Consumer Discretionary

Underweight This year has been a good one to be overweight the S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines index which has outperformed the S&P 500 by a wide margin. The index's strength has been most pronounced since the beginning of the summer and, unsurprisingly given the cyclical rotation into highly discretionary stocks, has been exclusive to the cruise line operator segment of the index. Cruise line operators' margins have climbed to 10-year highs (second panel), justifying soaring stock prices. Profit gains have come on the back of improving passenger growth and constrained capacity i.e.: incremental passengers per room come with much higher incremental margin. As cruise lines cannot increase their occupancy ad infinitum further margin gains of this magnitude seem doubtful. The outlook is even less bright for hotels as cutthroat competition is pricing power negative with industry selling prices sinking into outright deflation (third panel). Hoteliers are trying to compensate for low prices with huge capacity additions. Our S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines EPS model does an excellent job encompassing all these moving parts and confirms our bearish industry profit stance, pointing to significant relative declines vis-à-vis the S&P 500 (bottom panel). Putting it together, shrinking margins and increased capital deployment mean lower return on capital and hence lower valuation multiples. Take some chips off the table and reduce exposure to the S&P hotels, resorts & cruise lines index to underweight. Please see yesterday's Weekly Report for additional details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOTL- MAR, CCL, RCL, HLT, WYN.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines index will suffer from a profit margin squeeze, which should weigh on valuations. Cut exposure to underweight. A cyclical capex recovery is a boon for software outlays and coupled with reviving animal spirits, signal that it no longer pays to underweight the S&P software index. Augment positions to a benchmark allocation. Recent Changes Downgrade the defensive/cyclical portfolio bias to neutral. Downgrade the S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines index to underweight today. Lift the S&P software index to neutral. Table 1 Feature Chart 1Weak Dollar Positive Contributor##br## To EPS Growth Equities broke out in a bullish fashion last week, as geopolitical fears subsided and the backlash from hurricane Irma was less severe than initially feared. Beneath the surface, non-inflationary synchronized global growth remains the dominant macro theme. While the latest U.S. CPI print was better than anticipated the Fed would have to see a couple more perky inflation reports before an uptrend is established, cementing the December hike. Until then, the path of least resistance is higher for equities. In our last Weekly Report, we noted that our four-factor S&P 500 operating EPS model has recently accelerated.1 This week, Chart 1 isolates the U.S. dollar as the sole regression variable on SPX earnings and the fitted value suggests that profits will likely surprise to the upside in the back half of the year despite difficult comparisons. Importantly, as we posited earlier this summer, irrespective of where the trade-weighted U.S. dollar ends the year, delayed FX translation effects will act as a tonic for S&P 500 profits. Since late-December's peak, the broad trade-weighted dollar has deflated by 9%. Regression analysis shows that a 1% fall in the U.S. dollar boosts operating EPS by 0.98%, with our dataset going back to the early 1970s. If, however, we narrow the interval of estimation starting in 1994 when NAFTA come into effect then the greenback's sensitivity on SPX EPS increases to 1.6%. While every cycle is different, a fresh all-time high in quarterly EPS - driven by a weak dollar - would not surprise us in Q3 and Q4. At some point, the deflating currency should show up in selling price inflation, again as a lagged effect (middle panel, Chart 2). This is encouraging for our firming operating leverage thesis, as a modest inflationary backdrop would reinforce top line growth (bottom panel, Chart 2). The implication of a sustainable revenue growth outlook is a profit margin-led flow through to EPS, especially for high fixed cost businesses. Already, sell side analysts' overall S&P 500 net earnings revisions are benefitting from the U.S. dollar's decline, and so is sector EPS breadth (trade-weighted dollar shown inverted, Chart 3). Chart 2Will The Dollar's Fall Show Up In Inflation? Chart 3EPS Breadth Improvement Moreover, U.S. dollar-based liquidity (defined as the sum of the Fed's balance sheet and foreign central bank U.S. Treasury holdings) has finally arrested its fall and has recently ticked higher above the zero line. This even mild increase in U.S. dollar-based liquidity represents a de facto easing in global monetary conditions, and historically has been synonymous with S&P 500 EPS acceleration (Chart 4). The upshot is that profits are on a solid upward trajectory. Chart 4Dollar Based Liquidity Also On The Rise The equity market's sensitivity to the greenback has been increasing as the percentage of foreign sourced earnings has been rising over the decades. Globally-exposed goods-producers are in the driver's seat. This raises the question: what to do with our long held preference for defensives versus cyclicals? We are taking our cue from the U.S. dollar-induced shifting macro backdrop, and locking in gains of 11% since the mid-2014 inception in our defensive over cyclical sector tilt, and moving to the sidelines. As a reminder, since the beginning of the spring we have been tweaking our portfolio adding cyclical exposure and, at the margin, removing defensive protection.2 Thus, a defensive over cyclical sector preference is no longer in place. Synchronized global growth, reviving emerging markets, a stable China, and a deflating U.S. dollar are all giving us confidence that it no longer pays to play defense (Chart 5). Finally, following a sling shot recovery, relative valuations are on a more even keel, as is our relative Technical Indicator which is hovering in the neutral zone (Chart 6). Chart 5Book Gains And Move##br## To Neutral Chart 6Valuations And Technicals##br## In The Neutral Zone This week we are making an early cyclical downshift and deep cyclical upshift to our portfolio. Hotels Update: Check Out Time This year has been a good one to be overweight the S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines index which has outperformed the S&P 500 by a wide margin. However, earnings expectations have moved broadly in line with the market in 2017, meaning that the index's outperformance has been entirely valuation multiple driven. Normalizing earnings to smooth out profit volatility reveals a more severe picture with valuation multiples at decade highs, above the historical mean and at a 40% premium to the broad market (Chart 7). The index's strength has been most pronounced since the beginning of the summer and, unsurprisingly given the cyclical rotation into highly discretionary stocks, has been exclusive to the cruise line operator segment of the index. The two relevant stocks (RCL and CCL) now represent nearly half of the S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines index's market capitalization. Cruise line operators' margins have climbed to 10-year highs (top panel, Chart 8), justifying soaring stock prices. Profit gains have come on the back of healthy unit revenue as unit costs have remained mostly unchanged (third panel, Chart 8). Chart 7Very Expensive Beneath The Surface Chart 8Cruise Lines Leading The Pack Cruise line occupancy rates corroborate this firm demand backdrop. They have risen in line with margin gains (second panel, Chart 8), a result of improving passenger growth and constrained capacity (bottom panel, Chart 8). This has been the industry's largest margin lever, i.e.: incremental passengers per room come with much higher incremental margin. As cruise lines cannot increase their occupancy ad infinitum (occupancy rates above 100% already imply more than two occupants of a double-occupancy berth), further margin gains of this magnitude seem doubtful. In fact, if cruise operators are to continue growing profits, a capacity growth cycle will eventually have to begin anew, meaning margin contraction rather than expansion. Thus, extrapolating profit growth far into the future is fraught with danger, warning that sky-high valuation multiples are vulnerable to even a modest de-rating. The outlook is even less bright for hotels, an industry that has been losing its share of the consumer's wallet for some time (Chart 9, second panel). Specifically, the low/non-corporate end of the market seems increasingly exposed to competition from Airbnb and other room share competitors; cutthroat competition is pricing power negative with industry selling prices sinking into outright deflation (Chart 9, third panel). Hoteliers are trying to compensate for low prices with huge capacity additions, adding a sense of permanence to recent pricing power declines. However, just as pricing has fallen, the accommodation related employment cost index has gone vertical (bottom panel, Chart 9). The implication of soft pricing power and a rising wage bill is a profit letdown. Our newly introduced S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines EPS model (comprising the U.S. dollar, employment, PCE and confidence measures) does an excellent job encompassing all these moving parts and confirms our bearish industry profit stance. In fact, it is pointing to significant relative declines vis-à-vis the S&P 500 (Chart 10). Chart 9Mind The Deflationary Impulse Chart 10EPS Model Says Rush For The Exits Putting it together, shrinking margins and increased capital deployment mean lower return on capital and hence lower valuation multiples. This implies that the index's relative gains are in the past. Bottom Line: Take some chips off the table and reduce exposure to underweight in the S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOTL - MAR, CCL, RCL, HLT, WYN. Software: A Capex Upcycle Winner? Software stock relative performance has returned to its long-term uptrend, but remains far from the two standard deviations above-the-mean peak reached during the tech bubble (top panel, Chart 11). The structural pull from the proliferation of cloud computing and software-as-a-service has served as a catalyst to raise the profile of this more defensive and mature tech sub-sector. Traditional hardware tech sectors, like communications equipment, are also suffering from the "virtualization" threat as software is making inroads into hardware and blurring the lines between the two. Beyond this constructive backdrop, cyclical forces are also painting a brighter picture for software equities. Importantly, there is tentative evidence that a fresh capex upcycle has commenced (see Chart 3 from last Monday's Weekly Report 3), and if software commands a larger slice of the overall spending pie, industry profits should enjoy a healthy rebound (second panel, Chart 11). Small business sector plans to expand have returned to a level last seen prior to the Great Recession, underscoring that software related outlays will likely follow them higher. Recovering bank loan growth is also corroborating this upbeat spending message: capital outlays on software are poised to accelerate based on rebounding bank loans. The latter signals that businesses are beginning to loosen their purse strings anew (third & fourth panels, Chart 11). Reviving animal spirits also suggest that demand for software upgrades will stay elevated. CEO confidence is pushing decade highs. Such ebullience is positive for a pickup in software investments (second panel, Chart 12). It has also rekindled software M&A activity, with the number of industry deals jumping in recent months (bottom panel, Chart 13). Chart 11Back To Trend Chart 12Capex Upcycle... Chart 13... And Reviving Animal Spirits Are Key Drivers Supply reduction presents a bullish backdrop for software selling prices that have exited deflation at a time when overall corporate sector inflation is decelerating. The upshot is that revenue growth will likely reaccelerate (middle panel, Chart 14). But before getting too carried away, there is some cause for concern. The S&P software index is priced to perfection fully reflecting most, if not all, of the positive drivers (bottom panel, Chart 14), warning that any sales/profit mishaps will likely knock relative performance over. Moreover, productivity dynamics are waving a yellow flag. Business sector productivity growth troughed in early 2017. Historically, this output per hour worked metric has been inversely correlated with software outlays (productivity shown inverted, third panel Chart 15). Importantly, even shown as a deviation from the long-term trend, productivity gains have troughed, suggesting that relative profit growth will likely remain muted (productivity shown inverted, bottom panel Chart 15). Keep in mind that, historically, software spending has been countercyclical (second panel, Chart 15) and given that we are not at the end of the line yet, relative outlays on software may not rebound to the same extent as our other aforementioned indicators suggest. Chart 14Impressive Pricing Power, ##br##But Fully Priced Chart 15Productivity Dynamics##br## Are A Sizable Offset Adding it up, enticing structural software forces aside, a cyclical capex recovery is a boon for software outlays and, coupled with reviving animal spirits, signal that it no longer pays to underweight this tech sub-sector. Bottom Line: The S&P software index does not deserve an underweight. Lift exposure to a benchmark allocation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT - MSFT, ORCL, ADBE, CRM, ATVI, EA, INTU, ADSK, SYMC, RHT, SNPS, CTXS, ANSS, CA. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Chart 5 of the U.S. Equity Strategy Report titled "Still Goldilocks", on September 11, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the August 14, 2017 U.S. Equity Strategy Report titled "Three Risks" for a quick recap of most of our portfolio moves, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see the September 11, 2017 U.S. Equity Strategy Report titled "Still Goldilocks", available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Overweight As the concern over hurricanes Harvey & Irma related catastrophes transitions to repair & rebuilding, it is worth examining the home improvement retail (HIR) space. HIR stocks have barely budged since the hurricanes as the market tries to figure out the earnings impact. Reconstruction is displacing renovation demand which will drive near term sales higher; the price of lumber is the usual leading indicator for sales growth in HIR and it is reaching five year highs (second panel). However, said higher prices will mean that some of the deferred renovation demand will be destroyed, implying the hurricanes simply pulled some sales forward rather than create new demand. Still, the HIR space was firing on all cylinders before the hurricanes with roaring sales and efficiency (third panel) driving margins higher. This is not reflected in valuation multiples which are surprisingly touching ten-year lows. Surging mortgage applications (top panel) should keep renovation demand on a solid footing, despite a likely near-term hiccup; stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOMI - HD, LOW.

Highlights Beige Book highlights disconnect between inflation words and inflation data. Peak in auto sales is not a harbinger of recession. Capital spending still trending higher. Inflation and inflation surprise will need to move higher before Fed hikes again. Big disconnect between 10-year yield and our fair value model. Feature Disconnect On Inflation Chart 1Beige Book Monitors Support##BR##Fed's Outlook On Economy And Inflation The Beige Book released on September 6 supports the Fed's base case outlook for the economy and inflation. It also keeps the Fed on track to begin trimming its balance sheet in September and boost rates by another 25 basis points in December if the CPI and PCE inflation readings turn higher. Our quantitative approach to the qualitative data in the Beige Book points to an acceleration in GDP and inflation, less business unease from a rising U.S. dollar, and ongoing improvement in real estate, both commercial and residential (Chart 1). At 64%, the BCA Beige Book Monitor was still near its cycle highs in September, providing further confirmation that economic growth was sturdy in the first two months of Q3. The Fed noted that "the information included in the report was primarily collected before Hurricane Harvey made landfall on the Gulf Coast." However, there was a mention of the storm's clout based on preliminary assessments of business and banking contacts across several districts. The U.S. dollar should not be much of an issue in the Q3 earnings season, according to the Beige Book. The greenback seems to have faded as a concern for small businesses and bankers, in sharp contrast with 2015 and early 2016 when Beige Book references to a strong dollar surged. The Q3 earnings reporting season will provide corporate managements with another forum to discuss the currency's impact on their operations. The 2% decline in the dollar over the past 12 months suggests that the dollar may even provide a small lift to Q3 results (Chart 1, panel 4). Remarkably, business uncertainty over government policy (fiscal, regulatory and health) has moved lower in 2017. The implication is that the business community is largely ignoring the lack of progress by Washington policymakers on Trump's agenda (Chart 1, panel 5). Echoing the market's disagreement with the Fed on inflation, the big disconnect in the Beige Book showed up in the number of inflation words (Chart 1, panel 3). Expressions of inflation dipped between the July and September reports. That said, a wide disconnect remains between the elevated inflation mentions and the soft readings on CPI and PCE. In the past, increased references to inflation have led measured inflation by a few months, suggesting that the CPI and core PCE may soon turn up. Bottom Line: The Beige Book backs the Fed's assertion that the economy will expand around 2% this year and inflation will mount in the coming months, supporting a gradual removal of policy accommodation. Policy uncertainty in Washington and worries over the dollar seem to be fading. The divide between the quantity of inflation words in the Beige Book and measured inflation remains unresolved. Neither the soft data in the Beige Book nor the hard data on the economy suggest that an economic downturn is nigh. Recession Not Imminent Some investors have concluded that the peak in auto sales, a key component of consumer spending on durable goods, suggests that a recession is imminent (Chart 2). We take a different view. Zeniths in consumer durable goods, followed closely by consumer services, were primary harbingers of economic downturns in the post-WWII period. However, expenditures on autos, light trucks and other durables tend to peak seven quarters before the onset of recession. Consumer spending on nondurable goods and services provide less of a warning, topping out just five and four quarters out, respectively. The implication for investors is that the peak in auto sales suggests that a recession is still several years away (Chart 3, panels 1-4). Chart 2Vehicle Sales May##BR##Have Peaked Chart 3Consumer Spending And##BR##Housing Prior To Recessions Housing investment provides an even earlier indication that a recession is on the horizon (Chart 3, panel-panel 5). Housing peaked 17 quarters before the start of the 2007 recession and 20 quarters, on average, before the onset of the 2001 and 1991 recession. Since the early 1960s, a crest in housing provided seven quarters of warning before a downturn commenced. While housing's contribution to overall economic growth plunged in Q2, we expect housing to provide fuel for the next few years as pent up demand from the depressed household formation rate since the GFC is worked off. The implication from our upbeat view on housing is that the next recession is still several years away. Bottom Line: We expect the next recession to be triggered by an over aggressive Fed, not by imbalances in one of more segments of the economy. It is premature to say that the economy is headed into recession based on a peak in auto sales. Stay long stocks versus bonds, but we recommend that clients be prudent, paring back any overweight positions and holding some safe-haven assets within diversified portfolios. Business Capital Spending Still Up Elevated readings on capex in the first half of the year should persist into the second half. Corporate managements may be postponing investment decisions until they have more clarity on federal tax policy and the Trump administration's plans for infrastructure investment. In short, corporations continue to struggle with how much and when to spend, rather than whether to invest at all. The key supports for sustained corporate spending stayed in place despite the soft July factory orders report and lackluster C&I loan growth. BCA's model for capex (based on non-residential fixed investment, small business optimism and the speculative-grade default rate) suggests lending is poised to climb on a 12-month basis (Chart 4) despite the softening of C&I loan growth since November 2016. Moreover, the 3.3% month-over-month (m/m) drop in factory orders in July masked an upward revision to orders in June and a substantial 1.0% m/m gain in core orders. Core shipments, which feed directly into GDP, rose 1.2% m/m in July. Almost all of the weakness in orders and shipments in July was linked to a 71% plunge in the volatile aircraft orders segment. BCA's research shows that sustainable capital spending cycles get underway only when businesses see evidence that consumer final demand is on the upswing. Consumer expenditures averaged an above-trend 2.7% in 1H. We anticipate that household spending will continue to improve in the second half of 2017.1 Moreover, recent readings on core durable goods orders and shipments show that the uptrend that began in mid-2016 persists, despite recent monthly wiggles in the data (Chart 5). Chart 4BCA Capex Model Points##BR##To Further Improvement Chart 5Capital Spending##BR##Remains In An Uptrend CEO confidence, still a primary support for capex, recently soared to a 13-year high in Q1, but retreated modestly in Q2. The last reading on this survey was in mid-July, and the dip in sentiment reflects the lack of legislative progress in Washington (Chart 5, top panel). The next CEO survey is set for mid-October. The dip in CEO sentiment in Q2 stands in sharp contrast with the easing of concerns around policy in the Beige Book. Chart 6Surprising Drop In Policy##BR##Uncertainty This Year Surprisingly, the chaos in Washington during the first eight months of the Trump administration has not led to an increase in economic policy uncertainty (Chart 6). Instead, after rising sharply in the wake of the Brexit vote in mid-2016 and the U.S. presidential election in November, policy uncertainty has ebbed. While uncertainty over economic policy remains elevated relative to the past few years, the concern under Trump is surprisingly subdued. This metric is in line with the Beige Book's assessment of Trump's impact on sentiment. A series of business-friendly legislative wins for the GOP and President Trump would further reduce any qualms. Even so, a failure by Congress to boost the debt ceiling and fund the U.S. government later this month would increase business worries/fears. Late last week, Trump cut a deal with Congressional Democrats to extend the debt ceiling for three months and is in talks to do away with it altogether. Bottom Line: The fundamentals still support solid business spending. However, BCA's positive capex outlook in the U.S. could be blemished if the Republicans fail to deliver on their promises to cut taxes and boost infrastructure spending in the next several months. Inflation Surprise And The Fed Chart 7The Fed Cycle And Inflation Surprise We expect inflation surprise to move higher, which could spur the Fed to resume its rate hike campaign. A disconnect has opened between economic surprise and inflation surprise.2 In the past 13 years, there have been 15 periods when economic surprise has climbed after a trough. The inflation surprise index temporarily increased in 13 of those episodes. For example, in the aftermath of the oil price peak in the U.S. in mid-2014, both economic surprise and inflation surprise diminished through early 2015 and then began climbing. However, today's inflation surprise index has rolled over while economic surprise has gained. The inflation surprise index escalated during previous tightening regimes when the economy was at full employment and the Fed funds rate was in accommodative territory (Chart 7). The last time those conditions were in place, which was in 2005, the Fed was wrapping up a rate increase campaign that began in mid-2004. Mounting inflation surprise also accompanied most of the Fed's rate increases from mid-1999 through mid-2000 under similar conditions. In late 2015, as the current set of rate hikes commenced, the inflation surprise index was on the upswing, the economy was close to full employment and the Fed funds rate was accommodative. What Does This Mean For The Fed? The above analysis underscores that economic growth is in good shape and it is likely to remain so for the next year at a minimum, barring any nasty shocks. Normally, the positive U.S. (and global) growth backdrop would place upward pressure on bond yields. It has not been the case this time. Investors appear skeptical of the ability of strong economic growth to generate higher inflation. The attitude seems to be "we will believe it when we see it". Some on the FOMC are taking a similar attitude. Lael Brainard, a FOMC governor, presented an interesting speech last week that makes this point. She speculated that inflation has been lower post-Lehman for structural reasons related partly to a drop in long-term inflation expectations. The Fed has been reluctant in the past to even hint that inflation expectations have become unmoored, because that could reinforce the trend, thus making it harder for the Fed to move inflation up to target. Brainard, a voting member of the committee with a dovish bias, argued that unemployment may have to undershoot the full employment level for longer than normal because low inflation expectations will be a persistent headwind. She also implied that the central bank should allow inflation to temporarily overshoot the 2% target. At a minimum, she wants to see evidence of rising inflation and inflation expectations before the Fed delivers the next rate hike. In the past, Brainard's speeches have sometimes heralded shifts in the FOMC's consensus. An example is her December 1, 2015 speech at Stanford.3 It is not clear if this is the case this time, but it does reinforce the view that a strong economy and a falling unemployment rate is not enough to justify another rate hike this year according to the consensus on the FOMC. Bottom Line: Our inflation indicators are pointing mildly up. Nonetheless, timing the upturn in inflation is difficult and the Fed will not hike in December without at least a modest rise in inflation (together with higher inflation expectations). We are short duration because Treasuries are overvalued and market expectations for Fed rate hikes over the next year are overly complacent (see next section). Nonetheless, a rise in yields may not be imminent. Disconnect On Duration The Global Manufacturing PMI reached a more than 6-year high in August, climbing from 52.7 in July to 53.1 last month (Chart 8, panel 3). Meanwhile, bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar continues to plunge (Chart 8, bottom panel). Together, these two factors suggest that global growth is accelerating and becoming broader based. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service4 views the improving global economic backdrop as an extremely bond-bearish development. A wide global recovery means that when U.S. data turns surprisingly positive, it is less likely that any increase in Treasury yields will be met with an influx of foreign demand and surge in the dollar. Our Treasury model (based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) currently places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.67% (Chart 8, top panel). Moreover, our 3-factor version of the model (which includes the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index), puts fair value slightly higher at 2.68% (not shown). Investors should continue to position for a steeper curve by favoring the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. After adjusting for changes in credit rating and duration over time, the average spread offered by the Bloomberg Barclays corporate bond index is fairly valued relative to similar stages of past business cycles. However, the Aaa-rated portion of the market looks expensive. Further, strong Q2 profit growth likely foreshadows a decline in net leverage. This lengthens the window for corporate bond outperformance. We recommend an overweight in the high-yield market. In the early stages of the previous two Fed tightening cycles (February 1994 to July 1994 and June 2004 to December 2005), the index option-adjusted spread averaged 342 bps and traded in a range between 259 bps and 394 bps. This puts the current junk spread (378 bps) almost in line with the average achieved during other similar monetary conditions (Chart 9). We continue to favor a "buy on the dips"5 approach in the high-yield market. Chart 8Treasury Fair Value Models Chart 9High-Yield Market Overview Regarding high-yield valuation, our estimated default-adjusted spread stands at 245 bps. Historically, this level is consistent with excess returns of just under 3% versus duration-matched Treasuries over the subsequent 12 months. Our estimated default-adjusted spread is based on an expected default rate of 2.6% and recovery rate of 49% (Chart 9, bottom panel). We remain underweight MBSs; While MBS are starting to look more attractive, especially relative to Aaa credit, we think it is still too soon to buy. The Fed will announce the run-off of its balance sheet when it meets later this month. The market has been pricing in this eventuality for most of the year, leading to a significant widening in MBS OAS. More recently, the option cost component of MBS spreads has joined in, widening alongside falling mortgage rates and expectations of rising prepayments. Bottom Line: Rates have tested their post-election lows, but BCA's fair value model suggests a bounce higher, which supports our stocks-over-bonds stance. In terms of U.S. bonds, we favor short duration over long and credit over high quality. MBSs will be hurt more than Treasuries as the Fed begins to shrink its balance sheet. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy ryans@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate", July 24, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Surprise, Surprise", August 28, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20151201a.htm 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "The Cyclical Sweet Spot Rolls On," September 5, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Keep Buying Dips," March 28, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com.

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

Special Report

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

The S&P advertising index broke down after a tough Q2 earnings season that saw caution, particularly from consumer goods clients holding back advertising budgets. However, management teams maintained their full-year guidance with expectations of a second half recovery; the analyst community concurred and earnings estimates barely budged (bottom panel). The market appears to have much less faith, driving valuation multiples to their lowest level since the GFC (second panel). We think this capitulation has created a significant buying opportunity. This mostly variable cost industry has a proven ability to downshift its cost base in line with a pullback in revenues; a steep decline in wages has been underway since the start of the year (third panel). This is driving a steep divergence between our vibrant industry margin proxy and muted EPS growth expectations (bottom panel). If management forecasts pan out, an EPS recovery should follow; more patient investors will be rewarded. Stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5ADVT - IPG, OMC.

Special Report

Feature This is the second of three Special Reports on Electric Vehicles. In the first report published two weeks ago,1 we looked at the current costs of ownership of a typical mass-market EV, including and excluding subsidies, versus a similar Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (ICEV). Based on current manufacturing costs and battery capabilities, EVs carry a significantly higher total cost per mile, even including current subsidies. In this second report, we determine that EV-specific manufacturers (specifically, TSLA) do not hold any material manufacturing advantage over conventional auto manufacturers, and lack their financial resources and intellectual experiences managing mass production operations. In addition to the risks from increased mass-market competition, the EV market faces risks of today's EV subsidies morphing into tomorrow's EV taxes, retarding the exponential growth of adoption many EV enthusiasts are betting on today. In our forthcoming third report, we will look at the potential regional and global impacts EV adoption will have on energy, power, and commodity markets. Despite the current cost and utility disadvantages of EVs, we expect governments (especially Europe and China) will continue to provide subsidies (carrots) and mandates (sticks) to further the adoption of EVs for the purposes of reducing CO2 emissions and tailpipe particulate pollution. The longer-term hope is that by forcing the EV market to expand, meaningful technological breakthroughs on batteries will eventually enable EVs to exceed ICEVs on a cost and utility basis. In this report, we conclude that: EV-specific manufacturers (TSLA) will face increasingly stiff competition from conventional auto manufacturers, who may enjoy lower manufacturing, distribution, and service costs and have ICEV profits to subsidize near-term EV losses. Access to chargers will be a growing problem for widespread EV adoption, especially for EVs to penetrate apartment-dwellers. Government EV subsidies will become fiscally difficult to continue as adoption increases and gasoline taxes are lost (especially in Europe). The small amount of carbon saved by EVs does not justify the subsidies, further increasing the risk subsidies are reduced or allowed to phase out (especially in the U.S.). EVs: Winners And Losers Investor interest in EVs tends to focus on the only publicly traded play in the space, Tesla Motors (TSLA, Q). Tesla has an enthusiastic fan base, which seems to extend well beyond the rather modest number of people who actually own the vehicles (Chart 1). That enthusiasm is probably somewhat responsible for favorable media coverage and the company's speculatively-high market cap (Chart 2), which is currently on a par with General Motors (GM, N), despite the fact that Tesla has never made a profit. (Chart 3 and Chart 4).When we read media and analyst coverage of Tesla, we often wonder if those writing the articles know anything about automobiles besides how to drive them. An example is this Forbes article regarding Tesla as uniquely visionary, building up a big lead on its sleepy competition. Chart 1Tesla's EV Sales Are Modest Chart 2Tesla's Market Cap Surpasses GM's Chart 3Tesla: Financial Performance Chart 4GM: Financial Performance "[Manufacturer] complacency about electric vehicle (EV) technology is worse than perceived. Despite more talk of developing EVs for mass-market adoption, a lack of real action and strategic commitments betray their underlying conviction, with no clear pathway to high-volume EV production before the mid-2020s"2 Setting aside for a moment the question as to whether Tesla, as a serial destroyer of capital (to date), will have access to the financial resources needed to become itself a "high-volume" producer of EVs, most commentators ignore the fact that building an EV is far less complicated than building an ICEV, and the conventional car companies are likely to have cost advantages (not to mention the benefits of decades of experience with mass production) once they do commit to the EV. What's The Difference Between An EV And An ICEV? In a general sense, an automobile consists of two main components: the drivetrain and the rest of the vehicle. What differentiates an EV from an ICEV is almost entirely the drivetrain and battery pack. Although the shape and weight of the battery pack requires some alteration to the body frame of the vehicle, and many EVs include regenerative brakes, substantially everything else in the rest of the EV is very similar. Drivetrain The drivetrain of an ICEV is where the vast majority of precision parts are located. A typical ICEV has hundreds of precision parts and must be manufactured and assembled to exact tolerances in order to last beyond the typically expected 100,000+ mile trouble-free life. Engines are also subject to extremes in temperatures ranging from -40°C (-40°F) at start up in a cold winter to close to 90°C (190°F) under operation. Transmissions are similarly complicated. In contrast, the drivetrain of an EV is extremely simple, consisting essentially of an electric motor and a transmission, which is also greatly simplified due to the nature of the torque curve of electric motors (Illustration 1). Illustration 1Key Components Of A Bolt EV Drive Unit Unlike an ICEV which has numerous reciprocating parts (which are hard to engineer), all parts of an EV drivetrain rotate (which are much easier to engineer). Similarly, while there are numerous parts on an ICEV which require precision machining, friction bearings, and pressurized lubrication and cooling, analogous parts on an EV drivetrain are much fewer in number, can use ball bearings, and are lubricated for life. The fact that an EV drivetrain does not require pressurized lubrication and has a much simpler cooling system further simplifies the design and reduces the number of parts. It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that the drivetrain of an EV has an order of magnitude fewer parts than an ICEV of similar size. Any automotive company capable of designing and manufacturing an ICEV drivetrain should be capable of producing an EV drivetrain or outsourcing one if necessary. Battery Pack And Electronics Similarly, the battery pack of an EV is a mechanically simple thing to make. Battery cells are assembled into modules and the modules are assembled into the final battery pack (Illustration 2). The major challenge and potential differentiator is in the battery cells, which are effectively commodities (see below), and not in the manufacture or design of the battery pack. EV battery packs can produce a lot of heat when running or charging, and the battery packs tend to have simple cooling systems which vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.3 Illustration 2Battery Packs Are Battery Cells Assembled In Groups An EV requires a significant amount of power electronics for the control of the motor, charging, and so on. Such power systems have been designed and made for decades, and, besides some unusual requirements due to the need to operate at extreme temperatures, there is no great technical challenge inherent in such systems. Indeed, while the operating life of an ICEV is typically on the order of 5,000 to 10,000 hours (100,000-200,000 miles), power electronics are often designed to operate for 100,000 hours or more. The drivetrain will not be the limiting factor on the longevity of an EV. Most likely, the cost of an EV's drivetrain (excluding the battery pack) and typical features such as regenerative brakes, a more robust suspension (due to the greater weight of the EV on account of the heavy battery), and accommodation for the battery pack, is somewhat less than that of an equivalent ICEV. Although the EV drivetrain is simpler to build, high-output electric motors and related control electronics are not cheap to manufacture due to the requirement for materials such as copper and exotic alloys. The reason for the substantially higher cost of EVs is the battery pack. And The Winners Are ... Despite investor enthusiasm for the "technological revolution" EVs represent, it is actually far more complicated and technologically difficult to design and manufacture an ICEV than an EV. The EV has far fewer precision-made parts, and few such components are truly proprietary. Electric motors have been made for over a century, and their design and manufacture are not complicated - at least when compared to the vastly more complicated and precision-made ICEV. Similarly, an EV transmission is significantly simpler than the transmissions found in all ICEVs. We conclude that the design and manufacture of an EV drivetrain should be simple for a company accustomed to making ICEVs. Even the power and charging electronics are similar to the sorts of things electrical engineers have been making for a long time. Similarly, the assembly of a battery pack from commodity cells should be a relatively straightforward process for any company used to volume manufacturing. As we predicted, battery production appears to be scaling up, and sourcing commodity batteries should not be difficult if demand for EVs emerges as some predict. Although we have largely skipped over a discussion of the non-drivetrain components of an automobile, traditional manufacturers have been manufacturing these for a very long time and are capable of producing them at a reasonable cost and in vast numbers. The major difference between the non-drivetrain components of an EV and ICEV is accommodation for the shape and weight of the battery pack, which, again, should not be a substantial engineering challenge for any large auto manufacturer. For many years, auto manufacturers have developed "platforms" that allow them to mass produce standardized components that are used on what are apparently very different vehicles. Most likely, traditional vendors will produce a platform which can be used for both ICEVs and EVs, meaning that they can reuse parts produced for their ICEVs in EVs, saving money in terms of design, tooling, and volume manufacturing. Obviously, an EV-only vendor does not have that option. Finally, large automobile manufacturers have a global distribution channel as well as nearly omnipresent parts and service networks, including parts and service available from an assortment of third party providers. Developing this support system is particularly important for EVs to enter the mainstream: it is false to assume the simpler drivetrain of an EV will mean the vehicles never need repairs, as there are many failure modes. Beyond wealthy early-adopting EV enthusiasts who purchase EVs as a second or third auto, the typical consumer owns only a single vehicle, making prompt and affordable repairs critical to the utility of a mass-market vehicle, regardless of whether that vehicle is an EV or an ICEV. In summary, we conclude that there is no particular engineering challenge for existing large automakers to enter and dominate the EV business (Tables 1 and 2). Most likely, profit margins on EVs will be low or negative for some time (see Part 1), and large vendors will be in a position to use their profitable ICEV sales to subsidize their market share in the EV business. The main competitive uncertainty for EV manufacturing is how much battery performance and price can be improved from current levels. The battery cells themselves are rather commoditized, making it difficult for any single auto company to develop a substantial lead on the field in battery pack performance. Table 1Conventional Auto Manufacturers Are Ramping Up EV Penetration Table 2TSLA Will Lose Market Share As Mass-Market Competition Expands Rate Of Adoption As we showed in Part 1, costs of ownership of EVs are quite high compared to ICEVs over the EV's assumed 100,000 mile life. Although we believe accelerated depreciation of the EV will significantly increase the differential, most consumers are unaware of that likelihood. Governments and EV manufacturers heavily subsidize EVs; without such subsidies, consumers' costs of ownership would be materially higher. If EVs become a significant share of the vehicle market, such subsidies will have to be reduced, and high taxes would have to be applied to either the vehicle or the fuel (electricity) to make up for the loss of massive government revenues from today's gasoline taxes. The most expensive item in an EV is the battery pack (Chart 5). It appears to be an article of faith among EV advocates that existing batteries will somehow see cost reductions to below their current materials costs, and/or that revolutionary battery technology will emerge in (rapid) due course. It is interesting to speculate as to what might occur in the future. However, we prefer to be data driven. After all, why confine speculation on technological advancements only to things battery-related? Rapid technological advancements in oil production have cut gasoline prices dramatically in the past few years, while continued improvements of conventional engines can raise fuel efficiency and dramatically lower pollution/CO2 emissions of ICEVs, stiffening the competition against the rise of EVs. Chart 5As The Battery Pack Increases In Size,##BR##It Commands A Larger Share Of The Total Cost Of The EV Besides cost, there are numerous compromises associated with an EV which may temper adoption. These include the limited range and slow refueling times, which are important if the owner regularly--or even occasionally--makes long trips; degraded performance in temperature extremes, and so on. An important consideration for many buyers is the size of the car: a soccer mom is not likely to find a Bolt a suitable replacement for a minivan. Larger EVs require disproportionally larger batteries: the Tesla Model S 85 has a 40% larger battery but only a 10% greater range compared to the Bolt. EVs More Likely To Be Popular In The EU Than In North America Europeans tend to drive fewer kilometers and take fewer long trips than North Americans. The average distance traveled by car is 14,000 km4 (8,700 miles) in Europe compared to 20,000 km (12,000 miles) in the U.S., so a European would likely get a few more years out an EV - though not many more kilometers. Similarly, most of the population of Europe lives in areas where temperature extremes are less severe than they are in certain areas of the U.S. and Canada, meaning some of the compromises associated with operating an EV would be less significant. Europe has a much higher population density than the U.S., making particulate pollution a larger issue, and Europeans have more concerns regarding climate change. Much higher gasoline taxes and narrow roads in Europe also incentivize drivers to own smaller vehicles, similar to the Bolt. Due to these factors and the "carrot and stick" approach of subsidies and mandates favored by some EU countries, we conclude EVs are likely to be much more popular in the EU than in the U.S. (Chart 6) Chart 6European EV Sales Are Outpacing U.S. Sales Regardless, even EV adoption in the EU is bound to be constrained by: Higher costs of EVs compared to ICEVs; Driving habits which may preclude ownership by some people; Access to both private and public chargers; Long lives of ICEVs; and Availability of EVs for purchase. In Part 1 of our EV analysis, we break down the substantially higher cost of ownership for an EV compared to an ICEV. Driving habits boil down to the question of standard deviation: although the average EU driver may travel about 70 km (43 miles) per work day, a sizeable minority may travel much more than that or regularly make round trips beyond the range of their EVs. Alternatively, some may want to pull a trailer (caravan), etc... These drivers would be less likely to purchase an EV except perhaps as a second vehicle. Access to private chargers depends on the nature of the buyer's housing: somebody living in a house with a driveway can pay to have a slow charger installed, whereby somebody who relies on street parking or a nearby parking lot does not have that option. Due to the far greater population density of Europe, access to public chargers may be more of a constraint in the EU than in the U.S. In Part 1, we explained why we believe that ICEVs will outlast EVs for the foreseeable future due to degradation inherent with all battery technologies. There may be a dramatic breakthrough in battery technology, but batteries have numerous parameters which must be acceptable before they can be used in an EV. Most likely, an EV will be scrapped rather than have its battery replaced after about 160,000 km, whereas many ICEVs are routinely kept on the road for double that range. Consumers will eventually realize this and incorporate accelerated depreciation into their costs of ownership calculation. Not only that, but many will choose to keep their ICEVs on the road as long as possible simply to save the expense of purchasing a new vehicle, especially if the inherent limitations of EVs mean they are not suitable for that particular driver. Despite still-generous government subsidies, GM is believed to lose $9,000 for every Bolt it sells. Similarly, the CEO of Fiat lamented some time ago the company was losing $14,000 for every Fiat 500 EV it sold,5 and Tesla loses money despite selling into a premium segment. There is no reason to believe any EV vendor will actually make money on EVs for many years. After all, they all have the same problems with respect to the cost of batteries. We believe auto vendors are likely to limit sales of EVs through rationing or high prices in order to limit their own losses. EVs Are Unlikely To Replace All ICEVs The compromises/deficiencies associated with EVs mean that they will not be suitable for many consumers unless a massive battery breakthrough is achieved. The limited range is an obvious issue: a consumer might, for example, travel an average of 12,000 miles (20,000 km) per year but may regularly take a drive of a few hundred miles, which would require one or more recharging stops. It is all well and good to speak of rapid charging, but even this would quickly lose its allure after long trips, especially given the issues noted in "EVs Will Require a Sizeable Charging Infrastructure" below. Almost 3 million pickup trucks are sold in the U.S. every year, out of 17.5 million vehicle sales. Light trucks, including SUVs and Crossovers, make up another 10.5 million sales. Whether or not the trucks are actually used for hauling, the battery size, and therefore cost of ownership, would have to be particularly large for a pickup truck. A 120 kWh battery would add about 1,600 pounds (720 kg) to the vehicle, which is about half the cargo capacity of a Ford F-150 full size pickup truck. Many pickup trucks have significantly oversized engines in order to tow heavy loads. It is questionable an EV pickup truck would have the range or towing capacity required by many buyers. EVs Will Require A Sizeable Charging Infrastructure First-time EV owners will either have to invest in a charging station for their homes or somehow get access to one. Charging stations come in different types. In the case of the Bolt, a typical home charger delivers 4 miles (6.5 km) of range/hour of charge or about 32 miles (52 km) of range for 8 hours. What GM calls "Fast Charging" delivers almost a full charge over 8 hours. What GM refers to as "Super Fast Charging", or true fast charging, delivers 90 miles (145 km) of range in 30 minutes or 160 miles (258 km) in 1 hour, but is only available in public locations6 and requires a special option on the vehicle. "Super Fast Charging" means that a customer planning a trip of over 238 miles will have to plan for at least one 30 minute stop for every 90 miles of additional travel. Of course, this is when the vehicle is new and under ideal conditions without any temperature extremes, etc. An older EV may require a 30 minute stop after the first 150 miles and a subsequent 30 minute stop for every hour of travel (60-70 miles) after that. Private Chargers Unless they are satisfied with multi-day charging, new EV buyers have to pay an electrician to install a high current charger outlet which is accessible to the vehicle. Not all homes have ample parking, nor is it easy to install a high current port accessible to a vehicle in all homes. A typical high current charging port required for a "slow charger" requires a 40, 50, or 60 amp outlet. Many homes have only a 100 amp service, which may pose issues if the vehicle is charging and, for example, an air conditioner starts up. Similarly, apartment/condo dwellers with access to parking may have access to EV chargers provided by the building, though the electric service to the building/parking lot may require upgrading in the event a significant number of owners buy EVs. Publicly Available Chargers The largest challenge might be for would-be EV buyers who park on the street, as is fairly common in many urban areas. The cost of installing EV chargers is not trivial, and it is hard to believe cities will accept the costs of installing a large number of chargers to ensure EV owners can charge their vehicles. This doesn't even account for the fact that somebody has to pay for the electricity, and street-side chargers are both expensive and dangerous, require maintenance and snow removal, and may be subject to vandalism. Additionally, some parking lots feature a couple of EV chargers, and most EV vendors provide access to a rather sparse assortment of chargers. On the surface, a 6:1 ratio of global EVs to publicly available chargers may not appear to be as much of a concern, however, the ratio is about 16:1 for slow chargers and 105:1 for fast chargers in the U.S., and 6:1 and 68:1 in the EU, respectively (Charts 7 and 8). Recall that the Bolt's "Fast charger" only supplies about 25 miles of range for every hour of charging, so public units would only be useful as a "top-up". Public chargers will have to become far more common as the number of EVs increases or owners risk planning a trip which assumes access to a charger only to discover the unit is in use and the EV owner who is using it is off shopping. Chart 7Globally, There Is One Public Charger ##br##Per Six EVs Chart 8Fast Chargers Are Much More Scarce ##br##Than Slow Chargers Fast chargers are of particular significance in the event an EV owner wishes to make a trip in excess of the vehicle's fully-charged range. "Fast charge" times - whether with a Bolt or any other EV - assume a charging station is available when the EV arrives. This may be the case on typical days, but less likely during holiday or vacation season: "A video shot yesterday at the Supercharger in Barstow, CA shows a line at the station of Teslas waiting to juice up. The driver who shot the video was number 21 in the queue, and with wait times upwards of two hours just to get to the charger, Tesla's going to have some unhappy customers on its hands."7 One can only imagine how frustrated the owner of an aged Bolt would be if they had to wait 2 hours every 60 miles. Impact Of EV Adoption On Pollution And Greenhouse Gas Emissions The production and operation of any product leaves an environmental impact in terms of pollution and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The environmental impact associated with vehicles arises from the production of the commodities used to make the components, the manufacture of the vehicle components, the assembly of the vehicle itself, and the operation of the vehicle. EVs are not "zero emission vehicles" in any meaningful sense. It is true that they do not discharge particulate or CO2 emissions from the tailpipe, but emissions arise from the production of the vehicle platform, the battery pack, and the production of electricity used to charge the battery. The fuel mix of power generation in a particular region has a significant impact on the GHG emissions associated with electric power: countries with significant hydroelectric or nuclear power sources will have lower GHG emissions per kW than those which burn coal, oil, or natural gas. Similarly, the GHG emissions associated with the manufacture of a vehicle and its components depend on the power mix in the country in which those components are manufactured. As previously noted, an EV is very similar to an ICEV except for the drivetrain and battery. The EV's drivetrain is simpler than an ICEV's, but total GHG emissions associated with manufacturing an EV and equivalent ICEV are estimated to be quite similar, excluding the battery pack. GHG emissions associated with the manufacture and recycling of a battery pack are quite hard to pin down. The best and most recent example we found comes from IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, and notes: "Based on our review, greenhouse gas emissions of 150-200 kg CO2-eq/kWh battery looks to correspond to the greenhouse gas burden of current battery production."8 To put things in perspective, the GHG burden associated with the lifecycle of a 60 kWh Bolt battery pack is between 9,000 and 12,000 kg, or 9 to 12 metric tons. Because the battery pack is likely larger than advertised to limit degradation, the actual figure is probably at least 20% more, or 10.8 to 14.4 metric tons. At just 9 metric tons, assuming a 160,000 km life, the GHG burden associated manufacture and recycling of a Bolt battery pack is about 56 g CO2/km, and at 14.4 metric tons the burden is about 88 g CO2/km. To be as favorable as possible to the Bolt's potential to reduce GHG emissions, we have used the lower bound of the estimated CO2 burden of the Bolt's 60 kWh battery, 9 metric tons, in our GHG analysis in Table 3. The actual CO2 burden could be as much as 5.4 metric tons more. Note that the above calculations do not include the GHG emissions associated with recharging the battery. Recall that in Part 1, we estimated the power consumption associated with a Bolt operating for 160,000 km would be about 31,250 kWh, or ~0.20 kWh/km (0.3125 kWh/mile). The GHG burden of recharging the battery varies considerably depending on the regional mix of power generation. As shown in Table 3: Table 3EVs Will Reduce Carbon Emissions Only If Power Grid Is Green In France, where power is primarily generated via carbon-free nuclear energy, recharging the Bolt will release just 2 metric tons of CO2 during its 160,000KM life (11g/km). In coal-heavy Germany (40+% coal), recharging the Bolt will generate ~18 metric tons of CO2 (109g/km), slightly more carbon than the fuel-efficient gasoline-powered ICEV Opel Astra (104g/km). In the U.S., with the current diversified mix of power generated by natural gas (34%), coal (30%), nuclear (20%), hydro (7%), wind (6%) and solar (1%), CO2 emissions from recharging the Bolt would be only 13 metric tons (83g/km), 60% lower than the 32 tons of CO2 emitted by the ICEV Chevy Sonic. As shown, despite the higher CO2 footprint associated with manufacturing the EV's battery pack, an EV may indeed lead to an overall reduction in GHG emissions in a region where electricity generation is already low-carbon; however, the EV actually emits more CO2 in Germany, a coal-heavy country (40% coal) with fuel-efficient ICEVs. This implies EVs would create even greater CO2 increases in countries like China or India, which both generate over 70% of power from coal. The carbon intensity of U.S. power generation has been reduced by roughly 23% over the past decade due to the increased displacement of coal with natural gas (~70% of the carbon reduction) and renewables. As the U.S. and other countries continue to de-carbonize their power grids, the emissions to recharge EVs will further decline. However, even where reductions are achieved, the lifecycle emissions of the EV is nothing close to what is implied by the term "Zero Emission Vehicle." Using our generous assumptions for the carbon footprint of the EV's battery, we calculate the approximate lifecycle CO2 reductions for an EV are ~9 metric tons in the U.S., and ~6 metric tons in France. In Germany, the EV actually emits ~10 metric tons more CO2 than a comparable ICEV. EVs in coal-heavy China and India would also be expected to emit more lifecycle CO2 than a fuel-efficient ICEV. Even if power generation were 100% carbon-free in the EU and in the U.S., the CO2 savings would be only 23 tons per vehicle in the U.S and 8 tons per vehicle in the EU (lower savings in the EU due to the higher fuel efficiency of the European ICEV). One area where the EV is bound to come out ahead is in reducing particulates, NOx, and other non-GHG related pollutants, at least in the areas where the vehicles are operated, which provides cleaner air in highly populated areas. EV Subsidies Are Not Justified By Carbon Emissions In order to simplify the cost/benefit debate over legislation and regulation aimed at reducing carbon emissions, the U.S. EPA and other various U.S. agencies have calculated/estimated a "Social Cost of Carbon," i.e., the estimated economic damage created by emitting a ton of CO2 in a given year.9 In the base case, the social cost of carbon was pegged at $36/metric ton in 2015, with expectations that it would rise to $50/metric ton in 2030 and $69/metric ton in 2050 as climate issues became more severe. By comparison, the "market value" for a ton of CO2 on traded exchanges in California and in the E.U. is between $5-$15/ton. Assuming an average value of $50/metric ton, the current CO2 savings of the EV will yield about an economic benefit per vehicle of ~$450 in the U.S, and ~$300 benefit in France. In Germany, where CO2 emissions for the EV are higher than the ICEV, it adds another ~$500 to the economic cost of the EV. At a value of $50/ton, the value of CO2 savings in each region are only ~4-5% of the value of the public subsidies of $7,200-$9,500/vehicle in the U.S. and France, and only 1-2% of the total ~$22,000-$27,000 total extra societal costs of the vehicles (Table 4). In other words, the subsidies alone cost 20x more than the economic benefit of the CO2 reductions, while the total extra costs of the EV are 55-75x higher than the economic value of the CO2 reductions. Germany is offering subsidies for vehicles that increase CO2 emissions. Table 4EV Carbon Reductions Are Way Too Expensive Of course, industry may be able to lower emissions associated with battery manufacturing and recycling, and power generation may continue to be de-carbonized as well, leading to lower GHG emissions associated with EVs in the future. However, the same might be said regarding continuing improvements in ICEVs as well. For example: If U.S. drivers changed preferences to drive European-style cars with smaller engines and greater fuel efficiency (that is, wider adoption of technology that already exists today), that alone could save ~17 tons of carbon per vehicle in the U.S., dwarfing the ~10 tons of carbon savings achieved by owning an EV, at a much lower economic cost. Again, one area where the EV is bound to come out ahead is in reducing particulates, NOx, and other non-GHG related pollutants, at least in the areas where the vehicles are operated, which provides cleaner air in highly populated areas. This reduction/transfer of pollution from the city center to the power generation stations has a real health/quality of life value that we have not included in the above analysis, as the overwhelming amount of EV interest we read and receive is specifically based on EVs' (overestimated) ability to reduce global carbon emissions.10 Bottom Line: TSLA does not have an insurmountable technological lead on conventional car producers in the mass-production EV market, and is likely to lose market share to larger competitors that have better costs, infrastructure, and experience supporting a global fleet of mass-produced vehicles. Near-term adoption of EVs will be forced higher by governmental carrot and stick incentives, but these will become too expensive to continue as EVs' market share increases. Today's EV subsidies will turn into tomorrow's EV taxes as gasoline taxes are diminished, weighing on the longer-term arc of commonly-forecasted EV adoption. Finally, EVs do not necessarily reduce CO2 emissions, and when they do, the value of those CO2 reductions is exceedingly small compared to the added cost of the vehicles to producers, consumers, and government coffers. A modest ICEV only emits ~$2,000 worth of CO2 over 100,000 miles in the first place, elucidating how difficult it will be for an EV to reduce GHG emissions on a cost-competitive basis. For mass-market EVs to successfully displace ICEVs in the eyes of cost-conscious consumers and taxpayers, EV battery technology needs to improve massively, not incrementally. The batteries need to provide multiples of today's energy storage capacity with lower weight, lower cost, faster recharge abilities, and a lower carbon footprint. Furthermore, since an EV's battery recharging is only as green as the power source behind it, continued (expensive) greening and expansion of global power generation would also be necessary for EVs to demonstrate a positive impact on GHG emissions, as will be discussed more in Part 3 of this report series. Brian Piccioni, Vice President Technology Sector Strategy brianp@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Michael Commisso, Research Analyst michaelc@bcaresearch.com Johanna El-Hayek, Research Assistant johannah@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report, "Electric Vehicles Part 1: Costs of Ownership", dated August 1, 2017, available at tech.bcaresearch.com. 2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2017/06/29/tesla-focus-means-victory-versus-complacent-mainstream-in-electric-car-market-report/#4d0d4684577e 3 http://www.hybridcars.com/2017-chevy-bolt-battery-cooling-and-gearbox-details/ 4 http://www.acea.be/publications/article/cars-trucks-and-the-environment 5 http://jalopnik.com/sergio-marchionne-doesnt-want-you-to-buy-a-fiat-500e-1579578914 6 https://www.chevyevlife.com/bolt-ev-charging-guide 7 http://bgr.com/2016/12/27/tesla-supercharger-wait-times-lines-california/ 8 http://www.ivl.se/download/18.5922281715bdaebede9559/1496046218976/C243+The+life+cycle+energy+consumption+and+CO2+emissions+from+lithium+ion+batteries+.pdf (page 42) 9 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/social_cost_of_carbon_fact_sheet.pdf 10 It is worth pointing out that if the incentive structure is such that entrepreneurs are rewarded for finding ways to economically reduce carbon emissions in ICEVs in a way that is cost-competitive with EVs, the principal advantage of EVs would be challenged. There is no ironclad rule of physics we are aware of that precludes such a development. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Overweight Amidst a slew of weak retail earnings reports in Q2, HD surprised with a positive result as it benefited from a surge in remodeling activity. Existing home prices are pushing against highs, which benefits home improvement retailers (HIR) in two ways. First, high prices drive a shift toward renovation versus buying a new home as the latter becomes relatively more expensive. Second, existing owners can use their higher home equity as a source of funds for a renovation. Net, existing home prices and HIR sales move in lockstep (second panel). At the same time as sales are pressing upward, the HIRs are delivering productivity gains (third panel). This should amplify the operating leverage of a surge in same-store sales, driving margins higher. Relative valuations are lagging the solid operating performance (bottom panel). In fact, HIR stocks have not been this cheap since the GFC. This looks like an excellent buying opportunity; stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOMI - HD, LOW.

Leisure product stocks have taken a beating this summer to nearly their lowest level since the GFC (top panel). The slide followed a tough Q2 earnings season that saw the industry miss top line and margin estimates. Unsurprisingly, forward earnings estimates have fallen off a cliff (second panel). We think there is cause to remain optimistic. Consumer spending on toys and games has been firmly in expansion mode since the '09 trough and industry sales have been growing steadily for the past four years (third panel). The result has been leisure gaining a growing slice of the retail pie (fourth panel). The collapse in forward earnings has caused a valuation spike (bottom panel). If higher outlays translate into increasing EPS as we expect, then a playable recovery rally is likely, similar to early 2015. Stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5LEPR - MAT, HAS.