, but the risks appear to us to be predominantly to the upside. Lastly, crude oil inventories are shrinking as our commodity strategists predicted. They remain bullish, with a price target of USD60/bbl. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst August 31, 2017 Next Report: September 28, 2017 1 Please see BCA Global ETF Strategy, "A Guide To Spotting And Weathering Bear Markets," dated August 16, 2017, available at etf.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com II. Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to one school of thought, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation. If true, it could mean that central banks are almost powerless to reach their inflation targets. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. In theory, positive supply shocks should not have more than a temporary impact on inflation if the price level is indeed a monetary phenomenon in the long term. But a series of positive supply shocks could make it appear for quite a while that low inflation is structural in nature. We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence at the macro level. The admittedly inadequate measures of online prices available today do not suggest that e-commerce sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points. Moreover, it does not appear that the disinflationary impact of competition in the retail sector has intensified over the years. Today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. However, the fact that retail margins are near secular highs outside of department stores argues against this thesis. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High profit margins for the overall corporate sector and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. Anecdotal evidence is all around us. The global economy is evolving and it seems that all of the major changes are deflationary. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. Central banks in the major advanced economies are having difficulty meeting their inflation targets, even in the U.S. where the labor market is tight by historical standards. Based on the depressed level of bond yields, it appears that the majority of investors believe that inflation headwinds will remain formidable for a long time. One school of thought is that low inflation reflects a lack of demand growth in the post-Great Financial Crisis (GFC) period. Another school points to the supply side of the economy. A recent report by Prudential Financial highlights "...obvious examples of ... new business models and new organizational structures, whereby higher-cost traditional methods of production, transportation, and distribution are displaced by more nontraditional cost-effective ways of conducting business."1 A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to this school, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation (i.e., the Phillips Curve). Employees are less aggressive in their wage demands in a world where robots are threatening humans in a broadening array of industrial categories. Many feel lucky just to have a job. In a highly sensationalized article called "How The Internet Economy Killed Inflation," Forbes argued that "the internet has reduced many of the traditional barriers to entry that protect companies from competition and created a race to the bottom for prices in a number of categories." Forbes believes that new technologies are placing downward pressure on inflation by depressing wages, increasing productivity and encouraging competition. There are many factors that have the potential to weigh on prices, but analysts are mainly focusing on e-commerce, robotics, artificial intelligence, and the gig economy. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. The latter refers to the advent of new business models that cut out layers of middlemen between producers and consumers. Amazonification E-commerce has grown at a compound annual rate of more than 9% over the past 15 years, and now accounts for about 8½% of total U.S. retail sales (Chart II-1). Amazon has been leading the charge, accounting for 43% of all online sales in 2016 (Chart II-2). Amazon's business model not only cuts costs by eliminating middlemen and (until recently) avoiding expensive showrooms, but it also provides a platform for improved price discovery on an extremely broad array of goods. In 2013, Amazon carried 230 million items for sale in the United States, nearly 30 times the number sold by Walmart, one of the largest retailers in the world. Chart II-1E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share Chart II-2Amazon Dominates With the use of a smartphone, consumers can check the price of an item on Amazon while shopping in a physical store. Studies show that it does not require a large price gap for shoppers to buy online rather than in-store. Amazon appears to be impacting other retailers' ability to pass though cost increases, leading to a rash of retail outlet closings. Sears alone announced the closure of 300 retail outlets this year. The devastation that Amazon inflicted on the book industry is well known. It is no wonder then, that Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods Market, a grocery chain, sent shivers down the spines of CEOs not only in the food industry, but in the broader retail industry as well. What would prevent Amazon from applying its model to furniture and appliances, electronics or drugstores? It seems that no retail space is safe. A Little Theory Before we turn to the evidence, let's review the macro theory related to positive supply shocks. The internet could be lowering prices by moving product markets toward the "perfect competition" model. The internet trims search costs, improves price transparency and reduces barriers to entry. The internet also allows for shorter supply chains, as layers of wholesalers and other intermediaries are removed and e-commerce companies allow more direct contact between consumers and producers. Fewer inventories and a smaller "brick and mortar" infrastructure take additional costs out of the system. Economic theory suggests that the result of this positive supply shock will be greater product market competition, increased productivity and reduced profitability. In the long run, workers should benefit from the productivity boost via real wage gains (even if nominal wage growth is lackluster). Workers may lower their reservation wage if they feel that increased competitive pressures or technology threaten their jobs. The internet is also likely to improve job matching between the unemployed and available vacancies, which should lead to a fall in the full-employment level of unemployment (NAIRU). Nonetheless, the internet should not have a permanent impact on inflation. The lower level of NAIRU and the direct effects of the internet on consumer prices discussed above allow inflation to fall below the central bank's target. The bank responds by lowering interest rates, stimulating demand and thereby driving unemployment down to the new lower level of NAIRU. Over time, inflation will drift back up toward target. In other words, a greater degree of the competition should boost the supply side of the economy and lower NAIRU, but it should not result in a permanently lower rate of inflation if inflation is indeed a monetary phenomenon and central banks strive to meet their targets. Still, one could imagine a series of supply shocks that are spread out over time, with each having a temporary negative impact on prices such that it appears for a while that inflation has been permanently depressed. This could be an accurate description of the current situation in the U.S. and some of the other major countries. We have sympathy for the view that the internet and new business models are increasing competition, cutting costs and thereby limiting price increases in some areas. But is there any hard evidence? Is the competitive effect that large, and is it any more intense than in the past? There are a number of reasons to be skeptical because most of the evidence does not support Forbes' claim that the internet has killed inflation. (1) E-commerce affects only a small part of the Consumer Price Index As mentioned above, online shopping for goods represents 8.5% of total retail sales in the U.S. E-commerce is concentrated in four kinds of businesses (Table II-1): Furniture & Home Furnishings (7% of total retail sales), Electronics & Appliances (20%), Health & Personal Care (15%), and Clothing (10%). Since goods make up 40% of the CPI, then 3.2% (8% times 40%) is a ballpark estimate for the size of goods e-commerce in the CPI. Table II-1E-Commerce Market Share Of Goods Sector (2015) Table II-2 shows the relative size of e-commerce in the service sector. The analysis is complicated by the fact that the data on services includes B-to-B sales in addition to B-to-C.2 However, e-commerce represents almost 4% of total sales for the service categories tracked by the BLS. Services make up 60% of the CPI, but the size drops to 26% if we exclude shelter (which is probably not affected by online shopping). Thus, e-commerce in the service sector likely affects 1% (3.9% times 26%) of the CPI. Table II-2E-Commerce Market Share Of Service Sector (2015) Adding goods and services, online shopping affects about 4.2% of the CPI index at most. The bottom line is that the relatively small size of e-commerce at the consumer level limits any estimate of the impact of online sales on the broad inflation rate. (2) Most of the deceleration in inflation since 2007 has been in areas unaffected by e-commerce Table II-3 compares the average contribution to annual average CPI inflation during 2000-2007 with that of 2007-2016. Average annual inflation fell from 2.9% in the seven years before the Great Recession to 1.8% after, for a total decline of just over 1 percentage point. The deceleration is almost fully explained by Energy, Food and Owners' Equivalent Rent. The bottom part of Table II-3 highlights that the sectors with the greatest exposure to e-commerce had a negligible impact on the inflation slowdown. Table II-3Comparison Of Pre- and Post-Lehman Inflation Rates (3) The cost advantages for online sellers are overstated Bain & Company, a U.S. consultancy, argues that e-commerce will not grow in importance indefinitely and come to dominate consumer spending.3 E-commerce sales are already slowing. Market share is following a classic S-shaped curve that, Bain estimates, will top out at under 30% by 2030. First, not everyone wants to buy everything online. Products that are well known to consumers and purchased on a regular basis are well suited to online shopping. But for many other products, consumers need to see and feel the product in person before making a purchase. Second, the cost savings of online selling versus traditional brick and mortar stores is not as great as many believe. Bain claims that many e-commerce businesses struggle to make a profit. The information technology, distribution centers, shipping, and returns processing required by e-commerce companies can cost as much as running physical stores in some cases. E-tailers often cannot ship directly from manufacturers to consumers; they need large and expensive fulfillment centers and a very generous returns policy. Moreover, online and offline sales models are becoming blurred. Retailers with physical stores are growing their e-commerce operations, while previously pure e-commerce plays are adding stores or negotiating space in other retailers' stores. Even Amazon now has storefronts. The shift toward an "multichannel" selling model underscores that there are benefits to traditional brick-and-mortar stores that will ensure that they will not completely disappear. (4) E-commerce is not the first revolution in the retail sector The retail sector has changed significantly over the decades and it is not clear that the disinflationary effect of the latest revolution, e-commerce, is any more intense than in the past. Economists at Goldman Sachs point out that the growth of Amazon's market share in recent years still lags that of Walmart and other "big box" stores in the 1990s (Chart II-3).4 This fact suggests that "Amazonification" may not be as disinflationary as the previous big-box revolution. (5) Weak productivity growth and high profit margins are inconsistent with a large supply-side benefit from e-commerce As discussed above, economic theory suggests that a positive supply shock that cuts costs and boosts competition should trim profit margins and lift productivity. The problem is that the margins and productivity have moved in the opposite direction that economic theory would suggest (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Amazon Vs. Walmart: ##br##Who's More Deflationary? Chart II-4Incompatible With A Supply Shock By definition, productivity rises when firms can produce the same output with fewer or cheaper inputs. However, it is well documented that productivity growth has been in a downtrend since the 1990s, and has been dismally low since the Great Recession. A Special Report from BCA's Global Investment Strategy5 service makes a convincing case that mismeasurement is not behind the low productivity figures. In fact, in many industries it appears that productivity is over-estimated. If e-commerce is big enough to "move the dial" on overall inflation, it should be big enough to see in the aggregate productivity figures. Chart II-5Retail Margin Squeeze ##br##Only In Department Stores One would also expect to see a margin squeeze across industries if e-commerce is indeed generating a lot of deflationary competitive pressure. Despite dismally depressed productivity, however, corporate profit margins are at the high end of the historical range across most of the sectors of the S&P 500. This is the case even in the retailing sector outside of department stores (Chart II-5). These facts argue against the idea that the internet has moved the economy further toward a disinflationary "perfect competition" model. (6) Online price setting is characterized by frictions comparable to traditional retail We would expect to observe a low price dispersion across online vendors since the internet has apparently lowered the cost of monitoring competitors' prices and the cost of searching for the lowest price. We would also expect to see fairly synchronized price adjustments; if one vendor adjusts its price due to changing market conditions, then the rest should quickly follow to avoid suffering a massive loss of market share. However, a recent study of price-setting practices in the U.S. and U.K. found that this is not the case.6 The dataset covered a broad spectrum of consumer goods and sellers over a two-year period, comparing online with offline prices. The researchers found that market pricing "frictions" are surprisingly elevated in the online world. Price dispersion is high in absolute terms and on par with offline pricing. Academics for years have puzzled over high price rigidities and dispersion in retail stores in the context of an apparently stiff competitive environment, and it appears that online pricing is not much better. The study did not cover a long enough period to see if frictions were even worse in the past. Nonetheless, the evidence available suggests that the lower cost of monitoring prices afforded by the internet has not led to significant price convergence across sellers online or offline. Another study compared online and offline prices for multichannel retailers, using the massive database provided by the Billion Prices Project at MIT.7 The database covers prices across 10 countries. The study found that retailers charged the same price online as in-store in 72% of cases. The average discount was 4% for those cases in which there was a markdown online. If the observations with identical prices are included, the average online/offline price difference was just 1%. (7) Some measures of online prices have grown at about the same pace as the CPI index The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does include online sales when constructing the Consumer Price Index. It even includes peer-to-peer sales by companies such as Airbnb and Uber. However, the BLS admits that its sample lags the popularity of such services by a few years. Moreover, while the BLS is trying to capture the rising proportion of sales done via e-commerce, "outlet bias" means that the CPI does not capture the price effect in cases where consumers are finding cheaper prices online. This is because the BLS weights the growth rate of online and offline prices, not the price levels. While there may be level differences, there is no reason to believe that the inflation rates for similar goods sold online and offline differ significantly. If the inflation rates are close, then the growing share of online sales will not affect overall inflation based on the BLS methodology. The BLS argues that any bias in the CPI due to outlet bias is mitigated to the extent that physical stores offer a higher level of service. Thus, price differences may not be that great after quality-adjustment. All this suggests that the actual consumer price inflation rate could be somewhat lower than the official rate. Nonetheless, it does not necessarily mean that inflation, properly measured, is being depressed by e-commerce to a meaningful extent. Indeed, Chart II-6 highlights that the U.S. component of the Billion Prices Index rose at a faster pace than the overall CPI between 2009 and 2014. The Online Price Index fell in absolute and relative terms from 2014 to mid-2016, but rose sharply toward the end of 2016. Applying our guesstimate of the weight of e-commerce in the CPI (3.2% for goods), online price inflation added to overall annual CPI inflation by about 0.3 percentage points in 2016 (bottom panel of Chart II-6). There is more deflation evident in the BLS' index of prices for Electronic Shopping and Mail Order Houses (Chart II-7). Online prices fell relative to the overall CPI for most of the time since the early 1990s, with the relative price decline accelerating since the GFC. However, our estimate of the contribution to overall annual CPI inflation is only about -0.15 percentage points in June 2017, and has never been more than -0.3 percentage points. This could be an underestimate because it does not include the impact of services, although the service e-commerce share of the CPI is very small. Chart II-6Online Price Index Chart II-7Electronic Shopping Price Index Another way to approach this question is to focus on the parts of the CPI that are most exposed to e-commerce. It is impossible to separate the effect of e-commerce on inflation from other drivers of productivity. Nonetheless, if online shopping is having a significant deflationary impact on overall inflation, we should see large and persistent negative contributions from these parts of the CPI. We combined the components of the CPI that most closely matched the sectors that have high e-commerce exposure according to the BLS' annual Retail Survey (Chart II-8). The sectors in our aggregate e-commerce price proxy include hotels/motels, taxicabs, books & magazines, clothing, computer hardware, drugs, health & beauty aids, electronics & appliances, alcoholic beverages, furniture & home furnishings, sporting goods, air transportation, travel arrangement and reservation services, educational services and other merchandise. The sectors are weighted based on their respective weights in the CPI. Our e-commerce price proxy has generally fallen relative to the overall CPI index since 2000. However, while the average contribution of these sectors to the overall annual CPI inflation rate has fallen in the post GFC period relative to the 2000-2007 period, the average difference is only 0.2 percentage points. The contribution has hovered around the zero mark for the past 2½ years. Surprisingly, price indexes have increased by more than the overall CPI since 2000 in some sectors where one would have expected to see significant relative price deflation, such as taxis, hotels, travel arrangement and even books. One could argue that significant measurement error must be a factor. How could the price of books have gone up faster than the CPI? Sectors displaying the most relative price declines are clothing, computers, electronics, furniture, sporting goods, air travel and other goods. We recalculated our e-commerce proxy using only these deflating sectors, but we boosted their weights such that the overall weight of the proxy in the CPI is kept the same as our full e-commerce proxy discussed above. In other words, this approach implicitly assumes that the excluded sectors (taxis, books, hotels and travel arrangement) actually deflated at the average pace of the sectors that remain in the index. Our adjusted e-commerce proxy suggests that online pricing reduced overall CPI inflation by about 0.1-to-0.2 percentage points in recent years (Chart II-9). This contribution is below the long-term average of the series, but the drag was even greater several times in the past. Chart II-8BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index Chart II-9BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index Admittedly, data limitations mean that all of the above estimates of the impact of e-commerce are ballpark figures. Conclusions We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence. The available data are admittedly far from ideal for confirming or disproving the "Amazonification" thesis. Perhaps better measures of e-commerce pricing will emerge in the future. Nonetheless, the measures available today do not suggest that online sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points, and it does not appear that the disinflationary impact has intensified by much. One could argue that lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. Nonetheless, if this were the case, then we would expect to see significant margin compression in the retail sector. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High corporate profit margins and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Finally, today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. Rising online activity means that we need fewer shopping malls and big box outlets to support a given level of consumer spending. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. To the extent that central banks were slow to recognize that equilibrium rates had fallen to extremely low levels, then policy was behind the curve and this might have contributed to the current low inflation environment. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Robert F. DeLucia, "Economic Perspective: A Nontraditional Analysis Of Inflation," Prudential Capital Group (August 21, 2017). 2 Business to business, and business to consumer. 3 Aaron Cheris, Darrell Rigby and Suzanne Tager, "The Power Of Omnichannel Stores," Bain & Company Insights: Retail Holiday Newsletter 2016-2017 (December 19, 2016). 4 "US Daily: The Internet And Inflation: How Big Is The Amazon Effect?" Goldman Sachs Economic Research (August 2, 2017). 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Viacheslav Sheremirov, and Oleksandr Talavera, "Price Setting In Online Markets: Does IT Click?" Journal of the European Economic Association (July 2016). 7 Alberto Cavallo, "Are Online And Offline Prices Similar? Evidence From Large Multi-Channel Retailers," NBER Working Paper No. 22142 (March 2016). III. Indicators And Reference Charts Stocks struggled in August on the back of intensifying geopolitical risks, such that equity returns slipped versus bonds in the month. The earnings backdrop remains constructive for global stocks. In the U.S., 12-month forward EPS estimates continue to climb, in line with upbeat net revisions and earnings surprises. Nonetheless, the risk/reward balance has deteriorated due to escalating risks inside and outside of the U.S. Allocation to risk assets should still exceed benchmark, but should be shy of maximum settings. It is prudent to hold some of the traditional safe haven assets, including gold. Our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) remained at 100% in August, sending a bullish message for equities. We introduced the RPI in the July report. Quite simply, it combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks for the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The U.S. WTP topped out in June and the same occurred in August for the Japan and the Eurozone indexes. While the indicators are still bullish, they highlight that flows into the equity markets in the major countries are beginning to moderate. These indicators would have to clearly turn lower to provide a bearish signal for stocks. The VIX increased last month, but remains depressed by historical standards. This implies that the equity market is vulnerable to bad news. However, investor sentiment is close to neutral and our speculation index has pulled back from previously elevated levels. These suggest that investors are not overly long at the moment. Our monetary indicator is only slightly negative, but the equity technical indicator is close to breaking below the 9-month moving average (a negative technical sign). Bond valuation continues to hover near fair value, according to our long-standing model that is based on a simple regression of the nominal 10-year yield on short-term real interest rates and a moving average of inflation. Another model, presented in the Overview section, estimates fair value based on dollar sentiment, a measure of policy uncertainty and the global PMI. This model suggests that the 10-year yield is almost 50 basis points on the expensive side. We think that Fed rate expectations are far too benign, suggesting that bond yields will rise. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China

特別レポート

A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to one school of thought, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation. If true, it could mean that central banks are almost powerless to reach their inflation targets. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. In theory, positive supply shocks should not have more than a temporary impact on inflation if the price level is indeed a monetary phenomenon in the long term. But a series of positive supply shocks could make it appear for quite a while that low inflation is structural in nature. We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence at the macro level. The admittedly inadequate measures of online prices available today do not suggest that e-commerce sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points. Moreover, it does not appear that the disinflationary impact of competition in the retail sector has intensified over the years. Today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. However, the fact that retail margins are near secular highs outside of department stores argues against this thesis. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High profit margins for the overall corporate sector and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. Anecdotal evidence is all around us. The global economy is evolving and it seems that all of the major changes are deflationary. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. Central banks in the major advanced economies are having difficulty meeting their inflation targets, even in the U.S. where the labor market is tight by historical standards. Based on the depressed level of bond yields, it appears that the majority of investors believe that inflation headwinds will remain formidable for a long time. One school of thought is that low inflation reflects a lack of demand growth in the post-Great Financial Crisis (GFC) period. Another school points to the supply side of the economy. A recent report by Prudential Financial highlights "...obvious examples of ... new business models and new organizational structures, whereby higher-cost traditional methods of production, transportation, and distribution are displaced by more nontraditional cost-effective ways of conducting business."1 A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to this school, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation (i.e., the Phillips Curve). Employees are less aggressive in their wage demands in a world where robots are threatening humans in a broadening array of industrial categories. Many feel lucky just to have a job. In a highly sensationalized article called "How The Internet Economy Killed Inflation," Forbes argued that "the internet has reduced many of the traditional barriers to entry that protect companies from competition and created a race to the bottom for prices in a number of categories." Forbes believes that new technologies are placing downward pressure on inflation by depressing wages, increasing productivity and encouraging competition. There are many factors that have the potential to weigh on prices, but analysts are mainly focusing on e-commerce, robotics, artificial intelligence, and the gig economy. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. The latter refers to the advent of new business models that cut out layers of middlemen between producers and consumers. Amazonification E-commerce has grown at a compound annual rate of more than 9% over the past 15 years, and now accounts for about 8½% of total U.S. retail sales (Chart II-1). Amazon has been leading the charge, accounting for 43% of all online sales in 2016 (Chart II-2). Amazon's business model not only cuts costs by eliminating middlemen and (until recently) avoiding expensive showrooms, but it also provides a platform for improved price discovery on an extremely broad array of goods. In 2013, Amazon carried 230 million items for sale in the United States, nearly 30 times the number sold by Walmart, one of the largest retailers in the world. Chart II-1E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share Chart II-2Amazon Dominates With the use of a smartphone, consumers can check the price of an item on Amazon while shopping in a physical store. Studies show that it does not require a large price gap for shoppers to buy online rather than in-store. Amazon appears to be impacting other retailers' ability to pass though cost increases, leading to a rash of retail outlet closings. Sears alone announced the closure of 300 retail outlets this year. The devastation that Amazon inflicted on the book industry is well known. It is no wonder then, that Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods Market, a grocery chain, sent shivers down the spines of CEOs not only in the food industry, but in the broader retail industry as well. What would prevent Amazon from applying its model to furniture and appliances, electronics or drugstores? It seems that no retail space is safe. A Little Theory Before we turn to the evidence, let's review the macro theory related to positive supply shocks. The internet could be lowering prices by moving product markets toward the "perfect competition" model. The internet trims search costs, improves price transparency and reduces barriers to entry. The internet also allows for shorter supply chains, as layers of wholesalers and other intermediaries are removed and e-commerce companies allow more direct contact between consumers and producers. Fewer inventories and a smaller "brick and mortar" infrastructure take additional costs out of the system. Economic theory suggests that the result of this positive supply shock will be greater product market competition, increased productivity and reduced profitability. In the long run, workers should benefit from the productivity boost via real wage gains (even if nominal wage growth is lackluster). Workers may lower their reservation wage if they feel that increased competitive pressures or technology threaten their jobs. The internet is also likely to improve job matching between the unemployed and available vacancies, which should lead to a fall in the full-employment level of unemployment (NAIRU). Nonetheless, the internet should not have a permanent impact on inflation. The lower level of NAIRU and the direct effects of the internet on consumer prices discussed above allow inflation to fall below the central bank's target. The bank responds by lowering interest rates, stimulating demand and thereby driving unemployment down to the new lower level of NAIRU. Over time, inflation will drift back up toward target. In other words, a greater degree of the competition should boost the supply side of the economy and lower NAIRU, but it should not result in a permanently lower rate of inflation if inflation is indeed a monetary phenomenon and central banks strive to meet their targets. Still, one could imagine a series of supply shocks that are spread out over time, with each having a temporary negative impact on prices such that it appears for a while that inflation has been permanently depressed. This could be an accurate description of the current situation in the U.S. and some of the other major countries. We have sympathy for the view that the internet and new business models are increasing competition, cutting costs and thereby limiting price increases in some areas. But is there any hard evidence? Is the competitive effect that large, and is it any more intense than in the past? There are a number of reasons to be skeptical because most of the evidence does not support Forbes' claim that the internet has killed inflation. (1) E-commerce affects only a small part of the Consumer Price Index As mentioned above, online shopping for goods represents 8.5% of total retail sales in the U.S. E-commerce is concentrated in four kinds of businesses (Table II-1): Furniture & Home Furnishings (7% of total retail sales), Electronics & Appliances (20%), Health & Personal Care (15%), and Clothing (10%). Since goods make up 40% of the CPI, then 3.2% (8% times 40%) is a ballpark estimate for the size of goods e-commerce in the CPI. Table II-1E-Commerce Market Share Of Goods Sector (2015) Table II-2 shows the relative size of e-commerce in the service sector. The analysis is complicated by the fact that the data on services includes B-to-B sales in addition to B-to-C.2 However, e-commerce represents almost 4% of total sales for the service categories tracked by the BLS. Services make up 60% of the CPI, but the size drops to 26% if we exclude shelter (which is probably not affected by online shopping). Thus, e-commerce in the service sector likely affects 1% (3.9% times 26%) of the CPI. Table II-2E-Commerce Market Share Of Service Sector (2015) Adding goods and services, online shopping affects about 4.2% of the CPI index at most. The bottom line is that the relatively small size of e-commerce at the consumer level limits any estimate of the impact of online sales on the broad inflation rate. (2) Most of the deceleration in inflation since 2007 has been in areas unaffected by e-commerce Table II-3 compares the average contribution to annual average CPI inflation during 2000-2007 with that of 2007-2016. Average annual inflation fell from 2.9% in the seven years before the Great Recession to 1.8% after, for a total decline of just over 1 percentage point. The deceleration is almost fully explained by Energy, Food and Owners' Equivalent Rent. The bottom part of Table II-3 highlights that the sectors with the greatest exposure to e-commerce had a negligible impact on the inflation slowdown. Table II-3Comparison Of Pre- and Post-Lehman Inflation Rates (3) The cost advantages for online sellers are overstated Bain & Company, a U.S. consultancy, argues that e-commerce will not grow in importance indefinitely and come to dominate consumer spending.3 E-commerce sales are already slowing. Market share is following a classic S-shaped curve that, Bain estimates, will top out at under 30% by 2030. First, not everyone wants to buy everything online. Products that are well known to consumers and purchased on a regular basis are well suited to online shopping. But for many other products, consumers need to see and feel the product in person before making a purchase. Second, the cost savings of online selling versus traditional brick and mortar stores is not as great as many believe. Bain claims that many e-commerce businesses struggle to make a profit. The information technology, distribution centers, shipping, and returns processing required by e-commerce companies can cost as much as running physical stores in some cases. E-tailers often cannot ship directly from manufacturers to consumers; they need large and expensive fulfillment centers and a very generous returns policy. Moreover, online and offline sales models are becoming blurred. Retailers with physical stores are growing their e-commerce operations, while previously pure e-commerce plays are adding stores or negotiating space in other retailers' stores. Even Amazon now has storefronts. The shift toward an "multichannel" selling model underscores that there are benefits to traditional brick-and-mortar stores that will ensure that they will not completely disappear. (4) E-commerce is not the first revolution in the retail sector The retail sector has changed significantly over the decades and it is not clear that the disinflationary effect of the latest revolution, e-commerce, is any more intense than in the past. Economists at Goldman Sachs point out that the growth of Amazon's market share in recent years still lags that of Walmart and other "big box" stores in the 1990s (Chart II-3).4 This fact suggests that "Amazonification" may not be as disinflationary as the previous big-box revolution. (5) Weak productivity growth and high profit margins are inconsistent with a large supply-side benefit from e-commerce As discussed above, economic theory suggests that a positive supply shock that cuts costs and boosts competition should trim profit margins and lift productivity. The problem is that the margins and productivity have moved in the opposite direction that economic theory would suggest (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Amazon Vs. Walmart: ##br##Who's More Deflationary? Chart II-4Incompatible With A Supply Shock By definition, productivity rises when firms can produce the same output with fewer or cheaper inputs. However, it is well documented that productivity growth has been in a downtrend since the 1990s, and has been dismally low since the Great Recession. A Special Report from BCA's Global Investment Strategy5 service makes a convincing case that mismeasurement is not behind the low productivity figures. In fact, in many industries it appears that productivity is over-estimated. If e-commerce is big enough to "move the dial" on overall inflation, it should be big enough to see in the aggregate productivity figures. Chart II-5Retail Margin Squeeze ##br##Only In Department Stores One would also expect to see a margin squeeze across industries if e-commerce is indeed generating a lot of deflationary competitive pressure. Despite dismally depressed productivity, however, corporate profit margins are at the high end of the historical range across most of the sectors of the S&P 500. This is the case even in the retailing sector outside of department stores (Chart II-5). These facts argue against the idea that the internet has moved the economy further toward a disinflationary "perfect competition" model. (6) Online price setting is characterized by frictions comparable to traditional retail We would expect to observe a low price dispersion across online vendors since the internet has apparently lowered the cost of monitoring competitors' prices and the cost of searching for the lowest price. We would also expect to see fairly synchronized price adjustments; if one vendor adjusts its price due to changing market conditions, then the rest should quickly follow to avoid suffering a massive loss of market share. However, a recent study of price-setting practices in the U.S. and U.K. found that this is not the case.6 The dataset covered a broad spectrum of consumer goods and sellers over a two-year period, comparing online with offline prices. The researchers found that market pricing "frictions" are surprisingly elevated in the online world. Price dispersion is high in absolute terms and on par with offline pricing. Academics for years have puzzled over high price rigidities and dispersion in retail stores in the context of an apparently stiff competitive environment, and it appears that online pricing is not much better. The study did not cover a long enough period to see if frictions were even worse in the past. Nonetheless, the evidence available suggests that the lower cost of monitoring prices afforded by the internet has not led to significant price convergence across sellers online or offline. Another study compared online and offline prices for multichannel retailers, using the massive database provided by the Billion Prices Project at MIT.7 The database covers prices across 10 countries. The study found that retailers charged the same price online as in-store in 72% of cases. The average discount was 4% for those cases in which there was a markdown online. If the observations with identical prices are included, the average online/offline price difference was just 1%. (7) Some measures of online prices have grown at about the same pace as the CPI index The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does include online sales when constructing the Consumer Price Index. It even includes peer-to-peer sales by companies such as Airbnb and Uber. However, the BLS admits that its sample lags the popularity of such services by a few years. Moreover, while the BLS is trying to capture the rising proportion of sales done via e-commerce, "outlet bias" means that the CPI does not capture the price effect in cases where consumers are finding cheaper prices online. This is because the BLS weights the growth rate of online and offline prices, not the price levels. While there may be level differences, there is no reason to believe that the inflation rates for similar goods sold online and offline differ significantly. If the inflation rates are close, then the growing share of online sales will not affect overall inflation based on the BLS methodology. The BLS argues that any bias in the CPI due to outlet bias is mitigated to the extent that physical stores offer a higher level of service. Thus, price differences may not be that great after quality-adjustment. All this suggests that the actual consumer price inflation rate could be somewhat lower than the official rate. Nonetheless, it does not necessarily mean that inflation, properly measured, is being depressed by e-commerce to a meaningful extent. Indeed, Chart II-6 highlights that the U.S. component of the Billion Prices Index rose at a faster pace than the overall CPI between 2009 and 2014. The Online Price Index fell in absolute and relative terms from 2014 to mid-2016, but rose sharply toward the end of 2016. Applying our guesstimate of the weight of e-commerce in the CPI (3.2% for goods), online price inflation added to overall annual CPI inflation by about 0.3 percentage points in 2016 (bottom panel of Chart II-6). There is more deflation evident in the BLS' index of prices for Electronic Shopping and Mail Order Houses (Chart II-7). Online prices fell relative to the overall CPI for most of the time since the early 1990s, with the relative price decline accelerating since the GFC. However, our estimate of the contribution to overall annual CPI inflation is only about -0.15 percentage points in June 2017, and has never been more than -0.3 percentage points. This could be an underestimate because it does not include the impact of services, although the service e-commerce share of the CPI is very small. Chart II-6Online Price Index Chart II-7Electronic Shopping Price Index Another way to approach this question is to focus on the parts of the CPI that are most exposed to e-commerce. It is impossible to separate the effect of e-commerce on inflation from other drivers of productivity. Nonetheless, if online shopping is having a significant deflationary impact on overall inflation, we should see large and persistent negative contributions from these parts of the CPI. We combined the components of the CPI that most closely matched the sectors that have high e-commerce exposure according to the BLS' annual Retail Survey (Chart II-8). The sectors in our aggregate e-commerce price proxy include hotels/motels, taxicabs, books & magazines, clothing, computer hardware, drugs, health & beauty aids, electronics & appliances, alcoholic beverages, furniture & home furnishings, sporting goods, air transportation, travel arrangement and reservation services, educational services and other merchandise. The sectors are weighted based on their respective weights in the CPI. Our e-commerce price proxy has generally fallen relative to the overall CPI index since 2000. However, while the average contribution of these sectors to the overall annual CPI inflation rate has fallen in the post GFC period relative to the 2000-2007 period, the average difference is only 0.2 percentage points. The contribution has hovered around the zero mark for the past 2½ years. Surprisingly, price indexes have increased by more than the overall CPI since 2000 in some sectors where one would have expected to see significant relative price deflation, such as taxis, hotels, travel arrangement and even books. One could argue that significant measurement error must be a factor. How could the price of books have gone up faster than the CPI? Sectors displaying the most relative price declines are clothing, computers, electronics, furniture, sporting goods, air travel and other goods. We recalculated our e-commerce proxy using only these deflating sectors, but we boosted their weights such that the overall weight of the proxy in the CPI is kept the same as our full e-commerce proxy discussed above. In other words, this approach implicitly assumes that the excluded sectors (taxis, books, hotels and travel arrangement) actually deflated at the average pace of the sectors that remain in the index. Our adjusted e-commerce proxy suggests that online pricing reduced overall CPI inflation by about 0.1-to-0.2 percentage points in recent years (Chart II-9). This contribution is below the long-term average of the series, but the drag was even greater several times in the past. Chart II-8BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index Chart II-9BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index Admittedly, data limitations mean that all of the above estimates of the impact of e-commerce are ballpark figures. Conclusions We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence. The available data are admittedly far from ideal for confirming or disproving the "Amazonification" thesis. Perhaps better measures of e-commerce pricing will emerge in the future. Nonetheless, the measures available today do not suggest that online sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points, and it does not appear that the disinflationary impact has intensified by much. One could argue that lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. Nonetheless, if this were the case, then we would expect to see significant margin compression in the retail sector. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High corporate profit margins and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Finally, today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. Rising online activity means that we need fewer shopping malls and big box outlets to support a given level of consumer spending. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. To the extent that central banks were slow to recognize that equilibrium rates had fallen to extremely low levels, then policy was behind the curve and this might have contributed to the current low inflation environment. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Robert F. DeLucia, "Economic Perspective: A Nontraditional Analysis Of Inflation," Prudential Capital Group (August 21, 2017). 2 Business to business, and business to consumer. 3 Aaron Cheris, Darrell Rigby and Suzanne Tager, "The Power Of Omnichannel Stores," Bain & Company Insights: Retail Holiday Newsletter 2016-2017 (December 19, 2016). 4 "US Daily: The Internet And Inflation: How Big Is The Amazon Effect?" Goldman Sachs Economic Research (August 2, 2017). 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Viacheslav Sheremirov, and Oleksandr Talavera, "Price Setting In Online Markets: Does IT Click?" Journal of the European Economic Association (July 2016). 7 Alberto Cavallo, "Are Online And Offline Prices Similar? Evidence From Large Multi-Channel Retailers," NBER Working Paper No. 22142 (March 2016).

Highlights The strong labor market may be holding down wage inflation. The strength in sales and EPS is broad-based and sustainable. July FOMC minutes highlight internal debate at the Fed over inflation. Financial stability is the Fed's Third Mandate. Feature Risk assets struggled again last week but Treasury yields held steady as investors reacted to President Trump's latest controversy, the FOMC minutes, another round of solid economic data for Q3 and the final few earnings reports of the Q2 reporting season. The July FOMC minutes highlighted the internal debate at the Fed about the Phillips curve and financial stability. Nonetheless, we expect the Fed to continue to tighten policy later this year. In this week's report, we examine a study by the San Francisco Fed that highlights the negative impact of a strong labor market on wages. Profit margins continued to expand in Q2 and the BCA EPS model projects a solid 2H performance, driven by both domestic and globally oriented firms. Strong Labor Market, Weak Wages The labor market continues to tighten measures of overall labor market slack suggest that wage inflation should accelerate soon. Still, slack remains in some segments of the labor market and that may be depressing overall wage growth. The overall quit rate (2.1%) is slightly below its all-time peak and 65% of the 11 industry groups have quit rates that are at or close to pre-global financial crisis level (Chart 1). Moreover, fill rates, the ratio of hires to job openings, for most industries are at record lows, and job openings in all but the wholesale trade, information, mining & logging and construction areas have surpassed prior peaks (Chart 2). The implication is that economy-wide, there are more jobs seekers than jobs, which will ultimately force businesses to offer higher salaries. Chart 1Labor Market Strength Is Widespread... Chart 2...With Only A Few Industries Lagging Behind Moreover, wage pressures are mounting, especially for full-time employees. A recent study1 published by the San Francisco Fed found that at 3.4%, the year-over-year change in median weekly earnings was still below the 2007 peak. However, wage gains for continuously employed full-time workers (4.8%) are in line with rates seen a decade ago (Chart 3). Overall wage gains continue to be suppressed by new entrants to the labor force. Growth rates of median weekly earnings for this group are down 1.4%, and have been negative since the overall labor market began to recover in early 2010. The counter-intuitive implication of the SF Fed study is that substantial gains in the labor market may be depressing average wage rates. As individuals learn about better prospects for employment, they choose to join the workforce, either as new entrants (from school) or as reentrants (those who left either voluntarily or involuntarily). These groups, according to the study, have suppressed median weekly earnings growth by between 1.5% and 2.0% (Chart 4). Chart 3Wage Inflation Dragged##BR##Down By New Entrants Chart 41.5% To 2% Drag On Wage Inflation##BR##Due To Compositional Shifts In Workforce In addition, as 10,000 higher paid baby boomers reach 65 years of age each day and leave the labor force, they are replaced by lower wage earners. Bottom Line: The labor market is even tighter than the data suggests and the market's vigor may be understating wage inflation. Investors are mis-pricing the extent of rate hikes in 2017 and 2018. Bond yields are likely headed higher, but the stock market should take this in stride because of the favorable earnings backdrop. Corporate Profits Are Not Only A Weak Dollar Story EPS and sales growth in Q2 ran well ahead of consensus expectations as forecast in our July 3 preview. Moreover, the counter-trend rally in profit margins is still in place. So far, more than 90% of companies have reported results with 74% of companies beating consensus EPS projections, just above the long-term average of 70% (Chart 5). Furthermore, 69% have posted Q2 revenues that exceeded expectations. The surprise factor for Q2 stands at 6% for EPS and 1% for sales. We anticipate the secular mean-reversion of margins to ultimately re-assert itself, perhaps beginning early in 2018. Nonetheless, we saw another quarter of margin expansion in Q2. Average earnings growth (Q2 2017 versus Q2 2016) was strong at 12% with revenue growth at only 5%. The BCA Earnings model predicts EPS growth to hit roughly 20% later this year on a 4-quarter moving total basis, before moderating in 2018 (Chart 6). Measured this way, S&P 500 EPS growth in Q2 will be 18%, compared with 13% in Q1. Chart 5Positive Earnings Surprises Continued In Q2 Chart 6Strong EPS Growth Expected In 2H '17 Importantly, the strength in earnings and revenues is broadly based (Table 1). Earnings per share were higher in Q2 2017 versus Q2 2016 in all 11 sectors. Results were particularly strong in energy, technology and financials. Energy revenues surged by 16% in Q2 versus a year ago. Sales gains in technology (8%), materials (7%) and utilities (6%), are notable. Moreover, year-over-year sales gains in Q2 2017 in all but three sectors (telecom, consumer staples and consumer discretionary) ran ahead of nominal GDP (+3.7%) in the same period. Investors will turn their attention to earnings prospects in 2H 2017 and 2018 as the Q2 reporting season ends. Since the start of 2017, the trajectory of EPS estimates for 2017 and 2018 (not shown) has been encouraging. The forecast for 2017 is 11.6%, up from 11% at the outset of the Q2 reporting season and unchanged from the start of the year. Similarly, the 2018 estimate (10.9%) is little changed from estimates made in January 2017. In a typical year, earnings estimates tend to move lower as the year progresses. Like the financial markets, corporate managements have largely ignored President Trump during this earnings season. Trump's name was used only once in Q2 earnings calls held through August 11, down from 9 in Q1 calls and 32 in the Q4 2016 reporting season just after Trump took office (Chart 7). The single mention thus far matches the number of times that CEOs and CFOs cited Trump's name before last November's election. We are inclined to see fading concerns about government policy from the next Beige Book (due in early September) because Trump has managed to slow regulation2 during his first seven months in office, although uncertainty around the president's legislative agenda remains elevated. Table 1S&P 500: Q2 2017 Results* Chart 7Trump Fading As Topic On Earnings Calls BCA's case for improving profits in the second half of 2017 is supported by the August readings on the Empire State and Philadelphia Fed manufacturing indices, along with the June and July readings on industrial production (IP). IP has been a good proxy for sales of S&P 500 companies (Chart 8); a rollover in the 12-month change in IP would challenge BCA's constructive view towards earnings. However, strong readings on the ISM (July), the August Empire State and Philadelphia Fed indices suggest that IP should accelerate in the next six months. Moreover, the weaker dollar has boosted foreign demand for U.S. goods and services. The implication is that foreign demand (rather than domestic consumer or business spending) leads the U.S. manufacturing sector. Consistent with this perspective, the 3- and 12-month changes in the IP indices in advanced economies outside the U.S. have outpaced domestic growth (Chart 9). Chart 8Favorable Backdrop For Earnings And Sales Continues Into Q3 Chart 9U.S. IP Growth Still Lagging##BR##Other Developed Markets... Movements in the U.S. dollar also explain the divergent paths of profits, sales and margins of domestically focused corporations versus globally oriented ones. In recent quarters, the weaker dollar has allowed profit and sales gains of globally oriented firms to rebound and outpace those of domestically focused businesses. (Table 2 and Chart 10) Margins for U.S. focused companies have been steady at record heights since 2014, while margins for global businesses dipped along with oil prices in 2014-2016, but are higher than margins of domestic companies. Chart 10Global EPS, Sales Playing Catch Up To Domestic Table 2Q2 Earnings Breakdown Bottom Line: EPS growth will continue to accelerate through 2017 and into early 2018, aided by a period of margin expansion and decent top-line growth (Chart 6). The solid performance of manufacturing at home and overseas sets the stage for EPS growth in firms with both U.S. and global outlooks. BCA's bullish profit story for 2017 is still intact, supporting an overweight stance towards stocks versus bonds. The Fed will not get in the way of the equity rally unless inflation suddenly surges in the coming months (which we do not expect). FOMC Debate Still Centers On Inflation The minutes from July's FOMC meeting indicates little progress on the debate over low inflation and the appropriate monetary policy response. It will require at least a modest rise in inflation to break the deadlock. Policymakers appear to be pleased with the state of economic growth, which has rebounded from a lackluster first quarter. They agree that the expansion will be strong enough that the labor market will continue to tighten. As highlighted in previous minutes, the key debate still centers on the relationship between labor market tightness and inflation, the timing of the next Fed rate hike, and how policy should adjust to changing financial conditions. A majority of policymakers seem willing to believe that this year's soft inflation readings are driven by temporary 'one-off' factors. The hawks worry that a further undershoot of unemployment below estimates of full employment could suddenly generate a surge of inflation. They also point to the risk that low bond yields are promoting excessive risk-taking in financial markets. Moreover, the recent easing in financial conditions is stimulative and should be counterbalanced by additional Fed tightening. Therefore, the hawks are anxious to resume tightening, despite the current inflation readings. Others are worried that inflation softness could reflect structural factors, such as restraints on pricing power from global developments and from innovations to business models spurred by advances in technology. If true, this would mean that the Phillips curve is very flat, or that the full employment level of unemployment is lower than the Fed estimates (or both). Either way, the doves would like to see the whites-of-the-eyes of inflation before resuming rate hikes. Some argued that the recent easing in financial conditions would add little to growth and thus, does not require tighter Fed policy. There was little movement toward capitulation by either camp evident in the minutes. Discussion of the Fed's balance sheet in the recent minutes reinforced that an announcement would likely occur in September, with tapering beginning shortly thereafter. "A number of participants" commented that financial conditions will be key to determining the pace of rate hikes. If the bond market and risk assets react negatively to balance sheet shrinkage, then it would be appropriate to slow rate increases to offset any economic repercussions. Given that only one rate gain is discounted in the money market curve over the next 12 months, it appears that investors are betting that balance sheet shrinkage will largely eliminate the need for higher short-term interest rates. Fed economists recently updated their quantitative assessments of FOMC minutes.3 The note provides a guide (Table 1 in the Fed paper) to the "quantitative words" used in the minutes (one, a couple, a few, etc.). We intend to comment on the findings of this paper in a future Weekly Report. An Update On The Fed's Third Mandate Financial stability remained a concern for Fed policymakers in July and that is why the hawks want to keep tightening even though inflation has not yet met the FOMC's target. BCA views "financial stability" as a third mandate4 for the central bank, along with low and stable inflation, and full employment. Financial stability was discussed at the July meeting by both Fed staff and voting FOMC members. Fed Chair Janet Yellen has elevated financial stability during her tenure, leading discussions or staff briefings in 20 of the 28 meetings she has presided over. Yellen will deliver a speech on financial stability on August 25 at the Fed's Jackson Hole conference. However, the Fed does not provide a financial stability grade at every meeting. Fed staff described financial conditions as moderate in December 2013, but its next judgment (also moderate) was only in January 2016. Since then, Fed staff has provided an assessment of financial stability in 7 of the 13 subsequent meetings. FOMC participants have debated about financial stability at 4 of the 5 meetings this year, and 8 of the 11 since April 2016. As was the case at the June meeting, Fed staff characterized the "financial vulnerabilities of the U.S. financial system" as moderate on balance in July.5 This assessment has not changed since the Fed began to offer opinions on the health of the financial system at its September 2013 meeting. We conclude that the doves want inflation to rise closer to the 2% target before tightening again. The hawks worry that the relationship could be non-linear, which means that a further undershoot of unemployment below estimates of full employment could suddenly generate a surge in inflation. At a minimum, an undershoot could boost risks to financial stability by promoting excessive risk-taking in markets according to some on the FOMC. Bottom Line: The FOMC minutes did not change our base case outlook: the FOMC will announce in September that it will begin to shrink the Fed's balance sheet. The next rate bump will take place in December. Nonetheless, this forecast hangs on the assumption that core inflation will edge higher in the coming months. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 http://www.frbsf.org/our-district/about/sf-fed-blog/wage-growth-good-news/?utm_source=frbsf-home-sffedblog-title&utm_medium=frbsf&utm_campaign=sffedblog 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Still Waiting For Inflation,"August 14, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-fomc-meeting-minutes-an-update-of-counting-words-20170803.htm 4 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate," July 24, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20170726.htm

Highlights A number forward-looking indicators for EM corporate profits point to a major deceleration in the next several months, and potentially a contraction early next year. The most reliable forward-looking indicators for EM EPS have been EM/China narrow and broad money growth and they herald a bearish outlook for EM EPS. We continue deciphering the differences between China's various money and credit aggregates. Irrespective of which money measure we use, and regardless of their past track record, all of them are currently extremely weak and point to a major and imminent slump in China's growth in the next six to 12 months. We recommend shifting the underweight EM corporate and sovereign credit position versus U.S. high-yield to underweight versus U.S. investment-grade corporate credit. Feature Chart I-1Asian Exports And EM EPS The recovery in EM earnings per share (EPS) has been instrumental to the EM stock rally this year. As such, the equity strategy at the moment hinges on the outlook for corporate profits. In this report, we revisit coincident and leading indicators for EM profits. At the moment, EM corporate profit growth still appears robust, though several forward-looking indicators point to a major deceleration in the next several months, and potentially a contraction early next year. Korean and Taiwanese exports can be used as proxy for global trade. The latest data for July reveal that the sum of Taiwanese exports and Korean total exports excluding vessels has rolled over (Chart I-1). Historically, the U.S. dollar values of both economies' exports have correlated with EM EPS, and Chart I-1 entails that EM EPS growth will roll over very soon. The reason why we exclude vessel exports in the case of Korea is because vessel shipments are one-off occurrences and when they take place, they distort export growth. This was the case in the last several months - vessel (shipbuilding) exports surged by 75% from a year ago, distorting the annual growth rate of total exports. Overall, Korea's and Taiwan's overseas shipments in the past three months have averaged about 10%, which is lower than the mid-teen growth rates recorded earlier this year. In China, export growth is close to 9% in the past three months, and it is also rolling over. On a similar note, Korea's and Taiwanese shipments-to-inventory ratios lead EM EPS cycles, and they are presently sending a downbeat message (Chart I-2). China's import growth has relapsed, as suggested by both Chinese trade data and their counterparties export data to China (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Asia's Shipment-To-Inventory Ratios And EM EPS Chart I-3Exports To China And Chinese Imports The recovery in Chinese imports has been responsible for a considerable part of the recovery in global trade. Importantly, Chinese import cycles correlate very well with EM EPS growth (Chart I-4). The key pillar of our view remains that Chinese imports will contract going forward, which will depress both advanced and developing countries' shipments to China. Exports to China are much more important for EM than DM economies, and deteriorating sales to China will weigh considerably on EM profits and currencies. The most reliable forward-looking indicators for EM EPS have been EM/China narrow and broad money growth. Chart I-5A and Chart I-5B demonstrate that both EM narrow (M1) growth and China's broad money impulse (the second derivative) - herald a major slump in EM EPS. This is the main reason behind our negative stance on EM share prices and other risk assets. Chart I-4Chinese Imports And EM EPS Chart I-5AChina Broad Money Impulse And EM EPS Chart I-5BEM Narrow Money And EM EPS Both narrow and broad money growth in China have already relapsed, and it is a matter of time until economic growth and imports downshift enough to produce a major selloff in EM risk assets. We discuss China's monetary aggregates in the section below. Finally, if Chinese imports and commodities prices relapse, any reasonable strength in DM domestic demand will not be sufficient to preclude a meaningful EM slowdown. The basis is that exports to the U.S. and EU only make up 7% of GDP for China, 8% for Korea and 11% for Taiwan. While exports to China account for 10% of Korean GDP and 15% of Taiwanese GDP. The same holds true for most East Asian countries. With the exceptions of India and Turkey, non-Asian EM countries are primarily commodities producers. These two have their own idiosyncratic problems. Most of our analysis is not applicable to smaller central European economies that are leveraged to the EU business cycle. That said, neither Turkey, India, nor central European markets have large enough financial markets to make a difference in the EM benchmarks. The above is the primary reason behind our bearish view on EM growth and profits. That said, there are a few other interesting considerations regarding EM corporate profits dynamics. First, EM share prices lead EM EPS by six to nine months. Therefore, to be bullish on EM stocks, it is not sufficient to expect EM EPS growth to be robust over the next three months. Rather, to be bullish on EM stocks at the current juncture, one should have a bullish view on EM EPS by the end of this year and into the early part of 2018. Consistently, we believe that EM EPS growth will decelerate materially by the end of this year and shrink in the early part of 2018. Second, the top-line shrinkage in 2015 and the consequent recovery for EM exporters has been mostly driven by prices rather than volumes. Chart I-6A illustrate that Korean, Taiwanese and Chinese manufacturing production growth is rather muted. Chart I-6ACorporate Pricing Power Chart I-6BAsian Manufacturing Production Price fluctuations affect profits much more than output volume changes. Therefore, if global tradable goods prices deflate - at the moment they have rolled over (Chart I-6B) - EM EPS will contract materially. Third, in EM excluding China, Korea and Taiwan, there has been little economic recovery, as evidenced by Chart I-7. Along the same lines, the latest (July) manufacturing PMI for EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan has dropped below the crucial 50 line (Chart I-7, bottom panel). This and the majority of other economic aggregates we use are equity market-cap weighted averages, so they are relevant to investors. This corroborates the fact that outside China, Korea and Taiwan there has been little genuine growth improvement in EM domestic demand - despite the decent recovery in global trade. This challenges the prevailing widespread consensus of a synchronized global economic recovery/expansion. This is also consistent with the fact that the overwhelming EM profit recovery has occurred in technology and resource sectors while domestic sectors have not seen much of corporate earnings recovery (Chart I-8). Chart I-7EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##No Strong Recovery Chart I-8EM Sectors' EPS: Exporters ##br##Have Outperformed Domestic Finally, bottom-up equity analysts have recently downgraded their EPS estimates for listed EM companies (Chart I-9). Typically, analysts alter their forecasts simultaneously with swings in share prices. Hence, the latest decoupling is puzzling. Chart I-9EM EPS And Analysts' Net Revisions Notably, EM net EPS revisions have failed to move into positive territory in the past 7 years. This entails that analysts' expectations have been chronically high in recent years, and/or that companies have failed to deliver profits that match these projections. Bottom Line: The EM EPS outlook is downbeat, and listed companies profits will likely contract early next year. Deciphering China's Money Puzzle Based on our assessment of multiple measures, our conclusion with respect to Chinese broad money growth is as follows: Irrespective of which measure we use, and regardless of their individual past track records, all Chinese monetary growth aggregates are currently weak (Chart 10), and point to a major and imminent slump in China's growth in the next six to 12 months. In recent weeks, we have been working to understand differences among various measures of money growth in China. Our motivation is because neither M2 nor total social financing and fiscal spending - variables that we relied on last year - did a good job of forecasting the duration and magnitude of China's economic and profit revival in the past 12 months. In our July 26 report,1 we introduced the concept of broad money calculated using commercial banks' assets. We called it credit-money. This week, we discuss a different broad money calculation based on commercial banks' liabilities, and refer to it as deposit-money. Deposit-money is an aggregate of non-financial companies' time and demand deposits, household deposits, transferable and other deposits, other liabilities, bonds issued and liabilities to non-depository financial corporations. This measure is broader than official broad money (M2) because the latter includes only non-financial companies' time and demand deposits, household deposits and some of liabilities to non-depository financial corporations. In brief, our deposit-money calculation is more comprehensive than the official broad money figures (M2). In turn, banks' credit-money is the sum of commercial banks' claims on companies, households, non-bank financial institutions and all levels of government, as well as banks' foreign assets. Also, we deduct government deposits at the central bank (see July 26 Emerging Markets Strategy report1 for more details). Chart I-10 illustrates the differences between credit-money, deposit-money, total social financing and M2. Based on our calculations, deposit-money grew faster in 2015-'16 than both M2 and total social financing. Yet its current and ongoing slowdown is as bad as that of credit-money or M2. Chart I-10Dichotomy Among Various Money And Credit Aggregates In China The reason why M2 growth has lagged behind deposit-money growth since the middle of 2015 until now is the fact that the latter's components that are not included in the official M2 measure have outpaced M2 growth by a wide margin since late 2015. The main components of deposit-money are shown in Chart I-11. This is one of the main reasons why we missed the latest China-play rally - we relied on the official measure of money and credit published by the PBoC that has been much tamer than the broader money and credit, as banks have originated credit and hence money in a way that official monetary aggregates have not captured. In addition, banks' credit-money and deposit-money measures should theoretically be identical, but this has not been the case in China in recent years. Deposit-money is larger and it may well be more comprehensive than credit-money (Chart I-12). Chart I-11China: Components Of Deposit-Money Aggregate Chart I-12The Outstanding Stock And Flow Of Money Understanding these discrepancies is an ongoing work-in-progress for us, and we will be refining these measures going forward. For now, we would say that these differences are probably due to banks' efforts to misrepresent/hide their assets and liabilities to meet the regulatory ratios and avoid penalties, as well as maximize short-term profits. All that said, the gaps between M2 and deposit-money has recently narrowed: both deposit-money and M2 growth and their impulses are at all-time lows (Chart I-13). Furthermore, we expect deposit-money to slow further because of the lagged impact of higher interest rates and regulatory tightening that is intended to curb commercial banks' ability to originate more money via shadow banking activities. Finally, as can be seen from Chart I-14A, Chart I-14B and Chart I-15, deposit-money's impulse - its second derivative - leads many cyclical economic variables such as nominal GDP, producer prices, freight index, and imports. Chart I-13China: Two Measures Of Broad Money Chart I-14ADeposit-Money Leads Real Business Cycle Chart I-14BDeposit-Money Leads Real Business Cycle There are several other data points from China's real economy that portend developing weakness. Specifically, car sales growth has almost ground to a halt, real estate floor space sold and started are decelerating (Chart I-16). Chart I-15Deposit-Money Leads Metals Prices And Construction Chart I-16China: More Signs Of Slowdown Bottom Line: Regardless of which money measure we use, and regardless of their past track record, all of them are currently weak and point to a major and imminent slump in China's growth in the next six to 12 months. This gives us confidence in reiterating our negative view on China plays (including commodities) and EM. Credit Markets Strategy We have been recommending a strategy of shorting/underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit versus U.S. high-yield (HY) credit and this strategy has shown strong performance, producing 15% gains with low volatility since August 2011 (Chart I-17). However, today we recommend shifting the underweight EM corporate and sovereign credit position from U.S. HY to U.S. investment grade (IG) corporate credit. The primary reason is that credit spreads are extremely tight and odds favor credit spreads widening in both U.S. and EM. Chart I-18 shows that when U.S. TIPS yields rise U.S. IG usually outperforms U.S. HY on an excess return basis. We expect U.S. Treasurys and TIPS yields to grind higher in the near term because U.S. growth and inflation are much stronger than the bond market is currently pricing in. Chart I-17Book Gains On This Strategy Chart I-18Higher U.S. Bond (TIPS) Yields Warrant Rotation Rising U.S. bond yields also warrants EM credit underperformance versus U.S. IG because the EM credit benchmark is riskier than U.S. IG. While the two segments have similar durations, the duration times spread measure of risk is greater for EM credit. Furthermore, U.S. HY spreads have narrowed versus both EM sovereign and corporate spreads since early 2016 (Chart I-19, top panel). Hence, there is little value favoring the former versus EM credit. In contrast, U.S. IG spreads versus both EM sovereign and corporate credit are appealing historically (Chart I-19, bottom panel). Therefore, there is a valuation aspect to this strategy change. Relative spread differences have historically correlated quite well with the subsequent 12-month return. Given where relative spreads are, the subsequent 12-month return for investing in U.S. IG relative EM credit is positive (Chart I-20, top panel) but it is negative for investing in U.S. HY versus EM credit (Chart I-20, bottom panel). Chart I-19EM Credit Offers Value Relative ##br##To U.S. HY But Not Versus U.S. IG Chart I-20Projected Returns Of EM Credit ##br##To Both U.S. IG And HY As to the rationale of favoring U.S. credit to EM credit, this is consistent with our theme that the growth outlook, corporate leverage, and health of the banking system are in much better shape in the U.S. than in EM. Bottom Line: Book profits on the short EM sovereign and corporate credit / long U.S. HY credit position. Institute a new position: short EM sovereign and corporate credit / long U.S. IG corporate credit. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Follow The Money, Not The Crowd", dated July 26, 2017, link available on page 18. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Strong corporate earnings growth will drown out worries about North Korea. Stay cyclically overweight global equities. Underlying wage growth in the U.S. is stronger than the official data suggest. Surveys point to a further acceleration in U.S. wages, as do pay gains at the lower end of the income distribution. Labor's share of income will resume its cyclical recovery. This will lead to more consumer spending, and ultimately, higher price inflation. Wage growth elsewhere in the world will also pick up as labor slack declines. Global fixed-income investors should underweight duration and increase exposure to inflation-linked securities. Feature Focus On Corporate Earnings, Not Korea Chart 1EPS Estimates Have Remained ##br##Resilient This Year Global equities dropped over the past few days on the back of rising risks of conflict in the Korean peninsula. Our geopolitical strategists believe that neither the U.S. nor North Korea will launch a preemptive strike.1 Despite its bluster, North Korea has a history of rational action. It wants a nuclear deterrent and a peace treaty. The U.S. has forsworn regime change as a policy goal. China has recommitted to new sanctions and the South is pro-engagement. This raises the likelihood that a diplomatic solution will be found. Unfortunately, getting from here (open hostilities) to there (negotiated solution) will take time, which leaves the door open to increased market volatility. Nevertheless, we expect any selloff to be short-lived, owing to the positive earnings picture. More than anything else, strong profit growth has underpinned the cyclical bull market in stocks, and we expect this to remain the case over the coming months. More than 80% of S&P 500 companies have reported Q2 results. Based on these preliminary numbers, EPS appears to have increased by 11% over the previous year, marking the fourth consecutive quarter of margin expansion. The strength has been broad based, with all eleven sectors reporting positive growth. U.S. earnings estimates for both 2017 and 2018 have remained steady since January, bucking the historic pattern of downward revisions throughout the course of the year (Chart 1). The picture is even more impressive outside the U.S., where earnings estimates continue to move higher. The Euro STOXX 600 is now expected to deliver EPS growth of 12.6% this year. EPS of stocks listed on the Japanese Topix is expected to rise 14.8% this year and 7.3% next year, giving them an attractive 2018E P/E of 13.6. We recommend overweighting euro area and Japanese stocks over their U.S. counterparts in currency-hedged terms. EM stocks have seen the strongest positive earnings revisions this year. We continue to worry about some of the structural headwinds facing emerging markets (high debt levels, poor governance, etc.). However, the cyclical picture remains more upbeat. Chinese H-shares remain our favorite EM market, trading at just 7.5 times 2017 earnings estimates. The U.S. Labor Market Gets A JOLT, But Where's The Wage Growth? The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) released on Tuesday provided more good news about the state of the U.S. labor market (Chart 2). The number of job openings rose to 6.2 million in June. There are now 28% more unfilled jobs in the U.S. than at the prior peak in April 2007. The number of unemployed workers per job opening fell to 1.1, the lowest level in the history of the series. One might think that with numbers like these, wage growth would be skyrocketing. Yet, it is not. While monthly average hourly wages did surprise to the upside in the June payrolls report, the year-over-year change remained stuck at 2.5%. This week's productivity report showed that compensation per hour increased by only 1% in Q2 relative to the same period in 2016. Other measures of wage growth generally point to some softening this year (Chart 3). Chart 2More Good News For The U.S. Labor Market Chart 3U.S. Wage Growth Remains Soft Many commentators regard the lackluster pace of wage inflation - coming at a time when the unemployment rate has fallen below its 2007 lows - as a "mystery" that needs to be solved. As we argue in this report, there is less to this mystery than meets the eye. Properly measured, underlying wage growth in the U.S. has been rising for some time, and may actually be stronger than the "fundamentals" warrant. Wage inflation elsewhere in the world is more subdued. However, this is largely because progress towards restoring full employment has been slower outside the U.S. Is Wage Growth Being Mismeasured? How can U.S. wage growth be characterized as "strong" when it is still so weak by historic standards? Part of the answer has to do with that old bugbear: measurement error. Low-skilled workers have been re-entering the labor force en masse over the past few years, after having deserted it during the Great Recession. This has put downward pressure on average wages, arithmetically leading to slower wage growth. Most of the official wage series, including the Employment Cost Index, do not adjust for this statistical bias.2 In a recent research report, economists at the San Francisco Fed concluded that "correcting for worker composition changes, wages are consistent with a strong labor market that is drawing low-wage workers into full-time employment."3 In addition to cyclical factors, demographic shifts have depressed official measures of wage inflation. Historically, population aging has pushed up average wages because older workers tend to earn more than younger ones. The retirement of millions of well-paid baby boomers over the past few years has reversed this trend, at least temporarily. Chart 4 shows that the median age of employed workers has fallen for the past three years, the first time this has happened since the 1970s. Weak Productivity Growth Dragging Down Wages Unfortunately, there is more to the story than measurement error. Today's young workers are not better skilled or educated than those of previous generations. This, along with other factors that we have discussed extensively in past reports, has dragged down productivity growth.4 Nonfarm productivity has increased at an average annualized pace of less than 1% over the past few years, down from 3% in the early 2000s (Chart 5). Slower productivity growth gives firms less scope to raise wages. In fact, for all the talk about how wages are stagnant, real wages have risen by more than productivity since 2014. This has pushed labor's share of income off its post-recession lows. Chart 4Median Age Of Workers No Longer Rising Chart 5Real Wages Have Increased Faster ##br##Than Productivity Over The Past Few Years It remains to be seen whether the structural downtrend in the share of income going to labor will be reversed. One can make compelling arguments for both sides of the issue.5 But over a cyclical horizon of one-to-two years, it is highly likely that labor's share will rise. Labor's share of income is fairly procyclical. It increased significantly in the late 1990s and rose again in the years leading up to the Great Recession. Considering how low unemployment is today, it is not unreasonable to assume that it will maintain its cyclical uptrend. If so, this will lead to more consumer spending, and ultimately, higher inflation. Surveys Point To Faster Wage Growth... Surveys such as those conducted by the National Federation of Independent Business, Duke University/CFO Institute, National Association for Business Economics, and various regional Federal Reserve banks suggest that employers are becoming increasingly willing to raise compensation in order to fill vacancies (Chart 6). Workers, in turn, are becoming more choosy. This can be seen in an improving assessment of job availability and a rising quits rate. Both of these measures lead wage growth (Chart 7). Chart 6ASurveys Show Employers More Willing To Raise Compensation Chart 6BSurveys Show Employers More Willing To Raise Compensation Chart 7Workers Are Feeling More Confident ...As Do Wage Gains Among Low-Income Workers Median weekly earnings of low-income workers have accelerated this year, even as wage gains among higher-income workers have hit an air pocket (Chart 8). For example, restaurant workers have seen pay hikes of nearly 5% this year, up from 1% in 2014. Wage growth among lower-income workers tends to be less noisy than for higher-income workers. The incomes of better-paid workers are often influenced by bonuses and other variables that may be driven more by industry-specific or economy-wide profit trends rather than labor slack per se. Less-skilled workers are usually the first to get fired and the last to get hired. Thus, wage pressures at the lower end of the skill distribution often coincide with an overheated labor market. This makes the trend in lower-income wages a more reliable gauge of underlying labor market slack. Wage Inflation Will Slowly Pick Up As Global Slack Diminishes We expect U.S. wage growth to rise over the next few quarters by enough to allow the Fed to raise rates in line with the dots. However, a more rapid acceleration - one that forces the Fed to raise rates aggressively - is improbable, at least over the next 12 months. This is mainly because the relationship between domestic labor market slack and wage growth is not as tight as it once was. Trade unions have less clout these days, which means it takes longer for a tight labor market to produce larger negotiated pay hikes. The labor market has also become less fluid, as evidenced by the structural decline in both the rate of job creation and job destruction (Chart 9). Wages tend to adjust more slowly when there is less hiring and firing going on. Chart 8Better Pay For Low-Wage Earners: ##br##A Sign Of A Tighter Labor Market Chart 9Structural Declines In Job Creation##br## And Destruction Perhaps most importantly, an increasingly globalized workforce has given firms the ability to move production abroad in response to rising wages at home. This suggests that wage growth in the U.S. is unlikely to increase significantly until falling unemployment begins to push up wages abroad. Wage Growth Around The World For now, wage growth in America's trading partners remains subdued. Euro area wage inflation is stuck between 1% and 1.5%, although with important regional variations (Chart 10). Wage inflation has accelerated to over 2% in Germany, but is still close to zero in Italy and Spain. Considering that unemployment in both countries remains well above pre-recession levels, it will be difficult for the ECB to tighten monetary policy to any great degree over the next few years. Japanese wage growth has picked up since 2010, but is still below the level consistent with the BoJ's 2% inflation target (Chart 11). Wage inflation is likely to ratchet higher over the next few years, now that the ratio of job openings-to-applicants has risen to the highest level since 1974 (Chart 12). In a sign of the times, Yamato Transport, Japan's largest parcel delivery company, recently told Amazon that it would not be able to make same-day deliveries due to a shortage of available drivers. Chart 10Euro Area Wage Growth Remains ##br##Weak Outside Of Germany Chart 11Modest Pickup In Japanese Wages Wage growth in Canada has actually declined since 2014. However, that is likely to change given that the unemployment rate has fallen close to nine-year lows. Falling unemployment rates should also boost wage inflation in the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand. Chinese wage growth also remains brisk. Chart 13 shows that urban household future income confidence has picked up notably of late, as growth has improved and the labor market has tightened. Chart 12Job Openings Ratio Will Push Wages Higher Chart 13Optimism Over The Labor Market In China Faster Wage Growth Will Ultimately Lead To Higher Inflation Chart 14The Decline In Inflation Expectations ##br##Have Weighed On Wage Growth Going forward, the combination of falling labor slack abroad and an overheated labor market at home will cause U.S. wage inflation to increase more rapidly starting in the second half of 2018. This will be a break from the past. Lower longer-term inflation expectations have tempered nominal wage growth over the past eight years (Chart 14). Both market-based inflation expectations and inflation expectations 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan's survey have fallen by about half a point since the financial crisis. The recent decline in headline CPI inflation from 2.7% in February to 1.6% in June may also explain why wage growth has dipped this year even as payroll gains have rebounded. Rising wage growth could begin to feed on itself. As we have discussed before, the Phillips curve tends to steepen once an economy reaches full employment (Chart 15). If the unemployment rate falls from 7% to 6%, this is unlikely to have a huge effect on wages. But if it falls from 4.5% to 3.5%, the effect could be substantial. A recent Fed paper concluded that "evidence strongly suggests a non-linear effect of slack on wage growth and core PCE price inflation that becomes much larger after labor markets tighten beyond a certain point."6 The implication is that once inflation does start rising, it could rise more quickly than investors (or the Fed) expect. Concluding Thoughts The past three U.S. recessions were all caused by the unravelling of financial sector and asset market excesses: The housing bust lay the groundwork for the Great Recession; the collapse of dotcom stocks ushered in the 2001 recession; and the failure of hundreds of banks during the Savings and Loan crisis paved the way for the 1990-91 recession. Unlike the last few recessions, the next one may end up being more akin to those of 1960s, 70s, and 80s. Those earlier recessions were generally triggered by aggressive Fed rate hikes in the face of an overheated economy and rising inflation (Chart 16). Chart 15The Phillips Curve Appears To Be Non-Linear Chart 16Are We Heading Towards A "Retro-Recession"? The good news is that neither wage nor price inflation is likely to soar over the next 12 months. This means that the bull market in global equities can continue for a while longer. The bad news is that complacency about inflation risk is liable to cause central bankers to fall increasingly behind the curve. Rising inflation will force the Fed to pick up the pace of rate hikes in the second half of 2018. This is likely to lead to a stronger dollar and higher Treasury yields. The resulting tightening in U.S. financial conditions could trigger a recession in 2019 or 2020. Investors should remain overweight risk assets for now, but prepare to scale back exposure next summer. Peter Berezin, Global Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017. 2 Unlike the widely followed average hourly wage series published every month in the payrolls report, the quarterly Employment Cost Index (ECI) does control for shifts in the weights of different industries in total employment. Thus, an increase in the relative number of low-paid hospitality workers would depress average hourly wages, but would not affect the ECI. Nevertheless, the ECI does not control for the possibility that the composition of the workforce within industries may change over time. The Atlanta Fed's Wage Tracker does overcome this bias because it uses the same sample of workers from one period to the next. However it, too, is subject to a number of methodological problems. 3 Mary C. Daly, Bart Hobijn, and Benjamin Pyle, "What's Up with Wage Growth?" FRBSF Economic Letter 2016-07 (March 7, 2016). 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016; and The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Taking Off The Rose-Colored Glasses: Education and Growth In The 21st Century," February 24, 2011. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?" dated May 31, 2017; and The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Rage Against The Machines: Is Technology Exacerbating Inequality?" dated June, 2014. 6 Jeremy Nalewaik, "Non-Linear Phillips Curves With Inflation Regime-Switching," Federal Reserve Board, Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2016-078 (August 2016). Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades