Inflation/Deflation

Highlights The latest round of tariffs on U.S. imports from China confirms that the Trump administration's confrontation with China goes beyond the mid-term elections. Desynchronization between the U.S. and China/EM growth foreshadows dollar appreciation. The latter is the right medicine for the global economy for now. A stronger dollar is required to redistribute growth and inflation away from the U.S. and towards the rest of the world. China needs a weaker currency to offset deflationary pressures stemming from domestic deleveraging and trade tariffs. For EM ex-China, the dollar rally is painful, but it is the right medicine in the long run. It will bring about the unraveling of excesses within their economies. Feature The global economy presently finds itself between two strong and opposing crosscurrents: robust growth and mounting inflationary pressures in the U.S. on the one hand, and weakening Chinese growth on the other. Desynchronization between China/EM and the U.S. has been our theme since April 2017.1 Although this theme has become evident and to a certain degree priced into the markets, we believe it is not yet time to abandon it. Before exploring this analysis in greater depth, we will address the issue of whether strong U.S. demand will reverse the slowdown in the global trade cycle, and update our thoughts on the trade wars. Global Trade And Trade Wars Our leading indicators for global trade do not herald a reversal in the global exports slowdown. Chart I-1 demonstrates that the ratio of risk-on versus safe-haven currencies2 leads global export volumes by several months, and it does not yet flag any improvement. Chart I-1Risk-On / Safe-Haven Currency Ratio As An Indicator Of Global Trade In addition, Taiwanese exports of electronic products lead the global trade cycles by a couple of months, and they are currently pointing to further deceleration in world exports (Chart I-2). It seems extremely robust U.S. domestic demand growth has not prevented a slowdown in global trade in general and EM exports in particular. The reason for this is that many developing countries' shipments to China are larger than their exports to the U.S., as illustrated in Table I-1. Chart I-2Taiwanese Electronics Exports##br## Slightly Lead Global Exports Table I-1Many Emerging Economies##br## Sell More To China Than To The U.S. The latest decision by the U.S. administration to impose a 10% tariff on $200 billion of imports from China and increase this rate to 25% starting January 1, 2019 confirms that the Trump administration's confrontation with China goes beyond the mid-term elections. The true intention of the U.S. is to contain China's geopolitical rise to preserve its global hegemony. These episodes of import tariffs will likely mark the beginning of a much longer and drawn-out geopolitical confrontation. Our colleagues at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service have been noting for several years that a U.S.-China confrontation is unavoidable.3 In this vein, it is not clear to us why global growth-sensitive and China-leveraged plays in financial markets have rallied in recent days on the new tariff announcement. We can think of two reasons: (1) markets expect China to stimulate domestic demand aggressively to counter tariffs; and (2) gradually rising U.S. import tariffs will boost global trade in the near term, as companies front load their production and shipments before the 25% tariff rate takes hold. On the first point, there has so far been no major new fiscal stimulus announced in China. We detailed fiscal numbers in our August 23 report,4 and there have been no changes since. As to liquidity easing - which has been material - our assessment is that it is likely to be overwhelmed by ongoing regulatory tightening on banks and shadow banking. In short, lingering credit excesses and regulatory tightening will hamper the monetary transmission mechanism from lower interest rates to faster credit growth. So far, money growth in China remains very weak (Chart I-3). Chart I-3China's Narrow Money And EM Stocks On the second point, we cannot rule out a moderate and temporary improvement in global trade due to various technical factors. Yet, any rally rooted in this will prove to be short-lived and fleeting. Bottom Line: Escalating tariffs on U.S. imports from China will reinforce the tectonic macro shifts that have been in place since early this year: it will lift U.S. inflation slightly and weigh on Chinese growth. Rising U.S. Inflation U.S. core inflation is accelerating and moving above the Federal Reserve's soft target of 2%. This will substantially narrow the Fed's maneuvering room to respond to the turmoil in EM and weakening growth outside the U.S. Chart I-4 demonstrates that an equally weighted average of various core consumer inflation measures for the U.S. has been markedly accelerating. The components of this core inflation aggregate are presented in Chart I-5 and include: trimmed mean CPI, trimmed mean PCE, market-based core PCE and median CPI. Besides, the U.S. labor market is super tight, and employee compensation growth will continue to rise. This will put downward pressure on corporate profit margins and will push businesses to consider passing on their rising costs to consumers. Provided wage growth will continue accelerating and the job market and confidence both remain strong, odds are that companies will be able to raise their selling prices. Chart I-4U.S. Inflation Is Rising... Chart I-5...Based On Various Core Measures Weakening Chinese Growth Growth continues to weaken in China. In particular: The aggregate freight index (transport by railway, highway, waterway, and aviation) is sluggish and the measure of Air China's freight continues to downshift (Chart I-6). The strength in China's residential property market since 2015 has partially been due to the central bank providing very cheap financing directly to housing via its Pledged Supplementary Lending (PSL) scheme. We have argued in the past that this represents nothing less than monetization of excess housing inventories directly by the People's Bank of China.5 This has boosted property prices and sales, supporting the economy over the past two years. Having met the objective of reducing housing inventories, the PBoC has lately reduced the amount of PSL. Provided changes in PSL flows have led both housing prices and sales volumes, it is reasonable to expect a relapse in new sales in the next six months or so (Chart I-7). Chart I-6China: A Slowdown In Freight Indicators Chart I-7China: Housing Sales To Roll Over Soon Our main theme in China has been and remains shrinking construction activity - both infrastructure and property building. This is the primary rationale for our negative view on commodities prices as well as weakness in mainland aggregate imports. Chart I-8 illustrates property construction activity is already contracting. Headline fixed asset investment in real estate has been held up by booming land purchases, yet equipment purchases as well as construction and installation have been shrinking (Chart I-8). Capital expenditures for all industries, including construction and installation, purchase of equipment and instruments - but excluding land values - are also very weak (Chart I-9). Chart I-8China: Property Investment##br## Excluding Land Is Contracting Chart I-9China: Overall Capex##br## Is Very Weak   Interestingly, our proxy for marginal propensity to spend6 by Chinese companies leads global industrial metals prices, and continues pointing to more downside (Chart I-10). With respect to oil, Chinese oil import growth has downshifted considerably (Chart I-11) implying that global oil prices have been mostly propped up by supply concerns. Chart I-10Chinese Companies' Propensity##br## To Spend And Metal Prices Chart I-11China: A Slowdown##br## In Oil Imports Currency Markets As A Rebalancing Mechanism Pressures from growth desynchronization between the U.S. and China and trade wars continue to build. Left unchecked, these imbalances will enlarge and culminate into a bust. A release valve is needed to diffuse these accumulating pressures. Currency and bond markets often act as such - they move to rebalance the global economy and amend economic excesses. Odds are that exchange rates will continue to act as a rebalancing conduit. A stronger dollar is the right medicine for the global economy at the moment. A stronger dollar is required to redistribute growth away from the U.S. and towards the rest of the world. In particular, dollar appreciation is needed to cap budding U.S. inflationary pressures. China needs a weaker currency to offset deflationary pressures stemming from domestic deleveraging and trade tariffs. In turn, a stronger greenback will cause capital outflows from EM and compel the unraveling of excesses within the developing economies. While the result will be painful growth retrenchment for EM in the medium term, cheapened currencies and deleveraging (an unwinding of credit excesses) will ultimately create a foundation for stronger and healthier growth in the years ahead. As to the question of why the dollar would rally in the face of widening twin deficits, we have the following remarks. In a world where growth and inflation are scarce (i.e., in a deflationary milieu), a wider current account deficit and higher inflation - signs of robust domestic demand - will attract capital, ultimately lifting a country's currency. By contrast, in a world of strong growth and intensifying inflationary pressures, twin deficits and higher inflation will cause a country's currency to depreciate. Our assessment is that the global economic backdrop is still more deflationary than inflationary, despite intensifying inflationary pressures in the U.S. Therefore, twin deficits and inflation in the U.S. will be at a premium. That and the fact that the Federal Reserve is willing to continue tightening are conducive for dollar appreciation. As we have argued in previous reports, the U.S. dollar is not cheap,7 but it is not particularly expensive either. In fact, odds are it will get much more expensive before topping out. Bottom Line: Beyond any possible short-term countertrend moves, the path of least resistance for the U.S. dollar is up, and for the RMB and EM currencies, down. As these adjustments within the currency markets endure, EM risk assets will stay under selling pressure and underperform their developed market counterparts.   Indonesia: At The Whims Of Foreign Portfolio Flows 20 September 2018   The Indonesian currency has reached a two- decade low, and equities and bonds have sold off considerably. Is it time to turn positive on the nation's financial markets? Our bias remains that this selloff is not over and stocks, bonds as well as the currency have more downside. The basis is that Indonesia's balance of payments (BoP) will continue to deteriorate. Indonesia has been very reliant on volatile foreign portfolio flows to fund its current account deficit (Chart II-1). Not surprisingly, a reversal in foreign portfolio inflows to emerging markets (EM) has hurt this country's financial markets. We expect international capital flows to EM to be lackluster, which will continue to weigh on Indonesia's capital account. In the meantime, Indonesia's current account deficit is likely to widen in the months ahead. First, export revenues will begin rolling over on the back of lower copper and palm oil prices. Together, these commodities account for 13% of Indonesian exports. Second, the ongoing slowdown in China may eventually weigh on thermal coal prices. This commodity makes up another 12% of exports. Third, Indonesian imports remain very robust. Overall, a widening current account/trade deficit is typically negative for both share prices and the rupiah (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Indonesia: Foreign ##br##Portfolio Flows Are Key Chart II-2Deteriorating Trade Balance ##br##Is Bearish For Equities To prevent further currency depreciation, the government announced it will curb certain imports by raising tariffs.While this policy may succeed in limiting imports, it will also raise inflation by pushing prices of imported goods higher. This will allow inefficient domestic producers to stay in business. Higher inflation is fundamentally negative for the currency and local bonds. The above dynamics are making Indonesia's macro outlook increasingly toxic because Bank Indonesia (BI) will probably need to tighten monetary policy further in order to stabilize the rupiah and restrain inflation. Crucially, the BI's objective is to maintain rupiah stability in order to keep inflation tame. Further, Perry Warjiyo, the current governor of BI, has highlighted his preference for setting decisive and preemptive policies. Indonesia's central bank has already raised interest rates, and more hikes are likely if the currency continues depreciating - as we expect. On top of rate hikes, the BI will continue to deplete its foreign exchange reserves to defend the rupiah. Chart II-3 shows that foreign exchange reserve selling by the BI is shrinking local banking system liquidity (commercial bank reserves at the central bank) and lifting domestic interbank rates. In turn, higher local rates will cause bank loan growth to slow, hurting domestic demand. The latter will be very negative for profit growth and share prices because the Indonesian stock market is heavily dominated by banks and other domestic plays. The outlook for Indonesian banks is crucial for the performance of the Indonesian bourse, given they account for 42% of total MSCI market cap. Unfortunately, banks still rest on shaky foundations: Chart II-3Selling FX Reserves = Higher Interbank Rates Chart II-4Net Interest Margins Will Keep Compressing Not only will demand for loans slump as borrowing costs rise, but banks' net interest margins will also continue to compress (Chart II-4). Weaker growth and higher interest rates will also lead to a considerable rise in non-performing loans (NPLs), and cause banks' provisioning levels to spike. Higher provisions will hurt their earnings (Chart II-5). Notably, banks have boosted their profits substantially in the past two years by reducing their provisions. This process is set to reverse very soon. Finally, a word on overall equity valuations is warranted. Despite the correction that has taken place, this bourse is not yet trading at compelling valuation levels neither in absolute nor in relative terms (Chart II-6). Chart II-5Downside Ahead For Banks' Shares Chart II-6Indonesian Bourse Isn't Cheap Bottom Line: The rupiah will remain under selling pressure. This in turn will create a toxic macro mix of higher inflation, rising borrowing costs and weaker domestic demand. We recommend investors keep an underweight position in Indonesian stocks as well as local and sovereign bonds within their respective EM dedicated portfolios. We are also maintaining our short positions in the rupiah versus the U.S. dollar and on 5-year local currency bonds. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Toward A Desynchonized World?" dated April 26, 2017, the link is available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Relative total return (carry included) of four equally weighted EM (ZAR, RUB, BRL and CLP) and three DM (AUD, NZD and CAD) commodities currencies versus an equally weighted average of two safe-haven currencies - the Japanese yen and Swiss franc. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, the link is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Do Not Catch A Falling Knife," dated August 23, 2018, the link is available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China Real Estate: A Never-Bursting Bubble?" dated April 6, 2018, the link is available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 6 Calculated as a ratio of corporate demand deposits to time deposits. Rising demand deposits relative to time (savings) deposits entail that companies are gearing up to spend /invest money and vice versa. 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "The Dollar: Will The U.S. Invoke A "Nuclear" Option?" dated August 30, 2018, the link is available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights When projecting the future course of interest rates, the Fed is the best place to start: Although the Fed only expressly controls short rates, its influence is felt across all maturities. Until it inverts the yield curve, its rate-hike campaigns push all yields higher. Its decisions are influenced by inflation, ... : Our checklist of items that might lead us to change our below-benchmark duration view includes key consumer price series as well as inflation expectations and estimates of the economy's supply-demand balance. ... the state of the labor market, ... : We are monitoring compensation trends and ancillary employment measures in addition to the headline unemployment rate to get a fix on how much slack remains in the labor market. ... and signs of major imbalances: Heading off, or ameliorating, a crisis is the third element of the Fed's mandate. Major economic or financial imbalances, or an overseas crisis, could alter the Fed's policy course, and we are on the lookout for them. Feature Over the last seven weeks, we have laid out our big-picture views on markets and the economic backdrop influencing them. We see rates going higher (July 30th Weekly Report); credit performance deteriorating, albeit slowly (August 6th Weekly Report); and the equity bull market stretching into the second half of next year (August 13th Special Report). We do not foresee a recession before 2020 (August 13th Special Report), in large part because we do not expect the monetary policy cycle to turn until the second half of next year (September 3rd Special Report). With that cyclical framework in place, we can now turn to an analysis of the relevant real-time data and its impact on our market outlooks. Checklists are useful tools to help systematize that analysis. They also help track the evolution of our views in real time. Consistent tracking helps us evaluate and improve our process, while making it easier for clients to think along with us, and anticipate our next moves. This week, we introduce our rates checklist, which details the key series we're watching that could encourage us to change our below-benchmark duration recommendation. We will roll out a companion equity checklist next month. The Fed Versus Market Expectations Table 1Rates View Checklist Our aversion to Treasuries largely stems from our view that the Fed will hike more than markets currently expect. The divergence between our view and the markets' view can be resolved in one of two ways: the market can revise its rate-hike expectations higher to meet ours, or we can lower our expectations to meet theirs. Long-maturity bonds will sell off in the former scenario, validating our below-benchmark-duration call, but the call will underperform if we have to cut our expectations. The "Market Perceptions of the Fed" section of our checklist (Table 1) is designed to highlight changes in the Fed's actions or investors' interpretation of them. Opportunities to earn market-beating returns arise from divergences between outcomes and consensus expectations. If, as we expect, the fed funds rate peaks at 3.5% or above in this cycle, well ahead of the current 3% market expectation, below-benchmark-duration positions will outperform. As the consensus expectation approaches our expectation, however, the incremental return from estimating the terminal rate more accurately than the consensus shrinks. The first checklist item monitors the difference between our terminal rate projection and the market projection as implied by overnight index swaps. As the distance narrows between our estimate (marked by the "X"s in Chart 1), and the peak of the OIS series, so too will the prospective rewards from below-benchmark-duration positioning. The checklist also tracks the yield curve for its insight into whether or not rate hikes have gone too far (Chart 2).1 One explanation for inversion in the latter stages of tightening cycles holds that the curve inverts once the bond market senses that monetary conditions are sufficiently tight to induce a material slowdown. As much insight into future growth prospects as the orientation of the yield curve might offer, however, neither it nor any of the other checklist items acts as a standalone indicator. Even if the curve were to invert tomorrow, we would not change our view without corroboration from several other factors. Chart 1The Consensus Is Way Behind The Curve Chart 2Still Plenty Of Margin For Error Inflation And Its Drivers Price stability is one half of the Fed's statutory mandate, enshrining inflation as a critical policy driver. In our base-case scenario, adding significant fiscal stimulus to an economy already operating at its full potential will consume what remains of spare capacity, fueling upward inflation pressures. The policy upshot is that the Fed will be unable to stop hiking rates until it gains some control over inflation. Since tightening monetary conditions enough to throttle inflation is likely to induce a recession, we expect that rates will rise before they ultimately fall. To track the course of inflation, and the accuracy of our projections, we are looking at headline and core CPI, and headline and core PCE (Chart 3). We will also monitor estimates of the output gap to gauge the potential for inflation pressures to turn into accelerating inflation (Chart 4). We are keeping a close eye on inflation break-evens, the expected level of inflation implied by the difference in yields on nominal and inflation-protected Treasuries. Our bond strategists peg 2.3-2.5% as the break-even level consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target, and expect that the Fed will turn more hawkish once break-evens threaten the top end of the range (Chart 5). Failure to make progress toward that level in a timely fashion would force us to take a hard look at our stance. Chart 3Inflation Is Slowly Creeping Higher Chart 4If The Output Gap Really Is Closed, ... Chart 5... Inflation Will Normalize The State Of The Labor Market The relative tightness of the labor market is an important determinant of the level of slack in the overall economy. Phillips Curve adherents (along with anyone else who believes in the law of supply and demand) also view labor market slack, or the lack thereof, as a key variable in wage growth and a meaningful influence on the overall level of inflation. We are watching the headline unemployment rate relative to estimates of NAIRU,2 the minimum level of unemployment the economy can sustain without overheating. If unemployment remains below NAIRU, the Fed will have little choice than to remain vigilant; if it rises, or estimates of NAIRU are revised lower, the Fed may be able to ease up a little (Chart 6). Chart 6Sub-NAIRU Unemployment, ... We are also looking at ancillary indicators of labor market health like the broader U-6 measure of unemployment3 (Chart 7, top panel); the participation rate of work-age citizens in the labor market (Chart 7, second panel); and the quit rate, which sheds light on how easily workers can switch jobs (Chart 7, bottom panel). The first two measures offer insight into the potential size of the pool of workers available to re-enter the labor market and relieve supply constraints, while the last focuses on employee bargaining power, which should impact wages. We also look at a range of compensation growth measures: the average hourly earnings series from the monthly employment situation report (Chart 8, top panel); the Atlanta Fed wage tracker, which follows the same employees from year to year, sidestepping the composition issues that broader surveys face (Chart 8, second panel); and the employment cost index (including benefits), our choice for the single best compensation measure (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 7... And Declining Chart 8... Argue For Higher Wages The Fed's Third Mandate In addition to maintaining price stability and full employment, the Fed also has to protect the economy from shocks or at least try to mitigate their impact. Previous Feds may not have had much taste for supervisory matters, but supervision is now an explicit point of emphasis. There do not appear to be lending excesses today, and Basel III and Dodd-Frank would seem to make them much less likely than they were before the crisis. Corporations have made the most of a parade of indulgent bond buyers, securing promiscuously easy covenants, but turmoil in the bond market does not necessarily pose a systemic threat. In our view, excesses in this cycle are more likely to emerge from typical economic overheating. We are monitoring the most cyclical economic segments' share of activity, though it remains well below previous peaks (Chart 9). But just last week, in a speech about the neutral policy rate, Governor Brainard suggested that an overheating economy may create financial problems instead of economic ones. Viewed in conjunction with recent speeches, the Fed seems to be building a case for tightening policy in response to frothy credit conditions. Chart 9Cyclical Engines Aren't Overheating Yet "The past few times unemployment fell to levels as low as those projected over the next year, signs of overheating showed up in financial-sector imbalances rather than in accelerating inflation. The Federal Reserve's assessment suggests that financial vulnerabilities are building, which might be expected after a long period of economic expansion and very low interest rates. Rising risks are notable in the corporate sector, where low spreads and loosening credit terms are mirrored by rising indebtedness among corporations that could be vulnerable to downgrades in the event of unexpected adverse developments. Leveraged lending is again on the rise; spreads on leveraged loans and the securitized products backed by those loans are low, and the Board's Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices suggests that underwriting standards for leveraged loans may be declining to levels not seen since 2005."4 Central bank orthodoxy has long held that raising interest rates specifically to prick a bubble is self-defeating because it will likely provoke undesirable collateral damage. But the Fed could presumably justify hiking more than it otherwise would on the grounds that post-crisis banks are far more insulated from loan losses than they have been for several decades. Sustained by their fortified capital positions, banks wouldn't stem the flow of credit as much as they normally would in response to a pickup in provisions and charge-offs, so it would take a higher fed funds rate to slow the economy enough to counter overheating. This is a somewhat esoteric argument, to be sure, but Fed thinking appears as if it may be evolving in that direction. Our final checklist item is major international duress. An overseas crisis, or near-crisis, could pose a dual threat to our rates view. On the one hand, it could spark a flight to quality that brings Treasury yields down. On the other, it could lead the Fed to back off of tightening in the fear that international turmoil could begin to impact the U.S. economy. In our view, the odds of the current EM rumblings deterring the Fed from its "gradual-pace" roadmap are long. The U.S. economy is not only an 800-pound gorilla, it's an especially insular 800-pound gorilla. Only the most significant EM event would cause ripples within the U.S. - even the Asian Crisis failed to register in the U.S. for a year and a half after the Thai baht's collapse, and only then via a hedge fund leveraged to the gills in a way that simply is not possible today. To the extent that there is an "EM put" that could stay the Fed's hand, it's a put with a strike price that is way out of the money. Investment Implications Maintain below-benchmark Treasury duration and underweight fixed income overall. Rates are going to rise more than the consensus expects. We remain neutral on spread product within fixed income portfolios as defaults have already bottomed for the cycle, and capital losses will chip away at stingy coupons. Even though they expect the default rate will rise slowly, our fixed-income strategists are unenthused about the prospects for risk-adjusted excess returns. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 We will track the 3-month/10-year segment of the yield curve, which is less susceptible to estimate error, and has historically been more sensitive, than the widely cited 2-year/10-year segment. 2 NAIRU is an acronym for the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. 3 The Bureau of Labor Statistics' U-6 series includes people working part time because they're unable to find a full-time position, and discouraged workers who are not actively looking for work and are therefore not counted as unemployed, in addition to the unemployed in the headline U-3 series. 4 Brainard, Lael (2018). "What Do We Mean by Neutral And What Role Does It Play in Monetary Policy," speech delivered at the Detroit Economic Club, Detroit, Mich., September 12. Emphasis added.

Highlights An inflation scare would initially take bond yields higher. But the higher bond yields would undermine the valuation support of global risk-assets worth several times the size of the global economy. Thereby, an inflation scare could unleash a potentially much larger disinflationary scare. And the subsequent decline in yields would exceed the original rise. Using the 10-year T-bond yield for our roadmap (because it is least impacted by the lower bound to yields) a short trip to the uplands of 3.5% would precede a longer journey down to 2%. Feature The global long bond yield has been trapped within a tight sideways channel for almost two years (Chart of the Week); the global equity market has also lacked any clear direction in recent quarters (Chart I-2). The result is that this year's defining feature for asset-class returns is that there is no defining feature! Global equities, bonds and cash have delivered near-identical returns.1 Chart Of The WeekThe Global Long Bond Yield ##br##Has Been Trapped Chart I-2World Equities Have Drifted ##br##Sideways This Year This is not to say that 2018 has been a dull year for investors. Far from it. But all the action has been underneath the main asset allocation decision, across sectors, regions and countries. For example, European healthcare has outperformed European banks by 35 percent; and developed market equities have outperformed emerging market equities by 15 percent (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Main Action Has Been Across Sectors... Chart I-4...And Across Regions Unshackling Bond Yields Might Be Difficult In the major developed economies, unemployment rates keep hitting new generational lows, implying that the main labour markets are tight. Yet policy interest rates range from a crisis-level negative 0.4 percent in the euro area to just 0.75 percent in the U.K. to a modest 2 percent in the U.S. This raises the potential for an inflation scare. At any moment, the bond market might panic that central banks are well behind the (Phillips) curve.2 The spike in bond yields would of course unleash a countervailing disinflationary feedback, by cooling credit growth and credit-sensitive sectors in the economy. But this feedback would take weeks or months to take effect and to show up in the economic data. Until then, it would liberate bond yields to reach higher ground. However, there would be a more powerful and immediate feedback which would keep the shackles on bond yields. That feedback would come not from the economy, but from the financial markets themselves. In Finance 101, all investment students learn that the valuations of risk-assets depend (inversely) on bond yields. But what is less well understood is that at very low bond yields this relationship becomes exponential. Approaching the lower bound of bond yields, bonds become doubly ugly. Not only do they offer feeble returns, but the bond returns take on an unattractive asymmetry. Specifically, you can no longer make a sudden large gain, but you can still suffer a sudden deep loss. In effect, bonds become much riskier investments.3 Confronted with this increased riskiness of bonds, 'risk-assets' becomes a misnomer because risk-assets are no longer riskier than bonds! This requires risk-asset returns to collapse to the feeble return offered by bonds with no additional 'risk-premium', giving their valuations an exponential uplift (Chart I-5). The big problem is that if bond yields normalise, the process goes into sharp reverse - the lofty valuations of risk-assets must decline as exponentially as they rose. Chart I-5At Low Bond Yields ##br##The Valuation Of Equities Changes Exponentially The global bond yield appears close to this crossover point at which risk-asset valuations become vulnerable to an exponential derating. In the past year, whenever the global bond yield has reached the upper limits of its recent range - defined by the sum of 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund, and JGB reaching 3.5 percent - the correlation between bond yields and equities has turned sharply negative (Chart I-6). And the subsequent sell-off in equities has eventually pegged back the rise in bond yields, effectively trapping them. Chart I-6At Higher Bond Yields The Correlation With Equity Prices Has Flipped From Positive To Negative But what would happen if there were an inflation scare? The answer depends on the relative sizes of the inflationary impulse compared with the disinflationary impulse that resulted from sharply lower risk-asset prices. If central banks were more concerned about the inflationary impulse, they would have to keep tightening - in which case, bond yields would be liberated to reach elevated territory. Conversely, if the bigger worry was the disinflationary impulse, central banks would quickly reverse course, and bond yields would return to the lowlands. We now explain why the disinflationary impulse from lower risk-asset prices would end up as the bigger worry. An Inflation Scare Would Be Disinflationary The current episode of elevated risk-asset valuations is not unprecedented, but there is a crucial difference. Previous episodes of elevated risk-asset valuations tended to be localised, either by geography or sector: 1990 was focussed in Japan; 2000 was focussed in the dot com related sectors; 2008 was focussed in the U.S. mortgage and credit markets and preceded the emerging market credit boom (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Emerging Market Boom Happened After 2008 By comparison, the post-2008 global experiment with quantitative easing, and zero and negative interest rate policy has boosted the valuations of all risk-assets across all geographies and all asset-classes - global equities (Chart I-8), global credit (Chart I-9), and global real estate. This makes it considerably more dangerous, because we estimate that the total value of global risk-assets is $400 trillion, equal to about five times the size of the global economy. Chart I-8Elevated Valuations On Global Equities Chart I-9Elevated Valuations On Global Credit Let's say you had an investment that was priced to generate 5 percent a year over the next decade. Now imagine that the valuation boost from ultra-accommodative monetary policy capitalises all of those future returns to today. For those future returns to drop to zero, today's price must surge by 63 percent.4 If you were prudent, you might amortise today's windfall to generate the original 5 percent a year over the next decade. But if you were imprudent, you might spend a large amount of the windfall today. Now let's imagine a valuation derating moves the investment's returns back to the future. For those that had prudently amortised the original windfall, nothing has really changed and future spending patterns would not be impacted. But not everybody is prudent. For those that had imprudently spent the original windfall, future spending would inevitably suffer a nasty recession. The key takeaway is that any inflationary impulse would - through higher bond yields - undermine the valuation support of global risk-assets worth several times the size of the global economy. Thereby, it could unleash a potentially much larger disinflationary impulse. A Roadmap For An Inflation Scare The high sensitivity of risk-asset valuations to bond yields is the genesis of our 'rule of 4' strategy for equity allocation, which is based on the sum of the 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund and JGB: Above 3.5 is the level to go to a neutral exposure to equities; above 4 is the level to go underweight. Today, our metric stands at exactly 3.5 (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The 'Rule Of 4' Is At 3.5 For bonds, this means that 4 on this metric is also a good level to buy a mixed portfolio of high-quality 10-year government bonds. The equivalent level for high-quality 30-year government bonds is 5.5 (using the sum of the three 30-year yields). To sum up, an inflation scare would initially take bond yields higher. But this would threaten to unleash a much larger disinflation scare, causing the subsequent decline in yields to exceed the original rise. Using the 10-year T-bond yield as an illustration - as it is least impacted by the lower bound to yields - this would suggest the following roadmap: a short trip to the uplands of 3.5% would precede a longer journey down to 2%. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 The global long bond yield is captured by the simple average of the 30-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund and Japanese government bond (JGB). The global equity market is captured by the MSCI All Country World Index in local currency terms. 2 The -0.4 percent refers to the ECB deposit rate. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Rule Of 4 For Equities And Bonds," August 2, 2018, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 4 5 percent compounded over ten years. Fractal Trading Model* This week’s recommended trade is an intra-commodity pair trade: short palladium/long copper. The profit target is 6% with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, short euro area energy versus financials was closed at the end of its 65 trading day holding period, albeit in loss. This leaves five open trades. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights U.S. Treasuries: EM market declines have, so far, shown no signs of impacting U.S. economic growth. The underlying acceleration of U.S. growth and inflation in the face of the EM turmoil suggests that bond investors should remain strategically underweight U.S. Treasuries with a below-benchmark duration stance. EM Contagion: The current EM turmoil has not yet spilled over into U.S. financial markets, as occurred during the 2013 and 2014/2015 EM selloffs, because the U.S. economy is in a much stronger position now. It will take a bigger tightening of U.S. financial conditions, likely through higher U.S. interest rates and a larger increase in the U.S. dollar, before U.S. risk assets suffer the type of decline that could trigger a pause in the Fed rate hike cycle. Feature Chart of the WeekBond Yields Following Inflation & QT, Not EM Have investors become too complacent? The selloff in emerging market (EM) assets is intensifying. The White House is threatening to slap tariffs on virtually all Chinese imports in the U.S. Accelerating wage and price inflation in the U.S. is keeping Fed rate hikes in play. The divergence between the strong U.S. economy and the rest of the world is growing wider, keeping the U.S. dollar elevated. Yet despite all that, non-EM markets show a surprising lack of concern over the EM volatility. U.S. equity indices remain close to all-time highs, while corporate bond spreads in the major developed markets are generally stable. Government bond yields remain well above levels implied by measures of economic sentiment like the global ZEW expectations index (Chart of the Week). For yields, the big issue remains, as always, the outlook for inflation and monetary policy. On that note, yields are being supported by inflation expectations, which have been boosted by faster realized inflation, tight labor markets and high oil prices. These trends are most pronounced in the U.S., where the Fed is not only hiking rates but also slowly reducing the size of its swollen balance sheet. This comes on top of the diminished pace of asset purchases by the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ), with the former still on track to end its net new buying of bonds at the end of the year. Against that backdrop of rising inflation and tightening global liquidity conditions, it is incorrect to solely make comparisons between today and the most recent period of EM weakness in 2014/15 that eventually spilled back violently into non-EM markets and caused the Fed to pause after only its first post-QE rate hike. The current backdrop also has similarities to the 2013 "Taper Tantrum", when the Fed surprised the markets by signaling that it was considering ending QE, triggering a spike in Treasury yields and a selloff in global risk assets. Chart 2China Remains The Key To Global Growth Then, global growth was accelerating and inflation expectations were at levels consistent with policymaker targets in the U.S. and Europe, yet central bank liquidity was slowing rapidly (mostly due to a contracting ECB balance sheet at a time when the Fed's balance sheet growth had already slowed). EM markets sold off alongside the rapid rise in U.S. Treasury yields during the Taper Tantrum. Yet with global growth accelerating and the U.S. dollar staying relatively stable, the EM selloff ended when the Fed delayed the start of the taper into 2014, providing a monetary boost to a global economy that did not need it. Today, realized inflation is even faster and central bank liquidity is again slowing rapidly. Yet market-based inflation expectations are still a bit below central bank targets, while non-U.S. growth expectations are slowing. Worries about the impact on the world economy from the brewing U.S.-China trade war are clearly weighing on the latter. The wild card will be how China responds to the tariff threat through policy stimulus. Already, China's policymakers have allowed some depreciation of the renminbi, along with some modest easing of monetary and fiscal policies, to counteract the growth threat from the Trump tariffs. BCA's China experts do not expect anything close to the massive 2015/16 package of fiscal/monetary stimulus, given the stated goal of President Xi Jinping to crack down on systemic financial risk.1 Yet the most recent figures on Chinese import growth, and higher-frequency data incorporated in the Li Keqiang index, are showing some reacceleration after the 2017 slowdown (Chart 2). At the same time, the most recent data point on the OECD's global leading economic indicator is potentially stabilizing (middle panel). A continuation of these trends could help reverse the cooling of non-U.S. growth seen so far in 2018 (bottom panel). Given all the uncertainties surrounding the U.S.-China trade battle, EM volatility and Chinese growth - at a time when global QE has turned into "QT", or "quantitative tightening", with an associated reduction in global capital flows - we continue to recommend only a neutral stance on global spread product, favoring U.S. corporates vs non-U.S. equivalents (especially avoiding EM credit). We also are maintaining our strategic recommended underweight stance on overall developed market duration, but favoring countries where monetary tightening will be more difficult to deliver (overweight U.K., Japan and Australia versus underweight U.S., euro area and Canada). A Quick Update On U.S. Treasuries: Stay Defensive Chart 3Stronger U.S. Growth = UST Underperformance The main U.S. data releases last week, the ISM surveys and the Payrolls report for August, came as a big surprise for the U.S. Treasury market. The headline ISM Manufacturing index hit a 17-year high of 61, led by increases in both the growth and inflation sub-components of the index (Chart 3), while the U.S. economy added another 200k jobs. The big shock came from the wage data in the Payrolls report, with Average Hourly Earnings rising by 0.4% in August, pushing the year-over-year growth rate to 2.9%, the highest since 2009. The Treasury market responded to data as expected, with the 10-year yield rising back to 2.94%. One of our favorite chart relationships shows the ISM Manufacturing index as a leading indicator of the momentum (12-month change) of core CPI inflation in the U.S. (Chart 4). The recent acceleration of U.S. core inflation can be explained as a lagged response to the U.S. economic growth acceleration since the start of 2016. If the relationship in this chart holds up, the current levels of the ISM are consistent with core CPI inflation accelerating to the 2.5-3% range next year. That outcome would keep the Fed on its planned rate hike path in 2019. At the moment, the market pricing of Fed rate expectations in the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve remains below the latest FOMC projections for the funds rate for the next two years (Chart 5). The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate, which now sits at 2.1%, is still priced below the 2.3-2.5% levels that, in the past, have been consistent with inflation expectations staying well-anchored around the Fed's 2% inflation target. A combination of accelerating U.S. growth, faster wages, and a market that has not fully discounted the likely outcome for inflation and the funds rate is not a bullish one for U.S. Treasuries. We acknowledge that there could be a short-term flight-to-quality bid for Treasuries if the EM turbulence becomes more violent and finally spills over into the U.S. markets (likely through a rapid rise in the U.S. dollar). Yet without any signs of a meaningful slowing of U.S. growth or inflation, such a move would prove to be a short-lived trading opportunity rather than a true change in the rising trend for bond yields. Chart 4U.S. Inflation Acceleration Will Continue Chart 5Market Still Underpricing Fed Rate Hikes Bottom Line: EM market declines have, so far, shown no signs of impacting U.S. economic growth. The underlying acceleration of U.S. growth and inflation in the face of the EM turmoil suggests that bond investors should remain strategically underweight U.S. Treasuries with a below-benchmark duration stance. EM Turmoil, Then & Now, In Charts As discussed earlier, we see signs today of both of the most recent EM selloffs in 2013 and 2014/15 that were fueled by rising U.S. interest rates and a higher U.S. dollar. In the sets of charts beginning on Page 7 we present "cycle-on-cycle" analyses of several economic and financial indicators during those episodes, as well as this year. The charts are set up so that the blue lines represent the current EM selloff and the dotted lines in each panel represent how the same data series responded in 2013 (top panel of each chart) and 2014/15 (bottom panel of each chart). The vertical line represents the date of the trough in the U.S. dollar for each episode, which occurred in February 2018 for the current cycle. By looking at these charts, we can see how the current backdrop is evolving versus those prior episodes. The goal is to try to determine where things are similar, and different, to EM market declines in recent history. We are focusing on the areas where we believe there is the greatest concern over the potential spillovers from the current bout of EM stress - U.S. economic growth, Chinese economic growth and U.S. financial markets. We present the charts in a rapid "chartbook" format, with our overall conclusions at the end. Leading Economic Indicators: The OECD's leading economic indicator for the U.S. (Chart 6A) is currently off the high seen at the beginning of the year, following a path similar to 2014/15, but the latest data point has ticked higher. More importantly, the level is higher than at the same point in the 2013 and 2014/15 cycles. Meanwhile, the OECD (ex-U.S.) global leading economic indicator (Chart 6B) is following the depressed path of the 2014/15 episode, rather than the acceleration seen during the 2013 Taper Tantrum. Chart 6AU.S. Leading Indicator Following 2014/15 Path Chart 6BGlobal Leading Indicator Following 2014/15 Path U.S. Dollar: The rising dollar of 2018 (Chart 7A) looks more like the 2014/15 episode in terms of magnitude, although the greenback is at a lower level than during that earlier cycle (note that all lines are indexed to 100 at the date of the trough in the dollar at the vertical line). In 2013, the increase in the dollar was fairly mild, even with U.S. bond yields soaring higher, due to fact that non-U.S. growth was improving at the time. Chart 7AU.S. Dollar Following 2014/15 Path...So Far Chart 7BU.S. Investment Grade Returns Matching 2014/15 Path U.S. Corporate Bonds: The path of excess returns for U.S. investment grade corporate debt (Chart 7B) is tracking extremely tightly to the 2014/15 experience, with larger losses compared to this similar point during the Taper Tantrum. EM Equities & Credit: The widening in USD-denominated EM sovereign credit spreads in 2018 (Chart 8A) is in line with the 2014/15 cycle and has already surpassed the 2013 episode. The decline in EM equities (Chart 8B) has been worse than both prior EM selloffs. Chart 8AEM Equities Worse Than Both 2013 & 2014/15 Chart 8BEM Spreads Matching 2014/15 Path U.S. Interest Rates: Our 12-month fed funds discounter, which measures the amount of Fed rate hikes expected by the market over the next year, is higher than the 2014/15 episode and much higher than 2013 (Chart 9A). 10-year Treasury yields are at the same level as occurred at this point during the Taper Tantrum, and well above the levels seen in 2014/15 (Chart 9B). Chart 9AMore Fed Hikes Expected Than 2013 & 2014/15 Chart 9BUST Yields Following 2013 Path U.S. Labor Markets: Perhaps the biggest difference between the current backdrop and the prior EM selloffs is state of the U.S. labor market. The unemployment rate of 3.9% is much lower than the 5.6% rate seen during the 2014/15 cycle and the 7.6% level seen at this point during the Taper Tantrum (Chart 10A). That is translating to a faster pace of U.S. wage growth, measured by the annual percentage change in Average Hourly Earnings, than in either of the previous episodes of USD strength and EM turmoil (Chart 10B). Chart 10AMuch Lower U.S. Unemployment In 2018... Chart 10B...With Faster U.S. Wage Growth U.S. Inflation: Realized U.S. inflation, using core CPI, is higher now than in either of the previous episodes (Chart 11A). That can also been seen in the ISM Prices Paid index, which is far above the levels seen in both 2013 and 2014/15 (Chart 11B). Chart 11AHigher U.S. Inflation In 2018... Chart 11B...With Greater Inflation Pressures U.S. Economy: We can obviously show many charts here, but we think the most relevant are those related to signs that non-U.S. market turmoil and slowing growth is spilling back into the U.S. On that note, we show the ISM New Orders index in Chart 12A and the annual growth rate of total U.S. exports in Chart 12B. The New Orders index today is as strong as it was at this point during the Taper Tantrum, and much healthier compared to 2014/15 when New Orders were falling sharply. U.S. export growth is faster than both prior episodes, especially 2014/15 when exports contracted outright. Chart 12AStronger ISM New Orders In 2018... Chart 12B...With Healthier Export Demand China Economy: Again, we could use any number of data series in these charts, but we are keeping it simple and choosing indicators that show the impact of Chinese growth on the world economy. Chinese nominal GDP growth, currently at 9.8%, is the same as it was at this point in the 2013 cycle but much faster than during the 2014/15 period (Chart 13A). Importantly, however, China nominal GDP growth is decelerating now as it was in both of the prior episodes. Chinese annual import growth, up 19% in RMB terms, is faster now than in both prior periods of EM stress, especially compared to the contraction seen during the 2014/15 episode (Chart 13B). Chart 13AFaster, But Still Slowing, China GDP Growth Chart 13BStronger China Import Growth In 2018 U.S. Corporate Profits: Here is perhaps the biggest difference between today and the previous EM stress episodes. The annual growth in earnings-per-share for the S&P 500 rose to 18% in the 2nd quarter of this year, far above the zero growth rate seen at this point of the 2013 and 2014/15 cycles (Chart 14A). A big reason for the difference is the impact of the Trump corporate tax cuts this year, which has boosted operating margins well beyond levels seen in the prior two episodes (Chart 14B). Chart 14AFaster U.S. Profit Growth In 2018... Chart 14B...With Wider Margins Thanks To Tax Cuts EM Growth: An aggregate of EM Purchasing Managers Indices (PMIs) shows that the current bout of softer EM growth looks similar to the slowdowns in 2013 and 2014/15 (Chart 15A). In both prior cases, the PMIs eventually fell below 50, signifying economic contraction. In the 2013 episode, however, the PMI rebounded around the same point in the cycle as we are at today. Chart 15AEM Growth Slowing Similar To 2013 & 2014/15 Chart 15BU.S. Financial Conditions Tightening Like 2014/15 U.S. Financial Conditions: U.S. financial conditions are tighter now than the level seen at this point in the 2013 cycle and are as tight as witnessed at this point in the 2014/15 period (Chart 15B). After looking through all these charts, we can come up with the following conclusions: Chart 16Is It All Just "Q.T."? EM financial stress today is worse than 2013 and 2014/15 The U.S. economy is stronger today than in 2013 and 2014/15 U.S. external demand and corporate profits are both more robust today than in 2013 and 2014/15 U.S. inflation pressures are greater today than in 2013 and 2014/15 China's economy today, while slowing, is still growing faster than in 2013 and 2014/15 EM economic growth is slowing at the same pace as in 2013 and 2014/15. In terms of "benchmarking" where we are now compared to the previous two EM big EM selloffs, the fact that U.S. and Chinese economic growth is stronger today, and U.S. inflation is faster today, are the most important differences. This may even explain why U.S. markets are not reacting more negatively to the growing protectionist threats from the White house. Against this backdrop, it will require higher U.S. interest rates and a much stronger dollar before U.S. equities and credit markets finally suffer a serious pullback. In the end, though, the fact that U.S. and Chinese growth is better today does not suggest that a cautious investment stance is unwarranted. For the best correlation can be seen in our final chart (Chart 16), which shows the growth rate of the major developed market central bank balance sheets as a leading indicator of EM equity returns and developed market credit returns (and as a coincident indicator of government bond yields). If one were to only look at this chart, the weaker returns from global risk assets in 2018 can be fully explained by "quantitative tightening" and the resulting pullback in risk-seeking global capital flows compared the 2016/17. Bottom Line: The current EM turmoil has not yet spilled over into U.S. financial markets, as occurred during the 2013 and 204/15 EM selloffs, because the U.S. economy is in a much stronger position now. It will take a bigger tightening of U.S. financial conditions, likely through higher U.S. interest rates and a larger increase in the U.S. dollar, before U.S. risk assets suffer the type of decline that could trigger a pause in the Fed rate hike cycle. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy/China Investment Strategy Special Report, "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?", dated August 8th 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com and cis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Monetary Policy: Investors should not place much importance on current estimates of NAIRU or the neutral fed funds rate. The Fed will continue to lift rates at a pace of 25 bps per quarter until the economic recovery is threatened, revising NAIRU and neutral rate estimates as necessary. Duration: The spillover from weak global growth into the U.S. will probably cause the Fed to pause its gradual rate hike cycle at some point next year. But with the market priced for only one rate hike in all of 2019, this risk is already in the price. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Inflation: Recent rapid increases in year-over-year core inflation will moderate in the coming months, as base effects provide less of a tailwind. But the economic back-drop remains highly inflationary and we expect inflation's uptrend will continue. Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, targeting a range of 2.3% to 2.5% for both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates. Feature Fed Chairman Jerome Powell used his highly anticipated Jackson Hole address to reinforce the theme that has quickly become the hallmark of his tenure.1 Much like at the June FOMC press conference, the Chairman stressed the importance of incorporating uncertainty into the decision-making process.2 Specifically, the uncertainty surrounding real-time estimates of important macroeconomic variables such as the natural rate of unemployment (NAIRU) and the neutral (or equilibrium) fed funds rate. Chart 1The Fed's "Gradual" Rate Hike Cycle Uncertainty Surrounding NAIRU Considering the uncertainty surrounding NAIRU, the Chairman pointed to two specific time periods. The first being the "Great Inflation" of the 1960s and 1970s. In the late 1960s, real-time NAIRU estimates suggested that the unemployment rate was only slightly below its natural level, meaning that inflationary pressures were thought to be relatively muted (Chart 2). That expectation led policymakers to maintain an accommodative monetary policy that fueled the inflation of the 1970s. In Powell's view, the policy error was placing too much faith in real-time estimates of NAIRU, which with hindsight have been heavily revised (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 2Real-Time NAIRU Estimates Are Often A Poor Guidepost For Policymakers The second period Powell discusses is the late 1990s. This period is the opposite of the 1960s in the sense that real-time NAIRU estimates were eventually revised lower (Chart 2). At the time, labor markets were thought to be very tight. But former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan downplayed real-time NAIRU estimates and kept monetary policy easier for longer than many would have liked. Powell argues that subsequent downward NAIRU revisions vindicated that decision. At present, the unemployment rate of 3.9% is considerably below the Fed's most recent median NAIRU estimate of 4.5% (Chart 3). Complete faith in that NAIRU estimate would suggest that the Fed should be aggressively tightening policy. But as in the 1990s, it is possible that current NAIRU estimates will eventually need to be revised down. Despite seemingly tight labor markets, year-over-year core PCE inflation has still not returned to the Fed's 2% target. This makes future downward NAIRU revisions currently appear more likely than future upward revisions. Chart 3Current Estimates Point To A Very Tight Labor Market Powell argues that the Fed's "gradual" tightening path - raising the fed funds rate 25 bps per quarter - is a way of splitting the difference. The process of lifting rates acknowledges the current NAIRU estimate, while the relatively slow pace hedges the risk that it turns out to be too high. Uncertainty Surrounding The Neutral Rate Chart 4Growth At Odds With The Yield Curve Other than NAIRU, policymakers must also deal with the concept of the neutral (or equilibrium) fed funds rate. This is the interest rate that will keep the economy growing at its potential, leading to neither inflationary nor deflationary pressures. At the moment, most FOMC participants think the longer-run neutral rate is somewhere between 2.75% and 3% (in nominal terms). If this is correct, it means that the Fed's current 25 bps per quarter rate hike pace will cause the funds rate to reach neutral by the middle of next year. This is illustrated by the shaded grey boxes in Chart 1. If we assume complete confidence in the current estimate of the neutral rate, it is obvious that unless inflation significantly overshoots the 2% target, the Fed should halt its tightening cycle next year when the funds rate hits neutral. In fact, some FOMC members are advocating for at least a pause. Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan recently said that when the fed funds rate reaches the current estimate of neutral: I would be inclined to step back and assess the outlook for the economy and look at a range of other factors - including the levels and shape of the Treasury yield curve - before deciding what further actions, if any, might be appropriate.3 However, the importance Powell places on uncertainty makes us think that any such pause would be very brief, if it occurs at all. In a recent report we showed that while the slope of the yield curve is consistent with a monetary policy that is already close to neutral, economic indicators do not corroborate this message (Chart 4).4 Bottom Line: Investors should not place much importance on current estimates of NAIRU or the neutral fed funds rate. The Fed will continue to lift rates at a pace of 25 bps per quarter until the economic recovery is threatened, revising NAIRU and neutral rate estimates as necessary. Heading For A Slowdown? The catalyst that could actually derail the Fed's rate hike cycle would be a meaningful slowdown in U.S. economic growth. In this regard, we observed in a recent report that current weakness outside of the U.S. is likely to spill over.5 Since 1993, every time the Global (ex. U.S.) Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) has fallen below zero, the U.S. LEI has eventually followed (Chart 5). Is there any reason to believe that this time might be different? One reason for optimism is that the Eurozone has been the main driver of the year-to-date slowdown in the Global Manufacturing PMI (Chart 6). This is encouraging because while Eurozone growth has certainly slowed, the PMI remains at a high level, well above the 50 boom/bust line. Further, recent data have shown some stabilization. The PMI is falling less rapidly than earlier in the year and broad money growth has picked up (Chart 7, top panel). However, weakness in China and emerging markets could easily swamp any positive impulse out of Europe. Though indicators of current economic activity in China appear in good shape, leading indicators and the imposition of tariffs point to weakness ahead (Chart 7, panel 2). Chinese policymakers have taken some steps to ease monetary conditions (Chart 7, bottom panel), but it remains unclear whether that will be sufficient to maintain current growth rates. Chart 5Global Growth Could Bring Down The U.S. Chart 6Weakness Due To Eurozone Chart 7The Biggest Risk Is From China Our assessment is that it is highly likely that weak global growth will eventually filter into the States. This will cause the Fed to pause its 25 bps per quarter tightening cycle at some point next year. However, applying Chairman Powell's uncertainty doctrine to our investment strategy, we must weigh this risk against what the market is already discounting. Chart 1 shows that the fed funds futures market is priced for a funds rate of 2.33% by the end of this year and 2.68% by the end of 2019. This means that the market is priced for only a single 25 bps rate hike in 2019, rather than the four we would expect in an environment of no economic hiccups. According to our golden rule of bond investing, we should be reluctant to adopt an above-benchmark portfolio duration stance unless we are confident that Fed rate hikes will come in below expectations over our investment horizon.6 Given that a significant growth slowdown would be required for the Fed to deliver only one hike in 2019, we think below-benchmark portfolio duration is still justified on a 6-12 month horizon. Bottom Line: The spillover from weak global growth into the U.S. will probably cause the Fed to pause its gradual rate hike cycle at some point next year. But with the market priced for only one rate hike in all of 2019, this risk is already in the price. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Inflation Update An additional reason why any pause in the Fed's rate hike cycle could prove fleeting is that core inflation is very close to returning to the Fed's 2% target. Trailing 12-month core PCE inflation clocked in at 1.98% in July, while trailing 12-month trimmed mean PCE inflation was 1.99%. Rising inflation is likely the reason that long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates have remained stable in recent weeks, even as high-frequency global growth indicators have turned down (Chart 8). Looking ahead, the economic backdrop suggests that monthly inflation prints will continue to be strong. Our Pipeline Inflation Indicator remains elevated, despite the recent decline in commodity prices, and our PCE diffusion index shows that recent price increases have been broadly based (Chart 9). Chart 8Closing In On Target Chart 9Macro Environment Is Inflationary However, unless month-over-month inflation prints strengthen considerably, we should expect smaller increases in the year-over-year inflation rate going forward, as base effects provide less of a tailwind. To assess how much base effects influence year-over-year inflation rates we created our Core PCE Base Effects Indicator. We constructed the indicator using core PCE growth rates over horizons ranging from 1 to 11 months. We compare each growth rate to the growth rate over the next longest interval and increase the indicator's value by 1 each time a shorter-interval growth rate exceeds a longer-interval growth rate. In other words, we compare the 1-month growth rate in core PCE to the 2-month growth rate. If the 1-month growth rate is above the 2-month growth rate, we add 1 to our indicator. We then compare the 2-month growth rate to the 3-month growth rate, and so on. This gives us an indicator that ranges between 0 and 11. Chart 10 shows that when our Base Effects Indicator is elevated it usually means that year-over-year core PCE inflation will rise during the next six months, and vice-versa. We also observe that the cut-off point between positive and negative base effects is between 5 and 6. That is, when our indicator is at 6 or above, base effects bias the year-over-year core PCE inflation rate higher. Base effects tend to drag year-over-year inflation lower when our Indicator gives a reading of 5 or below. Chart 11 demonstrates the impact of base effects in more detail. The chart presents the median, first quartile and third quartile of 6-month changes in year-over-year core PCE inflation for each possible reading from our indicator. The median inflation change is positive for readings of 6 and above, and negative for readings of 5 and below. Chart 10Base Effects Now Less Of A Tailwind Chart 11The BCA Base Effects Indicator Tested (1960 - Present) In recent months, the reading from our Base Effects Indicator had been at 8, suggesting a very strong tailwind pushing the year-over-year growth rate in core PCE higher. But following last week's July PCE release our indicator fell to 6, suggesting only a mild positive impact from base effects going forward. Bottom Line: Recent rapid increases in year-over-year core inflation will moderate in the coming months, as base effects provide less of a tailwind. But the economic back-drop remains highly inflationary and we expect inflation's uptrend will continue. Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, targeting a range of 2.3% to 2.5% for both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20180824a.htm 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty", dated June 19, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-21/fed-s-kaplan-inclined-to-reassess-rates-amid-yield-curve-angst 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Tracking The Two-Stage Treasury Bear", dated August 14, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "An Oasis Of Prosperity?", dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing", dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Two key issues will remain important drivers of global financial markets in the coming quarters: the direction of the dollar and Chinese policy stimulus. Policy and growth divergences will remain tailwinds for the dollar and there is little the Trump Administration can do to reverse the upward trend. Dollar strength is exposing poor macro fundamentals in many emerging market economies. The problems facing EM economies run deep, and will not disappear anytime soon. Expect more EM fireworks. EM market turmoil could pause the Fed's tightening campaign, but this would require evidence that the U.S. economy and/or financial markets are being negatively affected. Chinese stimulus is a risk to our base-case outlook. A growth impulse might keep the RMB from weakening further, boost commodity prices and support EM exports. However, we believe that Chinese stimulus will not be a 'game changer', and might even cause more problems if the authorities push the RMB lower. The U.S. economy and financial system are less exposed to emerging markets than in the Eurozone. An excellent profit backdrop also provides U.S. risk assets with a strong tailwind. Nonetheless, the U.S. is not immune to EM woes. Poor valuation implies a meaningful correction in U.S. risk assets on any flight-to-quality event. Stay cautious on asset allocation. Fed Chair Powell is willing to wait for the "whites of the eyes" of inflation before becoming alarmed, almost ensuring that the FOMC will fall behind the inflation curve. Evidence of labor market overheating is accumulating. Bond yields will rise as the FOMC tries to catch up and long-term inflation expectations bounce. We believe that investors are underestimating the upside in U.S. inflation risks over the medium term. We recommend below-benchmark duration, although government bonds would temporarily rally if EM turbulence sparks a flight-to-quality. We still expect the supply/demand balance in the world oil market to tighten later this year. Stay positioned for higher oil prices. Japanese corporate profits have been stellar, but that will soon change. EPS growth is likely to soften in the Eurozone too. Favor the U.S. market in unhedged terms. Feature There are numerous key issues on the investment landscape, but two stand out at the moment because they both have wide-ranging global implications: (1) Will the U.S. dollar continue to appreciate; and (2) Will Chinese policymakers place structural reform on the back burner and 'go for growth' in the near term? The latest U.S. economic and profit data provide a strong tailwind for American risk assets. Nonetheless, the mighty U.S. dollar is casting a dark shadow over the heavily-indebted emerging market economies, sparking comparisons with the late 1990s. Could Turkey be the start of a 'domino' effect, similar to Thailand's plunge into financial crisis in 1997 that eventually spread to Brazil and Russia, and finally contributed to the demise of Long-Term Capital Management in the fall of 1998? On the global growth front, the story has not changed much from our assessment last month. Growth is solid, but slowing, in part due to a deceleration in developed-economy capital spending. The global expansion has become less synchronized and relative growth dynamics are pointing to more upside for the greenback (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Cyclical Divergence Is Still Dollar Bullish As in the late 1990s, the Fed is likely to ignore turbulence in EM financial markets and will continue on its tightening path until it begins to affect the U.S. economy or asset prices. The path of least resistance for the dollar is up until something breaks. A major policy impulse from China could alter the feedback loop between the strengthening dollar and EM asset prices. A growth pickup would lift China's imports and commodity prices, both of which would support emerging market economies and asset prices. There is plenty of uncertainty regarding the size of the recently-announced Chinese stimulus measures, but our take is that they are likely to underwhelm because a major growth push would undermine the authorities' structural initiatives. The implication is that the global backdrop will remain unfriendly to emerging market assets at a time when they are more vulnerable than the consensus believes. The risk of a financial accident is escalating. The good news is that the U.S. earnings picture remains excellent, which precludes us from being underweight on risk assets. Nonetheless, investors should have no more than a benchmark allocation to equities and corporate bonds in the major advanced economies. We are upgrading government bonds to neutral at the expense of cash on a tactical basis, to reflect the rising possibility of a global flight-to-quality. The First Domino Turkey has had all the hallmarks of a crisis for a long while. Erdogan's slim hold on power has motivated several populist policy decisions that have stretched Turkey's macro fundamentals. The central bank has been forced to provide large injections of liquidity into the banking system, despite double-digit inflation readings. The country suffers from a classic "twin deficit" problem. Turkish private sector external debt stands at 40% of GDP, of which 13% of GDP is short-term, the highest among EM countries. Erdogan wants economic growth at all costs, but has done little in terms of the structural reforms necessary to lift the country's growth potential. The Lira has lost almost 26% of its value versus the dollar since August 1 and Turkish spreads have blown out. It appears that a lot of bad news has been discounted, but our EM strategists do not see this as a buying opportunity. One risk is that Erdogan imposes capital controls next. Our emerging market team's long held caution on EM is rooted in concern for failing fundamentals.1 They emphasize that Turkey was the catalyst, not the main cause, for the broader financial stress observed across EM assets in August. BCA has highlighted for some time that EM debt is a ticking time bomb. Chart I-2 shows that EM dollar-denominated debt is now as high as it was in the late 1990s as a share of both GDP and exports. Chart I-3 highlights the most vulnerable EM economies in terms of the foreign currency funding requirement, and the foreign debt-servicing obligation relative to total exports. Turkey stands out as the most vulnerable, along with Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Chile, and Colombia. Chart I-2Debt Makes EM Vulnerable Chart I-3EM Debt Exposure In all previous major EM selloffs, any decoupling between different EM regions proved to be unsustainable. And it certainly does not help that the Fed remains on its tightening path; EM equities usually fall when U.S. financial conditions tighten (Chart I-4). The combination of a strong dollar and weak RMB is a deadly combination for highly-indebted emerging market economies. Chart I-4EM Highly Sensitive To U.S. Financial Conditions... Investors should expect contagion to intensify. China To The Rescue? Some investors are hoping that China will 'save the day' by providing a major dose of policy stimulus, as it did in 2015, the last time that EM was close to a tipping point. We doubt China will be able to play the same stabilizing role. The Chinese authorities are committed to their long-term structural goals. They have been trying to reorient the economy toward consumption and away from investment and exports, as well as undertake other reforms to reduce financial risk, pollution, poverty and corruption. China kept policy on the tight side until recently, which resulted in a gradual growth slowdown. The Li Keqiang index (LKI) is a good coincident indicator for economic growth (Chart I-5). This index has ticked up in recent months, along with imports, but this likely reflects industrial activity designed to fill foreign orders before the new U.S. tariffs take effect. Our LKI model, based on money and credit, points to further economic weakness ahead. Chart I-5China: Watch Credit And Fiscal Impulse The escalation of the trade war with the U.S. is forcing the Chinese authorities to provide some short-term policy stimulus in order to pre-empt any resulting economic damage. A flurry of policy announcements over the past month has given investors the impression that Beijing has cranked up the policy dial, including cuts to short-term interest rates, a decrease in reserve requirements, liquidity provision to the banking system, and promises of various forms of fiscal stimulus. Chinese stimulus has historically been positive for commodity prices and EM assets. However, we are less sanguine this time. First, the authorities are not abandoning structural reforms, which means that the associated growth headwinds will not disappear. Second, our China experts believe that Chinese policy is only turning moderately reflationary; this is not the 'big bang' that followed the Great Recession in the late 2000s, or the same level of stimulus provided following the 2015-16 global manufacturing downturn. There will no doubt be some fiscal stimulus, but we do not expect a major expansion in bank credit to the private sector because of the government's crackdown on shadow banking, excessive leverage and growing non-performing loans. The change in the policy stance amounts to 'taking the foot off the brake' rather than pressing firmly on the accelerator.2 Third, and perhaps most importantly, the authorities may rely even more on the currency lever to do the heavy lifting if the economy continues to slow and/or the tariff war escalates further. This would be negative for commodity demand because a weaker RMB will make commodities dearer for Chinese producers. Metals prices are particularly at risk. China's competitors will also feel the sting of a cheaper RMB. It will be critical to watch the Chinese money and credit data in the coming months to gauge whether our view on the policy stimulus is correct. We will also be watching the combined credit and fiscal impulse which, at the moment, points to continued weakening in import growth in the near term (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Slower EM growth and/or more financial market turbulence is likely to take a larger toll on the euro area than the United States. Exports to emerging markets account for only 3.6% of GDP for the U.S., compared to 9.7% of GDP for the euro area. Euro area banks also have more exposure to emerging markets than U.S. banks (Chart I-6). Notably, Spanish banks - BBVA in particular - has sizable exposure to Turkey. Meanwhile, Italian assets have come under pressure as the rift between the European Commission and the new populist government widens and Italian banks become increasingly wary of financing their government. Chart I-6DM Bank Exposure To EM European growth will therefore likely continue to trail that of the U.S. Our base case does not see euro area growth falling below a trend pace in the coming quarters, but relative growth momentum and the ongoing policy divergence will favor the dollar over the euro. FOMC: No Urgency The key message from the latest FOMC Minutes and Chairman Powell's Jackson Hole speech is that policymakers are sticking with the "gradual" approach to tightening, despite the late-cycle acceleration in economic growth. The blowout second-quarter GDP report supports the view that fiscal stimulus is stoking the economy at a time when there is little slack. Evidence that the labor market is overheating is not simply anecdotal anymore. In past cycles, an acceleration in growth at a time when inflation is already at target and unemployment is below estimates of full employment would have sparked aggressive Fed action. But the Minutes and Powell's speech revealed no sense of urgency. Powell made the case that the Fed must proceed carefully in an environment where there is much uncertainty about the level of the neutral policy rate, the natural rate of unemployment and the slope of the Phillips curve. Moreover, long-term inflation expectations are still hovering below a level that is consistent with meeting the 2% target over the medium term. Some FOMC policymakers believe that this fact justifies taking chances with an inflation overshoot in the coming quarters. Another reason for the FOMC to proceed cautiously is the wage picture, which is confusing even to economic experts because the official measures paint a mixed picture (Chart I-7). The Employment Cost Index for private sector workers continues to march higher. However, growth in compensation per hour, average hourly earnings (AHE) and unit labor costs have all eased a little this year. The Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, one of the cleanest measures of wages, reveals an even more significant pullback. The softening in wage growth has been fairly widespread across age cohorts, educational attainment and regions, according to the Atlanta Fed data (Chart I-8). Part-time workers appear to be the only segment that has bucked the trend. It is not clear why workers in the 16-24 age group, as well as those with bachelor's degrees (of any age), have seen the most pronounced softening in wage growth this year. Chart I-7Mixed U.S. Wage Data Chart I-8U.S. Wage Slowdown Broadly-Based Which measure is telling the correct story: the ECI or the Atlanta Wage Tracker? Both are a relatively clean measure of wages and it is difficult to tell based on the relative merits of each index alone. Nonetheless, there is little doubt that the labor market is now very tight by historical standards. Small business owners' compensation plans remained near record levels in July, while concerns about the "quality of labor" have never been higher (Chart I-9). Chart I-10 shows that the ratio of the level of job openings to unemployed workers has surpassed the pre-recession level in all but one sector according to the Jolts survey. Indeed, in most cases this ratio is well above the previous peak. Unemployment is now below the estimated level of full-employment in more than 80% of U.S. states. Chart I-9U.S. Labor Shortage Is Growing Chart I-10JOLTS Signals Very Tight Jobs Market No Evidence Of U.S. Overheating? Labor shortages first appeared for skilled workers, helping to explain why highly-skilled workers have enjoyed the fastest wage gains in recent years. But this year's Fed Beige Books have noted that many businesses are now having trouble finding low- and middle-skilled workers, as listed in Table I-1. These industries roughly line up with the ones that reveal above-average growth in average hourly earnings, and with the ones where labor market tightness is the most acute according to the Jolts survey (second and third columns in the table). The shortages appear to be broadly based, ranging from truck transportation to financial services, manufacturing and construction. This makes it all the more curious that Chairman Powell finds that there is no evidence of overheating in the labor market. The evidence seems pretty conclusive to us and it even features in the Fed's own Beige Book. Keep in mind that inflation is not always the 'cost push' type, beginning in the labor market and traveling to consumer prices. Sometimes inflation can begin in the market for goods and services, and then affect wage demands. U.S. consumer price inflation appears to be headed higher based on the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge (Chart I-11). Our CPI diffusion index shows that inflation is accelerating in a majority of categories. Other measures of underlying inflation, such as the Sticky Price Index, the Trimmed Mean, and the Median inflation rate are all in a solid uptrend. Dollar strength this year will eventually put downward pressure on core goods inflation, but that will take some time; non-energy goods inflation is more likely to rise in the near term as it catches up to the previous acceleration in imported goods prices (Chart I-11, bottom panel). Table I-1Labor 'Shortages' Identified In The Beige Book Chart I-11U.S. Underlying Inflation Is Rising U.S. Inflation To Surprise On Upside We believe that the market is underestimating the risk of a meaningful inflation overshoot over the medium term. Investors still do not believe that the Fed will be able to consistently meet the 2% target over the long-term, based on CPI swaps and TIPS breakeven rates. BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, penned a two-part Special Report in August on the potential for upside inflation surprises over the coming years.3 First, increasing political pressure on the major central banks is worrying. Second, policymakers are coming around to the idea that there may be an exploitable trade-off between higher inflation and lower unemployment. This was a mistake last made in the inflationary 1970s. Finally, the pressure to keep monetary policy accommodative until the "whites of the eyes" of inflation are visible will remain strong. Bonds are in for some trouble if we are correct on the inflation outlook. We recommend that investors with a 6-12 month investor horizon remain short in duration and overweight TIPS versus conventional Treasurys. That said, we cannot rule out a flight-to-quality episode at some point, possibly reflecting trade tensions and/or EM turmoil, which would send Treasury yields temporarily lower. The Fed may be forced to place rate hikes on hold if financial conditions tighten too quickly. No Margin Peak Yet In The U.S.... The S&P 500 was unfazed by the turmoil in emerging markets and the re-widening in Italian bond spreads in August, likely because of continuing good news on the profit front. Corporate earnings remained in a sweet spot in the second quarter. Nominal GDP grew by a whopping 5.4% from a year ago, helping to boost the top line for the corporate sector. The lagged effect of previous dollar depreciation is still flattering earnings, although this only accounts for about two percentage points according to our model (Chart I-12). Meanwhile, equity buybacks have kicked into overdrive (Chart I-13). Chart I-12U.S. Dollar Impact On EPS Growth Chart I-13U.S. Equity Buyback In Overdrive Margins continued their impressive ascent in the second quarter to well above the pre-Lehman peak (Chart I-14). A lot of the increase is related to the tax cuts; EBITDA margins are still substantially below the 2007 peak according to the S&P data. It is disconcerting that all of the surge in S&P 500 margins is due to the Tech sector (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Excluding Tech, S&P after-tax margins have simply moved sideways since 2010. Looking ahead, the tailwind from previous dollar depreciation will shift to a headwind by mid-2019. Chart I-12 shows that the contribution from changes in the dollar to EPS growth will shift from a positive two percentage points to a drag of 1½ percentage points if the dollar is flat from today's level in broad trade-weighted terms. If the dollar rises by another 5% this year, then next year's drag on EPS growth will reach three percentage points. Moreover, the impact of the tax cuts on after-tax profits will fade next year. Wage pressures are building and this should eventually squeeze profit margins. That said, a margin peak does not appear to be imminent. Last month we introduced some macro indicators for profit margins (Chart I-15). Most appeared to be rolling over a month ago, but they have all since ticked up. Chart I-14Tech And Taxes Driving Profit Margins Chart I-15U.S. Margin Indicators Have Turned Up The bottom line is that we continue to expect a mean reversion in U.S. profit margins in the coming years, but this is not a risk for at least the rest of 2018. ...But Profit Outlook Darkening In Japan Second quarter earnings season was also a good one for Japanese companies. Twelve-month forward earnings estimates have been in a steep incline and margins have been rising (Chart I-16). Despite this, the Nikkei has only managed to move sideways this year in local currency terms. Concerns over trade and global growth have perhaps weighed on Japanese stock performance. Company profits have a high beta with respect to global growth. Things are looking shaky on the domestic front too. Domestic demand growth is decelerating, consistent with a weakening Economy Watcher's Survey. Some of the weakness may be related to poor weather, but the LEI suggests that this trend will continue in the coming quarters (Chart I-17, bottom panel). Chart I-16Japan: Trailing Earnings Are Solid... Chart I-17...But Profit Margins Will Narrow Chart I-17 presents some of the variables that have helped to explain historical trends in Japanese EPS. Industrial production growth, a good proxy for top line growth, is decelerating. Nominal GDP growth has fallen to just 1.1% year-over-year, at a time when total labor compensation has surged by more than 4%. The difference between these two, a proxy for profit margins, has therefore plunged. Previous shifts in the yen have not had a large impact on EPS growth over the past year and we do not expect that to change much in 2019. On a positive note, Japanese stocks are attractively valued now that the 12-month forward P/E ratio has fallen below 13 (Chart I-16, bottom panel). It is also constructive that the Bank of Japan is the only central bank that is not backing away from monetary stimulus. The recent widening of the trading band for the 10-year JGB yield was a technical change meant to give the central bank more flexibility, not a signal that policymakers are planning to change tack. Nonetheless, we believe that earnings growth and margins will disappoint market expectations over the next year. The story is much the same for the Eurozone. Both trailing and forward profit margins have been in a strong uptrend. Twelve-month forward EPS growth has been holding at a solid 9%. Nonetheless, the data that feed into our Eurozone profit model point to some softening ahead, including industrial production and the difference between nominal GDP and the aggregate wage bill (not shown). The Eurozone's credit impulse turned negative even before concerns about EM and Italian politics exploded onto the scene. Thus, home-grown profit generation is likely to moderate along with foreign-sourced earnings. For the moment, the BCA House View remains at benchmark on Japanese and Eurozone stocks in currency-hedged terms. In unhedged terms, we prefer the U.S. market to these other bourses because of our bullish dollar bias. Investment Conclusions: Two key issues will remain important drivers of global financial markets in the coming months and quarters: the direction of the dollar and Chinese policy stimulus. We believe that the U.S. dollar has additional upside potential due to growth and policy divergences. There is some speculation in the financial community that President Trump might resort to currency intervention. However, any intervention would be sterilized by the Fed. The only way to shift currencies on a sustained basis would be to organize a coordinated change in monetary or fiscal policies among the U.S. and its main trading partners. This is highly unlikely. Thus, the path of least resistance is up for the U.S. dollar. Dollar strength is exposing poor macro fundamentals in many emerging market economies. The problems facing EM economies run deep, and will not disappear anytime soon because high debt levels make these economies vulnerable to any weakness in global growth, commodity prices or global liquidity conditions. EM financial market turmoil could cause the Fed tightening campaign to go on hold, but this would require evidence that the former is negatively affecting the U.S. economy and/or financial markets. In other words, we need to see some pain before the Fed blinks. Chinese stimulus is a risk to our base-case EM outlook. Policy stimulus might keep the RMB from weakening further, boost commodity prices and support EM exports. This would not change the EM debt situation, but would at least give emerging economies a temporary reprieve. Careful analysis suggests that Chinese stimulus will not be a 'game changer', and might even cause problems if the authorities push the RMB lower. But it will be critical to monitor the next couple of money and credit reports. The U.S. economy and financial system are less exposed to further EM turmoil than in the Eurozone. But as the LTCM event demonstrated in 1998, the U.S. is not immune. Moreover, U.S. equity prices are more expensive than they were during previous EM selloffs that have occurred since the Great Recession. This could mean a larger equity re-rating on any flight-to-quality. This is not to say that we expect a bear market in DM risk assets to get underway in the near future. A U.S./global recession before 2020 is unlikely. Nonetheless, the risk of a meaningful correction is elevated enough that caution is warranted, especially at a time when all risk assets appear expensive. Chart I-18 updates our valuation measures for some major asset classes. All appear to be expensive, especially U.S. equities, raw materials and gold. EM sovereigns and equities are at the cheaper end of the spectrum, but are still not cheap in absolute terms even after the recent selloff. Chart I-18Major Asset Valuation Comparison Treasurys rallied briefly after Chairman Powell signaled that he is not willing to accelerate the pace of rate hikes in light of the U.S. economy's growth acceleration. He is willing to wait until he sees the "whites of the eyes" of inflation before becoming alarmed, almost ensuring that the FOMC will fall behind the inflation curve. Bond yields will rise as the FOMC tries to catch up and long-term inflation expectations bounce. Over the medium term, we believe that investors are underestimating the upside in U.S. inflation risks. We recommend below-benchmark duration, although bonds may temporarily rally if EM turbulence sparks a flight-to-quality. We still expect the supply/demand balance in the world oil market to tighten later this year. Stay positioned for higher oil prices. Finally, as we go to press, the U.S. is trying to force Canada to sign on to the U.S./Mexico 'agreement in principal' by August 31. A framework deal with Canada would likely leave many tough issues unresolved. There is also a chance that Canada misses the deadline and that the existing trilateral deal will not survive. It is technically possible that Canada's refusal to join the U.S.-Mexico bilateral deal will delay its ratification well into next year. In the meantime, Trump could raise the stakes for Canada by boosting tariffs on Canadian autos and/or by suspending NAFTA altogether. As a result, we decided to go ahead and publish our Special Report on U.S. equity sector implications if NAFTA is not ratified and tariffs rise to WTO levels. The report begins on page 20. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst August 30, 2018 Next Report: September 27, 2018 1 Please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report "What's Really Driving The EM Selloff?"dated June 28, 2018, available on ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China is Easing Up On The Brake, Not Pressing The Accelerator," dated July 26, 2018, available on cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Reports: "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? Parts I and II," dated August 10 and 24, 2018, available on gis.bcaresearch.com II. What If NAFTA Is Not A Done Deal? U.S. Equity Implications This Special Report examines the impact of a NAFTA cancelation on 21 level-three GICs industries. While the latest news on the NAFTA renegotiation with Mexico is positive as we go to press, there is still a non-negligible risk that the existing trilateral deal will not survive. The U.S.-Mexico bilateral deal is an "agreement in principle" and will take time to ratify. Meanwhile, a framework deal with Canada would leave many thorny issues to be resolved. President Trump can still revert to his tough tactics on Canada ahead of the U.S. mid-term elections. If the President does not gain major concessions that can be presented as "victories" to voters, he is likely to take an aggressive stand in order to fire up his political base. The probability of Trump triggering Article 2205 and threatening to walk away from the suspended U.S.-Canada free trade agreement is still not trivial, despite the deal with Mexico. By itself, the cancelation of NAFTA would not be devastating for any particular U.S. industry because the size of the tariff increases would be fairly small as long as all parties stick with MFN tariff levels. That said, the impact would not be trivial, especially for those industries that have extensive supply lines that run between the three countries involved (especially Autos). We approached the issue from four different perspectives; international supply chains, a model-based approach, and an analysis of foreign revenue exposure and input cost exposure. The broad conclusion is that there are no winners from a NAFTA cancelation for the U.S. manufacturing GICs industries. Pharmaceuticals, Health Care Equipment & Supplies, Personal Products and Construction Materials are lower on the risk scale, but cannot be considered beneficiaries of a NAFTA collapse. The remaining industries are all moderately-to-highly exposed. Considering the four perspectives as a group, the most vulnerable industries are Automobiles, Automobile Components, Metals & Mining, Food Products, Beverages, and Textiles & Apparel. Our U.S. equity sector specialists recommend overweight positions in Defense and Financials; while neither stands to benefit from a NAFTA abrogation, they should at least be relative outperformers. They recommend underweight positions on Auto Components, Steel and Electrical Components & Equipment as relative (and probably absolute) underperformers should NAFTA disappear. While the latest news on the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is positive as we go to press, there is still a non-negligible risk that President Trump could revert to his tough tactics ahead of the U.S. mid-term elections.1 Even if Canada signs on to a framework deal, a lot of thorny details will have to be worked out. A presidential proclamation triggering Article 2205 of the NAFTA agreement (as opposed to tweeting that the U.S. will withdraw) would initiate a six-month "exit" period. Trump could use this deadline, and the threat of canceling the underlying U.S.-Canada FTA, to put pressure on Canada (if not Mexico) to concede to U.S. demands, just as he could revoke his exit announcement anytime within the six-month period. While some market volatility would ensue upon any exit announcement, even a total withdrawal at the end of the six months would have a limited macro-economic impact as long as the U.S. continued to respect its WTO commitments and lifted tariffs only to Most Favored Nation (MFN) levels. Nonetheless, a modest tariff hike is not assured given the Administration's "America First" policy, its looming threat of Section 232 tariffs on auto imports, its warnings against the WTO itself, and the steep tariffs it has already imposed on Canada, including a 20% tariff on softwood lumber and the 300% tariff on Bombardier CSeries jets. Moreover, even a small rise in tariffs to MFN levels would have a significant negative impact on industries that are heavily integrated across borders. Our first report on the evolving U.S. trade situation analyzed the implications of the U.S.-China trade war for the 24 level two U.S. GICs equity sectors. This Special Report examines the impact of a NAFTA cancelation on 21 level three GICs industries (finer detail is required since NAFTA covers mostly goods industries). We find that there are no "winners" among the U.S. equity sectors because the negative impact would outweigh any positive effects. The hardest hit U.S. industries would be Autos, Metals & Mining, Food Products, Beverages, and Textiles and Apparel, but many others are heavily exposed to a failure of the free trade agreement. Out Of Time President Trump is seeking a new NAFTA deal ahead of the U.S. midterms in November. While this timing may yet prove too ambitious, the U.S. has made progress in recent bilateral negotiations with Mexico, raising the potential that Trump will be able to tout a new NAFTA framework deal by November 6. Yet, investors should be prepared for additional volatility. There are technical issues with the bilateral U.S.-Mexico deal that could delay ratification in Congress until mid-2019. The new Mexican Congress must ratify the deal by December 1 if outgoing President Enrique Peña Nieto is to sign off. Otherwise, the incoming Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador may still want to revise any deal he signs, prolonging the process. Meanwhile, it would be surprising if the Canadians signed onto a U.S.-Mexico deal they had no part in negotiating without insisting on any adjustments.2 The important point is that President Trump's economic and legal constraints on withdrawing from NAFTA have fallen even further with the Mexican deal. If Trump does not get major concessions that can be presented as "victories" to voters, he is likely to take an aggressive stand in order to fire up his political base, as a gray area of "continuing talks" will not inspire voters. This could mean imposing the threatened auto tariffs or threatening to cancel the existing trade agreements with Canada. Thus, the risk of Trump triggering Article 2205 is still not trivial. A bilateral Mexican trade deal is not the same as NAFTA. Announcing withdrawal automatically nullifies much of the 1993 NAFTA Implementation Act. Some provisions of NAFTA under this act may continue, but the bulk would cease to have effect, and the White House could refuse to enforce the rest. The potential saving grace for trade with Canada was that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), which took effect in 1989, was incorporated into NAFTA. The U.S. and Canada agreed to suspend CUSFTA's operation when NAFTA was created, but the suspension only lasts as long as NAFTA is in effect. However, Trump may walk away from both CUSFTA and NAFTA in the same proclamation. In that event, WTO rules for preferential trade would require the U.S. and Canada to raise tariffs on trade with each other to Most Favored Nation (MFN) levels. These tariff levels are shown in Charts II-1A and II-1B. The Charts also show the maximum tariff that could potentially be applied under WTO rules. The latter are much higher than the MFN levels, underscoring that the situation could get really ugly if a full trade war scenario somehow still emerged among these three trading partners. Chart II-1AU.S.: MFN Tariff Rates By GICS Industry (2017) Chart II-1BMexico & Canada: MFN Tariff Rates By GICS Industry (2017) Current tariffs are set at zero for virtually all of these GICs industries, which means that the MFN levels also indicate how much tariffs will rise at a minimum if NAFTA is cancelled. Tariffs would rise the most for Automobiles, Textiles & Apparel, and Food Products (especially agricultural products), and Beverages. U.S. tariffs under the WTO are not significantly higher than NAFTA's rates; the average MFN tariff in 2016 was 3½%, which compares to 4.1% for the average Canadian MFN tariff. Would MFN Tariffs Be Painful? An increase in tariff rates of 3-4 percentage points may seem like small potatoes. Nonetheless, even this could have an outsized impact on some industries because tariffs are levied on trade flows, not on production. A substantial amount of trade today is in intermediate goods due to well-integrated supply chains. Charts II-2A and II-2B present a measure of integration. Exports and imports are quite large relative to total production in some industries. The most integrated U.S. GICs sectors include Automobiles & Components, Materials, Capital Goods and Electrical & Optical Equipment. Higher tariffs would slam those intermediate goods that cross the border multiple times at different stages of production. For example, studies of particular automobile models have found that "parts and components may cross the NAFTA countries' borders as many as eight times before being installed in a final assembly in one of the three partner countries."3 Tariffs would apply each time these parts cross the border if NAFTA fails. Chart II-2AU.S./Canada Supply Chain Integration Chart II-2BU.S./Mexico Supply Chain Integration Appendix Tables II-1 to II-4 show bilateral trade by product between the U.S. and Canada, and the U.S. and Mexico. In 2017, the U.S. imported almost $300b in goods from Canada, and exported $282b to that country, resulting in a small U.S. bilateral trade deficit. The bilateral deficit with Mexico is larger, with $314b in U.S. imports and $243b in exports. The largest trade categories include motor vehicles, machinery, and petroleum products. Telecom equipment and food products also rank highly. As mentioned above, the impact of rising tariffs is outsized to the extent that a substantial portion of trade in North America is in intermediate goods. Box II-1 reviews the five main channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry. Box II-1 Trade Channels There are at least five channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry: (1) The Direct Effect: This can be positive or negative. The impact is positive for those industries that do not export much but are provided relief from stiff import competition via higher import tariffs. The impact is negative for those firms facing higher tariffs on their exports, as well as for those firms facing higher costs for imported inputs to their production process. These firms would be forced to absorb some of import tariffs via lower profit margins. Some industries will fall into both positive and negative camps. U.S. washing machines are a good example. Whirlpool's stock price jumped after President Trump announced an import tariff on washing machines, but it subsequently fell back when the Administration imposed an import tariff on steel and aluminum (that are used in the production of washing machines). NAFTA also eliminated many non-tariff barriers, especially in service industries. Cancelling the agreement could thus see a return of these barriers to trade; (2) Indirect Effect: The higher costs for imported goods are passed along the supply chain within an industry and to other industries that are not directly affected by rising tariffs. This will undermine profit margins in these indirectly-affected industries to the extent that they cannot fully pass along the higher input costs. There would also be a loss of economies-of-scale and comparative advantage to the extent that firms are no longer able to use an "optimal" supply network that crosses borders, further raising the cost of doing business; (3) Foreign Direct Investment: Some U.S. imports emanate from U.S. multinationals' subsidiaries outside the U.S., or by foreign OEM suppliers for U.S. firms. NAFTA eliminated many national barriers to FDI, expanded basic protections for companies' FDI in other member nations, and established a dispute-settlement procedure. The Canadian and Mexican authorities could make life more difficult for those U.S. firms that have undertaken significant FDI in retaliation for NAFTA's cancellation; (4) Macro Effect: The end of NAFTA, especially if it were to lead to a trade war that results in tariffs in excess of the MFN levels, would take a toll on North American trade and reduce GDP growth across the three countries. Besides the negative effect of uncertainty on business confidence and, thus, capital spending, rising prices for both consumer and capital goods will reduce the volume of spending in both cases. Moreover, corporate profits have a high beta with respect to economic activity. The macro effect would probably not be large to the extent that tariffs only rise to MFN levels; (5) Currency Effect: To the extent that a trade war pushes up the dollar relative to the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso, it would undermine export-oriented industries and benefit those that import. However, while we are bullish the dollar due to diverging monetary policy, the dollar may not benefit much from trade friction given that tariffs would rise for all three countries. Chart II-3 is a scatter chart of GICs industries that compares the average MFN tariff on U.S. imports to the average MFN tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports from the U.S. A U.S. industry may benefit if it garners significant import protection but does not face a higher tariff on its exports to the other two countries. Unfortunately, there are no industries that fall into the north-west portion of the chart. The opposite corner, signifying low import protection but high tariffs on exports, includes Beverages, Household Durables, Household Products, Personal Products and Machinery. Chart II-3Import And Export Tariffs Faced By U.S. GICS Industries Model-Based Approach The C.D. Howe Institute has employed a general equilibrium model to estimate the impact of a NAFTA failure at the industrial level.4 The model is able to capture the impact on trade conducted through foreign affiliates. The study captures the direct implications of higher tariffs, but also includes a negative shock to business investment that would stem from heightened uncertainty about the future of market access for cross-border trade. It also takes into consideration non-tariff barriers affecting services. Table II-1Impact Of NAFTA Cancellation By Industry As with most studies of this type, the Howe report finds that the level of GDP falls by a relatively small amount relative to the baseline in all three countries - i.e. there are no winners if NAFTA goes down. Moreover, the U.S. is not even able to reduce its external deficit. While the trade barriers trim U.S. imports from NAFTA parties by $60b, exports to Canada and Mexico fall by $62b. At the industry level, the model sums the impacts of the NAFTA shock on imports, exports and domestic market share to arrive at the estimated change in total shipments (Table II-1). It is possible that an industry will enjoy a boost to total shipments if a larger domestic market share outweighs the damage to exports. However, the vast majority of U.S. industries would suffer a decline in total shipments according to this study, because the estimated gain in domestic market share is simply not large enough. Beef, Pork & Poultry and Dairy would see a 1-2% drop in total shipments relative to the baseline forecast. Next on the list are textiles & apparel, food products and automotive products. Even some service industries suffer a small decline in business, due to indirect income effects. Foreign-Sourced Revenue And Input Cost Approach Another way to approach this issue is to identify the U.S. industries that garner the largest proportion of total revenues from Mexico and Canada. Unfortunately, few companies provide much country detail on where their foreign revenues are derived. Many simply split U.S. and non-U.S. revenues, or North American and non-North American revenues. Table II-2 presents the proportion of total revenues that is generated from operations outside the U.S. for the top five companies in the industry by market cap (in some cases the proportion that is generated outside of North America was used as a proxy for foreign- sourced revenues). While this approach is not perfect, it does provide a good indication of how exposed a U.S. industry is to Canada and Mexico. This is because any company that has "gone global" will very likely be doing substantial business in these two countries. Table II-2Foreign Revenue Exposure At the top of the list are the Metals & Mining, Personal Products, and Auto Component industries. Between 62% and 81% of revenues in these three industries is derived from foreign sources. Following that is Household Durables, Leisure Products, Chemicals and Tobacco. Indeed, all of the level three GICs industries we are analyzing are moderately-to-highly globally-oriented, with the sole exception of Construction Materials. Table II-3Import Tariff Exposure U.S. companies are also exposed to U.S. tariffs that boost the price of imported inputs to the production process. This can occur directly when firm A imports a good from abroad, and indirectly, when firm A then sells its intermediate good to firm B at a higher price, and then on to firm C. In order to capture the entire process, we used the information contained in the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Input/Output tables. We estimated the proportion of each industry's total inputs that would be affected by a rise in tariffs to MFN levels. We then allocated the industries contained in the input/output tables to the 21 GICs level 3 industries we are considering, in order to obtain an import exposure ranking in S&P industry space (Table II-3). All 21 industries are significantly vulnerable to rising input costs, which is not surprising given that we are focusing on the manufacturing-based GICs industries and NAFTA focused on trade in goods. The vast majority of the industries could face a cost increase on 50% or more of their intermediate inputs to the production process. The Automobile industry is at the top of the list, with 72% of its intermediate inputs potentially affected by the shift up in tariffs (Automobile Components is down the list, at 56%). Containers & Packaging, Oil & Gas, Aerospace & Defense, Textiles and Food Products are also highly exposed to tariff increases. The automobile industry is a special case because of the safeguards built into NAFTA regarding rules-of-origin and the associated tracing list. The U.S. is seeking significant changes in both in order to tilt the playing field toward U.S. production, but this could severely undermine the intricate supply chain linking the three countries. Box II-2 provides more details. Box II-2 Automotive Production In NAFTA; Update Required We are focused on two key aspects to the renegotiation of the NAFTA rules that could have far reaching implications for automakers and the auto component maker supply base: the tracing list and country of origin rules. Regarding the first of these, the Trump administration has a legitimate gripe when it comes to automotive production. A tracing list was written in the early-1990's to define automotive components such that the rules of origin (ROO) could be easily met; anything not on the list is deemed originating in North America. As anyone who has driven a vehicle of early-1990's vintage and one of late-2010's vintage can attest, high tech components (largely not included on the tracing list) have grown exponentially as a percentage of the cost of the vehicle and, at least with respect to electronic and display components, are sourced mostly from overseas. Updating the tracing list would force auto makers to source a significantly greater amount of components domestically, almost certainly raising the cost of the vehicle and either hurting margins or hurting competitiveness through higher prices. The current NAFTA ROO require that 62.5% of the content of a vehicle must be sourced in North America, with no distinction between any of the member nations. The result of this legislation has been the creation of a highly integrated supply base that sees components move back and forth across borders through each stage of the manufacturing process. Early proposals from the Trump administration for a NAFTA rework included a country of origin provision for as much as 50% U.S. content. Such a provision would certainly cause a massive disruption in the automotive supply chain with components manufacturers forced to relocate or automakers electing to source overseas and pay the 2.5% MFN tariff on exports within North America. Either scenario presents a headwind to the tightly woven auto components base, underscoring BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy's underweight recommendation on the sector. The recently announced bilateral trade deal with Mexico raises the ROO content requirements to 75% from the 62.5% contemplated under NAFTA but, importantly, no country of origin provisions appear in the new deal. Still, given how quickly this is evolving, a final NAFTA deal could be significantly different. Chart II-4 presents a scatter diagram that compares import tariff exposure (horizontal axis) with foreign revenue exposure (vertical axis). The industries in the north-east corner of the diagram are the most exposed to NAFTA failure. The problem is that there are so many in this region that it is difficult to choose the top two or three, although Metals & Mining stands out from the rest. It is easier to identify the industries that face less risk in relative terms: Pharmaceuticals, Construction Materials, Health Care & Supplies, Leisure Products and, perhaps, Machinery. The rest rank highly in terms of both foreign revenue exposure and import tariff exposure. Chart II-4Foreign Revenue And Import Tariff Exposure Conclusions: By itself, a total cancelation of NAFTA would not be devastating for any particular U.S. industry because the size of the tariff increases would be fairly small as long as all parties stick with MFN tariff levels. That said, the impact would not be trivial, especially for those industries that have extensive supply lines that run between the three countries involved. The negative impact on GDP growth would likely be worse for Canada (and Mexico if its bilateral somehow fell through), but U.S. exporters would see some loss of business. We approached the issue from four different perspectives; international supply chains, a model-based approach, and an analysis of foreign revenue exposure and import tariff exposure. The broad conclusion is that there are no winners from a NAFTA cancelation for the U.S. manufacturing GICs industries. Pharmaceuticals, Health Care Equipment & Supplies, Personal Products and Construction Materials are lower on the risk scale, but cannot be considered beneficiaries of a NAFTA collapse. The remaining industries are all moderately-to-highly exposed. Considering the four perspectives as a group, the most vulnerable industries are Automobiles, Automobile Components, Metals & Mining, Food Products, Beverages, and Textiles & Apparel. Our U.S. equity sector specialists recommend overweight positions in Defense and Financials; while neither stands to benefit from a NAFTA abrogation, they should at least be relative outperformers. They recommend underweight positions on Auto Components, Steel and Electrical Components & Equipment as relative (and probably absolute) underperformers should NAFTA disappear. As we go to press, rapid developments are taking place in the NAFTA negotiations. The U.S. and Mexico have completed a bilateral agreement in principle and a Canadian team is looking into whether to sign onto the agreement by a U.S.-imposed August 31 deadline. This deadline would enable the current U.S. Congress to proceed to ratification before turning over its seats in January, though it is not a hard deadline. It is possible that the negotiations will conclude this week and the crisis will be averted. But the lack of constraints on President Trump's trade authority gives reason for pause. If Canada demurs, Trump could move to raise the cost through auto tariffs or announcements that he intends to withdraw from existing U.S.-Canada agreements in advance of November 6. While Mexico has now tentatively secured bilaterals with both countries through the new U.S. deal and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which includes Canada), it still stands to suffer if a trilateral agreement is not in place. Moreover it is technically possible that Canada's refusal to join the U.S.-Mexico bilateral could delay the latter's ratification well into next year. Therefore, we treat Mexico the same as Canada in our analysis, despite the fact that Mexican assets stand to benefit in relative terms from having a floor put under them by the Trump Administration's more constructive posture and this week's framework deal. If Trump does not pursue a hard line with Canada, then it will be an important sign that he is adjusting his trade policy to contain the degree of confrontation with the developed nations and allies and instead focus squarely on China, where we expect trade risks to increase in the coming months. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Matt Gertken Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Chris Bowes Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy APPENDIX TABLE II-1 U.S. Imports From Canada (2017) APPENDIX TABLE II-2 U.S. Exports To Canada (2017) APPENDIX TABLE II-3 U.S. Imports From Mexico (2017) APPENDIX TABLE II-4 U.S. Exports To Mexico (2017) 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO," dated June 28, 2018, and Weekly Report, "Are You 'Sick Of Winning' Yet?" dated June 20, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Working Together: Economic Ties Between the United States and Mexico. Christopher E. Wilson, November 2011. 4 The NAFTA Renegotiation: What if the U.S. Walks Away? The C.D. Howe Institute Working Paper. November 2017. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our equity indicators continue to signal that caution is warranted, but U.S. profits have been so strong recently as to dominate any negative market forces. Our Monetary Indicator is hovering at a low level by historical standards, suggesting that liquidity conditions have tightened. It is constructive that our Composite Technical Indicator has hooked up, narrowly avoiding a technical break below the zero line. It is also positive that our Composite Sentiment Indicator is rising, but not yet to a level that would signal trouble for stocks from a contrary perspective. However, our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator continues to erode, and the Japanese WTP appears to be rolling over. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Flows into the U.S. stock market are waning, and those into the Japanese market are wavering. Flows into European stocks have flattened off. Moreover, our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on a 'sell' signal in August. The RPI 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. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. Our indicators thus suggest that the underlying health of the U.S. equity bull market is fraying at the edges. Nonetheless, robust U.S. profits figures have sparked a euphoric late-cycle blow-off phase. The net revisions ratio is still in positive territory, and the net earnings surprises index has surged to an all-time high. Not much has changed on the U.S. Treasury front. The 10-year bond is slightly on the cheap side according to our model, and oversold conditions have not yet been worked off. This month's Overview section discusses the potential for upside inflation surprises in the U.S. that will place the FOMC "behind the curve". The term premium and long-term inflation expectations are still too low. This year's dollar rally has taken it to very expensive levels according to our purchasing power parity estimate. The long-term trend in the dollar is down, but economic and policy divergences vis-à-vis the U.S. and the other major economies suggests that the dollar is likely to continue moving higher in the near term. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes 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 Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

特別レポート

Highlights Globalization, technological progress, weak trade unions, high debt levels, and population aging are often cited as reasons for why inflation will remain dormant. None of these reasons are inherently deflationary, and in some contexts, they may actually turn out to be quite inflationary. The combination of a stronger dollar and rising EM stress means that U.S. Treasury yields are more likely to fall than rise during the coming months. Over the long haul, however, bond yields are going higher - potentially much higher - as inflation surprises on the upside. Long-term bond investors should maintain below-benchmark exposure to duration risk in their portfolios. Gold offers some protection against rising inflation. That said, the yellow metal is still quite expensive in real terms, which limits its appeal. Investors would be better off simply buying inflation-protected securities such as TIPS. Historically, stocks have not performed well in inflationary environments. A neutral allocation to global equities is appropriate at this juncture. Feature Will Structural Forces Limit Inflation? In Part 1 of this report, we argued that inflation could surprise materially on the upside over the coming years due to the growing conviction among policymakers that: The neutral real rate of interest is extremely low; The natural rate of unemployment has fallen significantly over time; There is an exploitable trade-off between higher inflation and lower unemployment; The presence of the zero lower-bound on nominal short-term interest rates implies that it is better to be too late than too early in tightening monetary policy. A common refrain in response to these arguments is that the structural features of today's economy are so deflationary that policymakers simply would be not able to lift inflation even if they wanted to. Four features are often cited: 1) globalization; 2) modern technologies such as automation and e-commerce; 3) the declining influence of trade unions; and 4) population aging, high debt levels, and other contributors to "secular stagnation." In this week's report, we discuss all four features in turn. In every case, we conclude that the purported deflationary forces are not nearly as strong as most observers believe. Inflation And Globalization Imagine two closed economies, identical in every way other than the fact the one economy is larger than the other. Would one expect inflation to be structurally higher in the smaller economy? Most people would probably say no. After all, if one economy has more workers and capital than another economy, it will be able to generate more output. But all those additional workers will also want to spend more, so it is not immediately obvious why inflation should differ in the two regions. Now let us change the terminology a bit. Suppose the larger economy refers to the world as a whole. What would happen to the balance between aggregate demand and supply if we were to shift from a setting where countries do not trade with one another to a globalized world where they do? As the initial example suggests, to a first approximation, the answer is nothing. Since one country's exports are another's imports, globally, net exports will always be zero. Thus, it stands to reason that simply moving from autarky to free trade will not, in itself, boost global aggregate demand. Could a move towards free trade increase aggregate supply? Yes. Global production will rise if countries can specialize in the production of goods in which they have a comparative advantage. Productivity will also benefit from the fact that a large global market will allow companies to better exploit economies of scale by spreading their fixed costs over a greater quantity of output. But here's the catch: More production also means more income, and more income means more spending. Thus, if globalization increases aggregate supply, it will also increase aggregate demand. And if both aggregate demand and aggregate supply increase by the same amount, there is no reason to think that inflation will change. Granted, it is possible that desired demand will rise more slowly than supply in response to increasing globalization, putting downward pressure on inflation and interest rates in the process. This could be the case, for example, if globalization increases the share of income going towards rich people. As Chart 1 shows, rich people tend to save more than poor people. Chart 1Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners If globalization has increased income inequality, it is possible that this has had a deflationary effect. However, for this effect to persist, the world has to become even more globalized. This does not seem to be happening. Global trade has been flat as a share of GDP for over a decade (Chart 2). The share of U.S. national income flowing to workers has also been rising in recent years as the labor market has tightened (Chart 3). Chart 2Global Trade Has Peaked Chart 3Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring ##br##Alongside Labor Market Tightening Globalization As An Inflationary Safety Valve The discussion above suggests that the often-heard argument that globalization is deflationary because it leads to an overabundance of production is not as straightforward as it seems. What about the argument that globalization is deflationary because it limits the ability of companies to raise prices? While this is a seemingly compelling argument, it runs square into the problem that profit margins are near record-high levels in many economies. Far from making companies more price-conscious, globalization has often created oligopolistic market structures. Granted, free trade can still provide a safety valve for countries suffering from excess demand. To see this, return to our earlier example of the large country versus the small country. Suppose that because of its well-diversified economy, the large country often encounters situations where one region is booming, while another is down in the dumps. When this happens, workers and capital will tend to flow to the thriving region, alleviating any capacity pressures there. The same adjustments often occur among countries. If desired spending exceeds a country's productive capacity, it can run a trade deficit with the rest of the world. Rather than the prices of goods and services needing to rise, excess demand can be satiated with more imports. However, for that realignment in demand to occur, exchange rates must adjust. In today's context, this means that the dollar may need to strengthen further. Notice that this dynamic only works if there is slack abroad. This is presently the case, but there is no assurance that this will always be so. The implication is that inflation could rise meaningfully as global spare capacity is absorbed. Technology And Inflation If the price of electronic goods is any guide, it would seem undeniable that technological innovation is a deflationary force. However, this belief involves a fallacy of composition. Above-average productivity gains in one sector of the economy will cause prices in that sector to decline relative to other prices. But falling prices will also boost real incomes, leading to more spending. It is possible that prices elsewhere in the economy will rise by enough to offset the decline in prices in the sector experiencing above-average productivity gains, so that the overall price level remains unchanged. Ultimately, whether inflation rises or falls in response to faster productivity growth depends on what policymakers do. Over the long haul, productivity growth will lead to higher real wages. However, real wages can go up either because the price level declines or because nominal wages rise. The extent to which one or the other happens depends on the stance of monetary policy. In any case, just as in our discussion of globalization, the whole narrative about how faster productivity growth is deflationary seems rather antiquated considering that productivity growth has been quite weak in most of the world for over a decade (Chart 4). Consistent with this, the price deflator for electronic goods has been falling a lot less rapidly in recent years than it has in the past (Chart 5). Chart 4Globally, Productivity Growth Has Been ##br##Falling For Over A Decade Chart 5Steadier Prices For Computer Hardware ##br##And Software In Recent Years Admittedly, it is possible to imagine a scenario where the pace of productivity growth slows but the nature of that growth changes in a more deflationary direction. However, evidence that this has happened is fairly thin. Take the so-called Amazon effect, which purports to show sizable deflationary consequences from the spread of e-commerce. As my colleague Mark McClellan has shown, outside of department stores, profit margins in the retail sector are well above their historic average (Chart 6).1 This calls into doubt claims that online shopping has undermined corporate pricing power. Recent productivity growth in the U.S. distribution sector has actually been slower than in the 1990s, a decade which produced large productivity gains stemming from the displacement of "mom and pop" stores with "big box" retailers such as Walmart and Costco. The Waning Power Of Unions The declining influence of trade unions is also often cited as a reason for why inflation will remain subdued. There are a number of empirical and conceptual problems with this argument. Empirically, unionization rates in the U.S. peaked in the mid-1950s, more than a decade before inflation began to accelerate. While the unionization rate continued to decline in the U.S. during the 1980s and 1990s, it remained elevated in Canada. Yet, this did not prevent Canadian inflation from falling as rapidly as it did in the United States (Chart 7). The widespread use of inflation-linked wage contracts in the 1970s appears mainly to have been a consequence of rising inflation rather than the cause of it (Chart 8). Chart 6Retail Sector Profit Margins Are Strong Chart 7Inflation Fell In Canada, Despite A ##br##High Unionization Rate Chart 8Higher Inflation Led To More Inflation-Indexed ##br##Wage Contracts, Not The Other Way Around Conceptually, the argument that strong unions tend to instigate price-wage spirals is highly suspect. Yes, firms may be forced to raise wages in response to union pressures, which could prompt them to increase prices, leading to demands for even higher wages, etc. However, the price level cannot increase on a sustained basis independent of other things such as the level of the money supply. Central banks must still play a decisive role. One can imagine a scenario where the presence of powerful trade unions creates a dual labor market, one with well-paid unionized workers and another with poorly-paid non-unionized workers. Governments may be tempted to run the economy hot to prop up the wages of non-unionized workers. On the flipside, one could also imagine a scenario where the absence of strong unions exacerbates income inequality, causing governments to pursue more demand-boosting macroeconomic policies. In either case, however, the ultimate cause of rising inflation would still be macroeconomic policy. Inflation And The Neutral Rate As the discussion so far illustrates, inflation is unlikely to rise unless policymakers let it happen. But what if the neutral rate of interest is so low that policymakers lose traction over monetary policy? In that case, central banks may not be able to bring inflation up even if they wanted to. This is not just an academic question. Japan has had near-zero interest rates for over two decades and this has not been enough to spur inflation. Chart 9Long-Term Inflation Expectations In The Euro Area ##br##Are Still Much Higher Than In Japan We do not disagree with the notion that the neutral rate of interest is lower today than it was in the past. However, magnitudes are important here. In thinking about the secular stagnation thesis, which underpins the rationale for why the neutral rate has fallen, one should distinguish between the "weak" form and the "strong" form versions of the thesis. The weak form says that the neutral nominal rate of interest is low but positive, whereas the strong form says that the neutral nominal rate is negative.2 While this may seem like a minor distinction, it has important policy and market implications. Under the strong form version of the thesis, central banks really do lose control of their most effective policy tool: the ability to change interest rates to keep the economy on an even keel. By definition, if the neutral nominal rate is deeply negative, then even a policy rate of zero would mean that monetary policy is too tight. Under such circumstances, an economy could easily succumb to a vicious circle where insufficient demand causes inflation to fall, leading to higher real rates and even less spending. Such a vicious circle is less probable when the weak form version of the secular stagnation thesis dominates. As long as the neutral nominal rate is positive, central banks can always choose a policy rate that is low enough to allow the economy to grow at an above-trend pace. If they keep the policy rate below neutral for an extended period of time, the economy will eventually overheat, generating higher inflation. The fact that the U.S. unemployment rate has managed to fall during the past few years, even as the Fed has been raising rates, strongly suggests that the weak form of the secular stagnation thesis is applicable to the United States. The euro area is a much tougher call, given the region's poor demographics and high debt levels. Nevertheless, at least so far, the euro area has one thing on its side: Long-term inflation expectations are still much higher than they are in Japan (Chart 9). Whereas a neutral real rate of zero implies a nominal rate of 1.8% in the euro area, it implies a much lower nominal rate of 0.5% in Japan. The Neutral Rate Will Likely Move Higher As we argued a few weeks ago, cyclically, the neutral real rate of interest has risen in the U.S., and to a lesser extent, the rest of the world.3 This has happened because deleveraging headwinds have abated, fiscal policy has turned more stimulative, asset values have risen, and faster wage growth has put more money into workers' pockets. Structurally, the neutral rate may also begin to creep higher as some of the very same long-term forces that have depressed the neutral rate in the past begin to push it up in the future. Demographics is a good example. For several decades, slower population growth has reduced the incentive for firms to expand capacity. Diminished investment spending has suppressed aggregate demand, leading to lower inflation. Population aging also pushed more people into their prime saving years - ages 30 to 50. By definition, more savings mean less spending. However, now that baby boomers are starting to retire en masse, they are moving from being savers to dissavers. Chart 10 shows that the "world support ratio" - effectively, the ratio of workers-to-consumers - has begun to fall for the first time in 40 years. As more people stop working, aggregate global savings will decline. The shortage of savings will put upward pressure on the neutral rate. Japan has been on the leading edge of this demographic transformation. The unemployment rate has fallen to a mere 2.4%, while the ratio of job openings-to-applicants has reached a 45-year high (Chart 11). The shackles that have kept Japan immersed in deflation for over two decades may be starting to break. Chart 10The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Is Now Falling Chart 11Japan: Labor Market Tightening May Spur Inflation Debt Deflation Or Debt Inflation? The distinction between the weak form of secular stagnation and the strong form is critical for thinking about debt issues. Rising debt tends to boost spending, but when debt reaches very high levels, spending normally suffers as borrowers concentrate on paying back loans. As such, high indebtedness generally implies a lower neutral real rate of interest. There is an important caveat, however. The presence of a lot of debt in the financial system also creates an incentive for policymakers to boost inflation in order to erode the real value of that debt. This is particularly the case when governments are the main borrowers. When the strong form version of secular stagnation prevails, generating inflation is difficult, if not impossible. In such a setting, debt deflation becomes the main concern. In contrast, when the weak form version of secular stagnation prevails, higher inflation is achievable. Debt inflation becomes an increasingly likely outcome. If we are in a period where countries such as Japan are transitioning from a strong form of secular stagnation to a weak form, inflation could begin to move rapidly higher. We are positioned for this by being short 20-year versus 5-years JGBs. Inflation As A Political Choice There is a school of thought that argues that high inflation in the 1970s and early 80s was an aberration; that the natural state of capitalism is deflation rather than inflation. We reject this view. The natural state of capitalism is ever-increasing output. Whether prices happen to rise or fall along the way depends on the choice of monetary regime. This is a political decision, not an economic one. Regimes based on the gold standard tend to have a deflationary bias, whereas regimes based on fiat money tend to have an inflationary one. The introduction of universal suffrage in the first few decades of the twentieth century made inflation politically more palatable than deflation (Chart 12). There is little mystery as to why that was the case. In every society, wealth is unevenly distributed. Creditors tend to be rich while debtors tend to be poor. Unexpected inflation hurts the former, but benefits the latter. Chart 12Universal Suffrage Made Inflation Politically ##br##More Palatable Than Deflation Once universal suffrage was introduced, a poor farmer did not need to worry quite as much about losing his land to the bank, since he could now vote for someone who would ensure that crop prices increased rather than decreased. In William Jennings Bryan's colorful words, the rich and powerful "shall no longer crucify mankind on a cross of gold." Today, populism is on the rise. Trumpist Republicans have clobbered mainstream Republicans in one primary election after another. The democrats are also shifting to the left, as the ousting of ten-term incumbent Joe Crowley by the firebrand socialist candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in June illustrates. And the U.S. is not alone. Italy now has an avowedly populist government. Other European nations may not be far behind. Meanwhile, a growing chorus of prominent economists have argued in favor of raising inflation targets on the grounds that a higher level of inflation would allow central banks to push real interest rates deeper into negative territory in the event of a severe economic downturn. We doubt that any central bank would proactively raise its inflation target in the current environment. However, one could imagine a situation where inflation begins to gallop higher because central banks find themselves behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. Confronted with the choice between engineering a painful recession and letting inflation stay elevated, it would not be too surprising in the current political context if some central banks chose the latter option. Investment Conclusions As we discussed last week, the combination of a stronger dollar and rising EM stress means that U.S. Treasury yields are more likely to fall than rise during the coming months.4 Over the long haul, however, bond yields are going higher - potentially much higher - as inflation surprises on the upside. Long-term bond investors should maintain below-benchmark exposure to duration risk in their portfolios. Gold offers some protection against inflation risk. However, the yellow metal is still quite expensive in real terms, which limits its appeal (Chart 13). Investors would be better off simply buying inflation-protected securities such as TIPS. Chart 13Gold Is Not Cheap Historically, equities have not performed well in inflationary environments. U.S. stocks are quite expensive these days (Chart 14). Analyst expectations are also far too rosy (Chart 15). Non-U.S. stocks are more attractively priced, but face a slew of near-term headwinds. A neutral allocation to global equities is appropriate at this juncture. Chart 14U.S. Stocks Are Expensive Chart 15Analysts Are Far Too Optimistic Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?" dated September 1, 2017. 2 To keep things simple, we are assuming that nominal interest rates cannot be negative. In practice, as we have seen over the past few years, the zero lower-bound constraint is rather fuzzy. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that interest rates can fall too far into negative territory before people begin to shift negative-yielding bank deposits into physical currency. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S. Housing Will Drive The Global Business Cycle... Again," dated July 6, 2018. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Hot Dollar, Cold Turkey," dated August 17, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Lesson 1: Inflation is a non-linear phenomenon. Lesson 2: Beware government interference in monetary policy. Lesson 3: An emerging markets shock is deflationary for developed markets. Lesson 4: The 'Rule of 4' for equities and bonds. Feature We took a much needed holiday last week, hoping that financial markets would enter a midsummer slumber. Our hopes were dashed. The timing of the Turkish lira crisis reminded us of the old adage: time, tide - and financial markets - wait for no man. But on reflection, our summer holiday gave us the time for some, well... reflection: a precious quality in a world that is rapidly neglecting the value of reasoned analysis. The addiction to minute-by-minute commentary and knee-jerk reaction - epitomised by the Twitterati - means that we are 'thinking fast', when we should be 'thinking slow'. So here, after some reflection, are four long-term lessons from the Turkish lira crisis. Lesson 1: Inflation Is A Non-Linear Phenomenon. Turkey's recent experience clearly demonstrates that inflation is non-linear - meaning that inflation doesn't move in a gradual or controlled fashion. Non-linear phenomena experience sudden and explosive phase-shifts (Chart I-2). In Turkey's case, a major cause of its currency crisis was that inflation recently phase-shifted out of a well-established channel to its current 16 percent rate (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekTurkish Inflation Experienced A Non-Linearity Chart I-2Inflation Can Experience A Phase-Shift People struggle with the concept of non-linearity because the vast majority of our day to day experiences are linear, meaning the output is proportionate to the input. The speed of our car depends linearly on the pressure on the accelerator pedal; the temperature in our home depends linearly on the thermostat setting; the volume of music in our headphones depends linearly on the volume setting; and so on. Likewise, the vast majority of economic models - including the infamous DSGE inflation models used by central banks - assume linear relationships.1 But some phenomena are non-linear. An example you might relate to is trying to get a small amount of tomato ketchup out of crusted-over squeezy bottle. It is impossible. You squeeze and no ketchup comes out; you squeeze harder and still nothing comes out; and then suddenly you get the explosive phase-shift: the entire bottle empties on your plate! Inflation also experiences violent phase-shifts. The main reason is that people cannot perceive small changes in inflation, making inflation expectations very sticky, which is to say non-linear. The Turkish people might not perceive inflation rising from 8 percent to 10 percent, but they would certainly perceive it rising to 16 percent. Hence, as policymakers squeeze the ketchup bottle, nothing happens at first. But at a tipping point, the self-reinforcement of inflation expectations becomes explosive. Whereupon, the whole bottle comes out. The broad money supply, M, gaps up because it becomes rational for banks to lend as much as possible. And its velocity, V, also gaps up because it becomes rational to spend the money - both newly created and pre-existing balances - as quickly as possible (Chart I-3-Chart I-6). So the product MV, which equals nominal GDP, experiences an even sharper non-linearity. Chart I-3The Velocity Of Money... Chart I-4...Is A Non-Linear Phenomenon Chart I-5The Money Multiplier... Chart I-6...Is A Non-Linear Phenomenon This begs the question: when should we worry about a sudden phase-shift in developed market inflation rates? The answer comes from Lesson 2. Lesson 2: Beware Government Interference In Monetary Policy. An economy's broad money supply, M, is dominated by loans. So to expand the broad money supply, somebody has to borrow money. This means that the danger of an inflation phase-shift rises sharply if the government can borrow and spend money at will, with the central bank creating it.2 Over the past few centuries, the British government - by periodically leaving the gold standard - did exactly this to pay for the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War and the First World War (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The British Government Created Inflation To Pay For Wars Which answers the question of when to worry. The government has to get into cahoots with the central bank. In other words, the central bank loses its independence and fiscal policy has the scope to become ultra-loose. This describes the situation in Turkey, where President Erdogan has forced the central bank to suppress interest rates, while putting his son-in-law in charge of the Turkish treasury. Could something similar happen in developed economies? President Trump's fiscal stimulus combined with his recent attempt to influence Federal Reserve policy (to more dovish) is a small step in this direction. Nevertheless, the major developed market central banks are on a hawkish path. They are squeezing less on the ketchup bottle. Therefore, the real risk of a phase-shift in developed market inflation will arise not before the next global downturn, but after it - when desperate policymakers might resort to desperate measures. In the near term, we expect developed market inflation to remain contained, and one supporting reason comes from Lesson 3. Lesson 3: An Emerging Markets Shock Is Deflationary For Developed Markets. The slowdown and recent shock in emerging markets has caused the dollar and yen to surge. Even the euro - on a broad trade-weighted basis - has held up very well through the Turkish lira crisis and is up 2 percent in 2018 (Chart I-8). Chart I-8An EM Shock Boosts DM Currencies... Meanwhile, since May, industrial metal prices have plunged 20 percent (Chart I-9) and even the crude oil price is down by 10 percent. Chart I-9...And Depresses Industrial Commodity Prices An emerging market shock also threatens the developed market banking system by impairing its foreign loans. Thereby, it risks stifling domestic credit creation. The combination of stronger currencies, lower commodity prices, and potentially weaker bank credit creation is a disinflationary headwind for developed markets in the near term. Lesson 4: The 'Rule of 4' For Equities And Bonds. If developed market inflation remains contained in the near term, it should also keep a lid on bond yields. This is significant because our non-consensus call is that the main threat to developed market risk-assets comes not from trade wars and/or a global economic slowdown; it comes from rich valuations which will become dangerously unstable if bond yields march much higher. The bond yield that matters is the global long bond yield. Effectively, this is the weighted average of its three main components: the 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, the German bund and the Japanese government bond (JGB). But for a useful rule of thumb, just sum the three yields. A sum above 4 - which broadly equates to the global 10-year yield rising above 2 percent - means it is time to go underweight equities. A sum between 3.5 and 4 means a neutral stance to equities. A sum well below 3.5 means an overweight stance to equities - because it would justify even richer valuations. Investment Recommendations Asset allocation: Our 'rule of 4' sum now stands at 3.3, indicating a close to neutral stance to equities. For bonds, we have since May recommended an overweight position in a portfolio of high-quality government 30-year bonds. The recommendation is performing well, and it is appropriate to stick with it for the time being. Sector allocation: Stay overweight the classical defensives versus the classical cyclicals: materials, industrials and banks. This recommendation has fared spectacularly well. Healthcare has outperformed banks by 20 percent since February, so the pressing question is: when to take profits? We anticipate at some point in the fourth quarter. Within the cyclical sectors, prefer banks over oil and gas. Regional and country equity allocation: the geographical allocation of equities follows directly from the sector allocation. Our preferred ranking of sectors necessarily means that our preferred ranking of major equity markets is: S&P500 first, Eurostoxx50 and Nikkei225 second (tied), FTSE100 third. Again, this recommendation has performed extremely well. Currency allocation: Since February, our main currency recommendations have been short EUR/JPY, long EUR/USD, and long EUR/CNY. In effect the recommendations reduce to: long JPY/USD and long EUR/CNY, and this combination has proved to be an excellent 'all-weather' position (Chart I-10). Stick with it for the time being. Chart I-10Long JPY/USD And EUR/CNY Has Been##br## A Good 'All-Weather Combination' Finally, our long-standing short Turkish lira versus South African rand position has returned a mouth-watering 73 percent in four years.3 It is time to close the short Turkish lira position and bank the profits. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium models. 2 For example, by giving all public sector workers a 50% pay rise! 3 After the cost of carry, based on interest rate differentials. Fractal Trading Model* Market reaction to the Turkish lira crisis caused our two most recent trades to hit their stop-losses, but it has also created new opportunities. The aggressive sell-off in industrial commodities appears technically extended. So this week's recommended trade is an intra-cyclical equity sector pair-trade: long global basic resources, short global chemicals. The profit target is 3.5% with a symmetric stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Just to be clear: The balance of price risks in oil markets remains to the upside - particularly if we see a supply shock resulting from the loss of as much as 2mm b/d of exports from Iran and Venezuela. Neither the supply side nor the demand side in base metals evidence outsized risks, which keeps us neutral ... for now. Still, downside risks for commodities - mostly via threats to trade - loom. In line with our House view, we believe markets are too complacent re the effects of a global trade war.1 However, focusing only on the trade war obscures growing risks to EM imports and exports arising from the Fed's rates-normalization policy, which is pushing the USD higher. A strong USD retards EM trade growth, which is particularly bearish for metals and oil (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekStronger USD, Slower EM Import Growth##BR##Bearish For Base Metals And Oil An oil-supply shock taking prices above $120/bbl, as one of our scenarios does, would generate a short-term inflationary impulse, and would depress aggregate demand, particularly in EM. Ultimately, it would become a deflationary impulse, as higher energy prices consume a larger share of discretionary incomes, and slow growth. A slowdown in EM trade on the back of a strong USD also would generate a deflationary impulse, as EM income growth slows and aggregate demand falls. Either way, the Fed's rates-normalization policy will be put on hold as current inflation risks morph to deflation risks, if the downside becomes dominant. Highlights Energy: Overweight. The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) will release 11mm of oil from its reserves in the October - November period, to allay concerns over the likely loss of 1mm b/d of Iranian exports to U.S. sanctions. We've been expecting this ahead of U.S. mid-term elections, but don't think it will fill the gap in lost exports. Base Metals: Neutral. Union and management leaders at BHP's Escondida mine in Chile averted a strike, after agreeing a contract at the end of last week. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold rallied more than $35/oz off its lows of last week, as markets took notice of record speculative short positioning, which many view as a bullish contrary indicator. Gold was trading to $1195/oz as we went to press. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA is expected to roll out a $12 billion relief package for farmers on Friday, which includes direct purchases of commodities that were not exported due to tariffs, according to agriculture.com's Successful Farming publication. Feature Overall, the balance of price risks in the industrial commodities are neutral (in base metals) and to the upside (in oil). In the base metals, we think fear of a Sino - U.S. trade war has market participants jittery, and may be getting to the point where it is starting to affect expectations for capex and investment on the production side, and growth on the demand side. Given our expectation EM trade will hold up this year (Chart 2), we continue to expect base metals demand to remain fairly stable, and perhaps pick up as China rolls out modest stimulus measures later this year.2 Chart 2USD Strength Slows EM Trade Growth We remain bullish oil demand - expecting growth of ~ 1.6mm b/d on average in 2018 - 19, and continue to expect a supply deficit next year, which will push Brent prices from $70/bbl on average in 2H18 to $80/bbl next year.3 However, if we see continued strength in the USD beginning to degrade actual EM demand, we will be forced to revise our assessment. Downside Risks To Metals And Oil Loom As mentioned above, we are aligned with our House view, and believe markets are all but ignoring the risk of an all-out trade war, spreading from the well-covered Sino - U.S. standoff to the broader global economy. The global economy already appears to be registering the first signs of a trade slowdown, according to the World Bank's July 2018 global outlook, where it observes "softening demand for imports in advanced economies - with the exception of the United States - and weaker exports from Asia."4 We also are picking it up in our modeling (Chart 2). The Bank also notes the slowdown in trade "is accompanied by rising barriers to trade, moderating growth in China, higher energy prices, and elevated policy uncertainty." A prolonged trade war that spreads globally would be especially devastating to EM economies, as two-thirds of them are commodity exporters of one sort or another.5 Fed Policy Is An EM Growth Risk As important as a trade war is for global growth, focusing too heavily on it obscures growing risks to EM imports and exports arising from the Fed's rates-normalization policy, which is pushing the USD higher. Table 1USD Vs. Fed Policy Variables Per the Richmond Fed's Summary, the Fed is charged by Congress to "promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long term interest rates."6 One of the models we use to forecast the broad trade-weighted USD is a Fed policy-variables model, which uses lagged U.S. nonfarm payrolls, core PCEPI (the Fed's preferred measure), U.S. 10-year real rates, and U.S. short-term real-rate differentials vs. DM rates as proxies for these policy goals. We throw lagged copper futures prices in to pick up current industrial activity, as well (Table 1). This model highlights the long-term equilibrium between the USD TWIB and the Fed's policy variables going back to 2000.7 We average the output of the policy-variables model with four other models using close-to-real-time variables, and some other proxies for the Fed's policy variables to generate our forecast (Chart 3). Chart 3BCA USD TWIB Forecast The USD TWIB and EM trade volumes form a cointegrated system, as shown in Chart 2. Based on our modeling, we expect EM trade to hold up reasonably well over the next year, with y/y growth remaining positive most of the time. But, as close inspection of the chart reveals, the rate of p.a. growth is slowing as a result of the Fed's rates-normalization policy. This means the rate of growth in EM demand for base metals and oil will slow, although the level of demand will remain high following 20 years of solid growth.8 As a House, we expect the USD TWIB to rise another 5% over the next year, which, given the elasticities in our model, would translate into more than 10% declines in copper and Brent prices, all else equal. The Oil Wildcard As regular readers of this service know, we do not believe "all else equal" applies to commodity markets, particularly oil. We have been highlighting the risks of a confluence of negative supply shocks for months - i.e., the loss of up to 2mm b/d of oil exports from Iran and Venezuela - and the implications of this for prices (Chart 4). This is apparent in our ensemble forecasts, which reflect the physical deficit we expect to the end of 2019 (Chart 5). Chart 4U.S. SPR Release Doesn't Cover Lost Iranian Exports The U.S. government has taken notice of these risks. However, we believe this week's announcement by the Trump administration to release 11mm barrels of crude oil from the U.S. SPR over the October - November period might hold gasoline prices down ahead of the U.S. midterms, but will do next to nothing to make up for the lost export volumes we are expecting in 2019 (Chart 4). Chart 5BCA Continues To Expect Physical Deficits An oil-supply shock taking prices above $120/bbl - the projection from one of our scenarios in Chart 4 - would generate a short-term inflationary impulse in U.S. data the Fed follows. This would depress aggregate demand, particularly in EM, as oil is priced in USD. The Fed likely looks through this spike, but, should it misread the inflation impulse and tighten more aggressively, it would be delivering a double-whammy to EM economies: Higher oil prices and a stronger USD. Many EM governments have relaxed or removed subsidies on fuel prices following the 2015 collapse in oil prices engineered by OPEC. While some governments may re-introduce subsidies, not all will cover all of the price increase in such a shock.9 So, even if some subsidies are re-introduced, a price spike likely would hit EM consumers harder than previous high-price epochs. There is a non-trivial likelihood such an oil-price spike would trigger a recession in the U.S. - and likely in DM and EM economies - per Hamilton's (2011) analysis.10 This would force the Fed to change course and resume its accommodative policies. Ultimately, this would become a global deflationary impulse, as higher energy prices erode discretionary incomes, and slow growth. Bottom Line: An oil-supply shock and slower EM trade growth on the back of a strong USD ultimately produce deflationary impulses. Either way, Fed rates-normalization policy will be put on hold if these downside risks become the dominant theme in industrial commodity markets, and the current inflation risks morph to deflation risks. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "How To Trade A Trade War," published July 13, 2018. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy is expecting policymakers to deploy modest fiscal stimulus and reflationary policies to counter growing threats from the country's trade war with the U.S. This will be supportive, at the margin, for bulks and base metals. Please see "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?" published by our Geopolitical Strategy August 8, 2018. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "OPEC 2.0 Sailing Close To The Wind," which contains our most recent supply-demand balances and forecasts. It was published August 16, 2018, and is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see The World Bank's Global Monthly, July 2018, p. 2. 5 Please see remarks by World Bank Senior Director for Development Economics, Shantayanan Devarajan, who notes, "two-thirds of developing countries ... depend on commodity exports for revenues." His remarks are in "Global Economy to Expand by 3.1 percent in 2018, Slower Growth Seen Ahead," World Bank press release on June 5, 2018. 6 Please see Steelman, Aaron (2011), "The Federal Reserve's "Dual Mandate": The Evolution Of An Idea," published on the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond's website. 7 We use a cointegration model to estimate these policy-driven regressions. The output is stout (R2 is greater than 0.95), and it has good out-of-sample results. We use a weighted-average of the five forecasts based on root-mean-square-errors to come up with our USD_TWIB forecast. 8 The World Bank estimates the seven largest EM economies - Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, the Russian Federation, and Turkey - accounted for ~ 100% of the increase in metals consumption and close to 70% of the increase in energy demand over the past 20 years. Please see "The Role of Major Emerging Markets In Global Commodity Demand," in the Bank's June 2018 Global Economics Prospects, beginning on p. 61. 9 Please see BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Scrambles To Reassure Markets," published June 28, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 For an excellent discussion of the correlation between oil-price shocks and recessions, please see Hamilton, James D. (2011), "Historical Oil Shocks," Prepared for the Handbook of Major Events in Economic History. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017