Developed Countries

Highlights In this Weekly Report, we present our semi-annual chartbook of the BCA Central Bank Monitors. The message now conveyed by the Monitors is that divergences between the cyclical pressures faced by the individual central banks are growing larger. This is occurring within some countries, where the growth and inflation indicators are trending in opposite directions. This is also visible across countries, with not every Monitor calling for rate hikes - a significant shift from the coordinated backdrop seen in 2017 (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekFrom Convergence To Divergence In The BCA Central Bank Monitors The combined message from the Monitors is that the slower pace of global growth seen in 2018 has not been enough put a serious dent in inflation pressures stemming from a dearth of spare capacity in most major countries. Perhaps that changes if a full-blown U.S.-China trade war develops, or if the tensions in emerging markets spill over more broadly into global financial conditions, but that remains to be seen. Add it all up, and a below-benchmark stance on overall global duration exposure remains appropriate. Feature An Overview Of The BCA Central Bank Monitors Chart 2CB Monitor Divergence = Bond Yield Divergence The BCA Central Bank Monitors are composite indicators designed to measure the cyclical growth and inflation pressures that can influence future monetary policy decisions. The economic data series used to construct the Monitors are not the same for every country, but the list of indicators generally measure the same things (i.e. manufacturing cycles, domestic demand strength, commodity prices, labor market conditions, exchange rates, etc). The data series are standardized and combined to form the Monitors. Readings above the zero line for each Monitor indicate pressures for central banks to raise interest rates, and vice versa. Through the nexus between growth, inflation, and market expectations of future interest rate changes, the Monitors do exhibit broad correlations to government bond yields in the Developed Markets (Chart 2). Our current recommended country allocation for global government bonds reflects the trends seen in the Central Bank Monitors - underweighting countries were the Monitors are most elevated (the U.S., Canada) in favor of regions where the Monitors are lower (Australia, Japan, euro area, New Zealand). In each BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook, we include a new chart for each country that we have not shown previously. In this edition, we show the Monitors plotted against the relative returns for each country versus the overall Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index (shown inversely in the charts so that a rising line means underperformance versus the benchmark index). Fed Monitor: Still On A Gradual Rate Hike Path Our Fed Monitor remains in the "tight money required" zone, signalling that the cyclical backdrop justifies additional Fed rate hikes (Chart 3A). Resilient U.S. growth, a dearth of spare capacity and an acceleration of both wage growth and core inflation are all consistent with a U.S. economy starting to overheat and requiring tighter monetary policy (Chart 3B). Chart 3AU.S.: Fed Monitor Chart 3BU.S. Inflation On The Rise The growth and inflation components of the Fed Monitor have both accelerated since our last Central Bank Monitor Chartbook was published back in April. Most notably, the inflation component has blasted through the zero line to the highest level since 2008 (Chart 3C). The financial conditions component has retreated from very elevated (i.e. growth-supportive) levels, mostly due to the stronger U.S. dollar but also because of wider corporate credit spreads seen since the start of 2018. Importantly, the financial conditions component has not tightened enough to offset the impact on the Monitor from faster growth and inflation. Chart 3CAll Fed Monitor Components Now Above Zero Recent comments from senior Fed officials (Chair Jay Powell and Governor Lael Brainard) have indicated that the Fed is less confident in its own estimates of the full-employment NAIRU or the appropriate neutral level of the funds rate. Our read on this is that the Fed will instead continue to raise the funds rate at a gradual 25bp per quarter pace until there are signs that U.S. monetary policy has become tight (i.e. an inverted yield curve, wider credit spreads, softer U.S. economic data). Until then, the message sent by the Fed Monitor is to remain underweight U.S. Treasuries with below-benchmark duration, as market pricing of expectations for both the funds rate and inflation remain too low (Chart 3D). Chart 3DU.S. Treasury Underperformance Will Continue - Stay Underweight BoE Monitor: Brexit Uncertainty Trumps Inflation Pressures The BoE Monitor remains in the "tighter money required" zone as it has since late 2015 (Chart 4A). Despite that persistent signal, the BoE has kept monetary policy at highly accommodative levels, only raising the base rate 50bps over the past year. The BoE Monetary Policy Committee remains torn between signs that inflation risks are tilted to the upside and the downside risks to U.K. growth from an uncertain Brexit outcome. The U.K. unemployment rate is well below NAIRU with an output gap that is now estimated to be closed (Chart 4B). Yet realized inflation has peaked, with core inflation drifting back below 2%. Wages are finally starting to grow in real terms, which the BoE cites as an important factor underpinning consumer spending, but the pace remains modest. Chart 4AU.K.: BoE Monitor Chart 4BNo Spare Capacity, Yet Has Inflation Peaked? Looking at the breakdown of our BoE Monitor, both the growth and inflation sub-components of the indicator have recently reaccelerated (Chart 4C). Yet U.K. leading economic indicators continue to decline and dampened business confidence measures reflect the heightened uncertainty over the future relationship between the U.K. and the European Union. Chart 4CBoth Growth & Inflation Components Are Boosting The BoE Monitor The performance of U.K. Gilts has diverged from the Monitor since the 2016 Brexit vote (Chart 4D), as the BoE has been more worried about Brexit than inflation and has stayed accommodative. Stay overweight U.K. Gilts within global government bond portfolios, even with the more bearish signal implied by our BoE Monitor, given the weakening trend in leading economic indicators and persistent Brexit uncertainty. Chart 4DBrexit Uncertainty Preventing More BoE Hikes - Stay Overweight Gilts ECB Monitor: No Pressure To Hike Rates Quickly Post-QE Our European Central Bank (ECB) Monitor has fallen sharply since we last published this Chartbook back in April, and it now sits below the zero line (Chart 5A). The growth deceleration in the first half of the year from the rapid pace seen in 2017 is the main reason for this move, as inflation pressures have not subsided (Chart 5B). Chart 5AEuro Area: ECB Monitor Chart 5BEuro Area At Full Capacity ECB President Mario Draghi noted last week that the plan remains in place to end the net new buying phase of the ECB's Asset Purchase Program at the end of 2018. Policymakers' have grown more confident that their inflation forecasts will be met as most measures of euro area wage growth (and headline inflation) have accelerated to 2% over the past year. It remains to be seen if those expectations are too optimistic, as the growth component of our ECB Monitor remains well below the zero line, while the inflation component is no longer rising (Chart 5C). Chart 5CGrowth Component Dragging Down The ECB Monitor For now, we recommend a neutral stance on core euro area government bonds with an underweight posture on Peripheral sovereign debt as a way to manage these conflicting trends. The overall performance of euro area bonds versus global benchmarks has followed the pace of the ECB's bond-buying since 2015, and not the pressures suggested by our ECB Monitor (Chart 5D), suggesting a bearish stance as the bond buying ends. Yet from a more bullish perspective, the mixed message on growth and lack of immediate pressures on core inflation (still at 1%) imply that the ECB will not deviate from its current dovish forward guidance of no interest rate hikes until at least September 2019. Chart 5DECB Will Not Hike Rates Quickly After QE Ends - Stay Neutral Core European Bonds BoJ Monitor: Too Soon To Consider Policy Changes Our Bank of Japan (BoJ) Monitor has stayed just barely in the "tighter money required" zone since last October, due mostly to growing inflation pressures (Chart 6A). Yet with the Japanese labor market now as tight as it has been in decades, headline and core CPI inflation are only at 0.9% and 0.3% respectively, well below the BoJ's 2% target (Chart 6B). Chart 6AJapan: BoJ Monitor Chart 6BInflation Pressures Slowly Building In Japan Japanese firms appear to finally be reacting to the tightness of the labor market, however, as wage growth has accelerated in recent months. The pick-up in wages has helped boost inflation expectations, both of which are part of the inflation component of the BoJ Monitor that is now at the highest level since 2008 (Chart 6C). However, the growth component just rolled over and now sits at the zero line, as the Japanese economy has lost some momentum. Chart 6CInflation Boosting BoJ Monitor We continue to recommend an overweight stance on JGBs, based on our view that the BoJ will maintain hyper-easy monetary policy settings - especially compared to the rest of the developed markets - until there is much higher realized inflation in Japan. JGBs have indeed been outperforming over the past year, even with the less dovish signal sent by the BoJ Monitor (Chart 6D). Yet the absolute level of the Monitor remains around zero, suggesting that no policy changes should be expected. That means no upward adjustment of the BoJ's 0% yield target on 10-year JGBs or major further reductions in the annual pace of BoJ JGB buying (even though the central bank is hitting capacity constraints as it now owns close to ½ of all outstanding JGBs). Chart 6DBoJ In No Hurry To Turn Hawkish - Stay Overweight JGBs BoC Monitor: Rate Hikes - More To Come The Bank of Canada (BoC) Monitor has stayed in "tighter money required" since the beginning of 2017 and is now well above the zero line (Chart 7A). The BoC has been following our BoC Monitor, hiking rates by a cumulative 100bps since July 2017. Chart 7ACanada: BoC Monitor Chart 7BAn Overheating Canadian Economy? The BoC has been responding to the growing inflation pressure in Canada. There is no evidence that spare economic capacity exists, while realized inflation is near the upper bound of BoC's target range of 1-3% (Chart 7B). There is a growing divergence between the growth and inflation subcomponents of the BoC Monitor, with the latter decelerating over the past several months. That was due to a combination of slowing Chinese import demand and the imposition of trade tariffs on Canada by the Trump administration (Chart 7C). Yet the domestic economy remains in good shape, with the overall indicator from the BoC's Business Outlook Survey at the highest level since 2010. Chart 7CInflation Component Boosting BoC Monitor We continue to recommend an underweight stance on Canadian government bonds, as the relative performance has broadly followed the path of the BoC Monitor over the past three years (Chart 7D). The BoC tends to follow the policy actions of the Fed with a short lag, thus our bearishness on Canadian government bonds is related to our more hawkish views on the Fed. Yet the surge in Canadian inflation, at a time when the economy has no spare capacity, suggests that there are good domestic reasons to expect more rate hikes from the BoC over the next year than what is currently discounted by markets. Chart 7DBoC Not Done Yet - Stay Underweight Canadian Bonds RBA Monitor: Easier Policy Needed The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) monitor has rapidly fallen below the zero line for the first time since 2016, and now indicates that easier monetary policy is required (Chart 8A). This stands out from the more stable trajectory of the rest of the BCA Central Bank Monitors. Unlike most other developed countries, there is still excess capacity in the Australian economy. Australia's output gap has not closed while the current unemployment rate is just at the OECD's NAIRU estimate of 5.3%. Headline and core inflation are at the low end of the RBA's 2-3% target and struggling to gain much upward momentum (Chart 8B). Chart 8AAustralia: RBA Monitor Chart 8BMinimal Inflation Pressure In Australia While both the growth and inflation components of the RBA Monitor have fallen, the biggest decline has come from the inflation side (Chart 8C). The sluggishness of Australia's economy is due to the slow growth of consumer spending and a big deceleration in exports related to softer Chinese demand. On inflation, excess labor market slack, with an underemployment rate close to 8.5%, is the main factor explaining soft wage growth and overall sluggish inflation. Chart 8CInflation Component Weighing On RBA Monitor Our highest conviction country allocation call this year has been to overweight Australian Government bonds, and we see no need to change that given the bullish signal from our RBA Monitor (Chart 8D). It would likely take a rise in unemployment, a renewed decline in realized inflation or a big external shock for the RBA to actually cut rates as our Monitor suggests, but the signal is still bullish for Australian debt on a relative basis. Chart 8DRBA A Long Way From A Hike - Stay Overweight Australian Government Bonds RBNZ Monitor: Policy On Hold For A While Longer The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) Monitor is currently just above the zero line, indicating that tighter monetary policy is required (although just barely) (Chart 9A). This is consistent with the mixed messages in the New Zealand economic data. For example, there is no spare capacity in the economy according to estimates of the output and employment gaps, yet both headline and core inflation have decelerated to the lower end of the RBNZ's 1-3% target band (Chart 9B). Chart 9ANew Zealand: RBNZ Monitor Chart 9BNo Spare Capacity In NZ, But No Inflation Either Looking at the components of the RBNZ Monitor, the growth factors have continued to plunge whereas the inflation factors have been increasing (from below zero) since the start of 2018 (Chart 9C). New Zealand's economic growth has slowed because of softer consumer spending and weaker housing activity, the latter of which is related to lower net immigration. Yet business confidence is falling, both the manufacturing and services PMIs have also declined, and export growth has cooled thanks to weaker growth from China and Australia. Meanwhile, the uptick in the inflation components has not yet translated into any broader improvement in realized inflation that would cause the RBNZ to take a more hawkish turn. Chart 9CConflicting Trends Within The RBNZ Monitor We continue to recommend an overweight stance on New Zealand Government Bonds, in line with the bullish signal sent by our RBNZ Monitor (Chart 9D). The RBNZ has already provided forward guidance indicating that the Overnight Cash Rate (OCR) will stay unchanged until 2020, and it will take some time before there is evidence that the recent hook down in inflation is nothing more than a temporary blip. Chart 9DRBNZ To Remain On Hold - Stay Long New Zealand Bonds Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The Trump administration's decision to effectively tariff the second round of imports at 25% materially raises the odds of another significant uptick in Chinese financial market volatility. Even if China ramps up its stimulus efforts in response, the lesson of the 2014-2016 episode is that investors are likely to wait for earnings clarity before buying stocks aggressively. Stay neutral China, at best, relative to global stocks, and overweight low-beta sectors within the investable equity universe. We have a contrarian view about Chinese corporate bonds, and recommend holding a long but diversified position over the coming 6-12 months. Feature Chart 1The RMB Is Acting As A "Panic Barometer" ##br##For Domestic Stocks The Trump administration finally announced its decision this week on the second round of tariffs on Chinese imports, essentially applying a 25% rate. While the rate will initially start at 10%, it will rise to 25% by the end of the year, and the administration has threatened to immediately seek public consultation on tariffs on all remaining imports from China if the country retaliates against the second round (which was announced yesterday). With news reports having suggested that China would reject new trade talks merely if the second round moves forward, the prospect of a breakthrough in negotiations seems dim, at best. We have highlighted in past reports that the RMB has acted as a panic barometer for domestic equities (Chart 1), as evidenced by the recent spike in the correlation between the two. During this period, the percent decline in CNY-USD seems to have closely followed the magnitude of proposed tariffs as a percent of Chinese exports to the U.S., as would be implied in a simple open economy model with flexible exchange rates. Based on this framework, Chart 2 suggests that the RMB may come under considerable further market pressure, even if investors only assume a 10% rate on the third round of tariffs. A break above the psychologically-important level of 7 for USD-CNY appears likely barring a major intervention from the PBOC, suggesting that a meaningful uptick in Chinese financial market volatility is forthcoming. Chart 2USDCNY = 7 Is Likely To Be Breached Barring Strong Action From The PBOC Stimulus To The Rescue? Given that Chinese policymakers have signaled their willingness to stimulate in response to a negative external environment, some investors have argued that China is actually about to enter a mini-cycle upswing. For now, two points suggest that this conclusion is premature: A 10% tariff rate on all remaining imports from China would imply close to $90 billion in tariffs collected, once the second round rate rises to 25%. As noted above, a simple equilibrium exchange rate framework would imply material further weakness in the RMB to counter protectionism of this magnitude. Besides heralding a further selloff in Chinese stocks, this could lead to competitive currency devaluation amongst China's largest trading partners, a "beggar-thy-neighbor" policy that tends to exacerbate rather than alleviate shocks to aggregate demand. As we have noted numerous times over the past year, China's old economy was slowing in the lead up to the U.S./China trade war, and it is not yet clear whether the announced stimulus will generate enough "lift" to convince investors that the low in economic activity is behind them. Chart 3 shows that the August rise in adjusted total social financing as a share of GDP was extremely muted, and that there is no sign yet of a pickup in government spending. Even if China ramps up its stimulus efforts in response to this week's decision from the Trump administration, Chart 4 highlights an important point for investors: there was a considerable lag between a policy response and the low in stock prices during the 2014-2016 episode (a lag that may re-occur today). The chart shows that despite an ongoing depreciation in the RMB and a rebound in our BCA leading indicator for the Li Keqiang index, Chinese stock prices continued to decline for several months. This gap was caused by a lagged decline in earnings, and underscores that investors may ignore the current efforts by policymakers to stabilize the economy until clarity on the stability of earnings presents itself. Chart 3No Sign Yet Of##br## Major Stimulus Chart 4History Suggests Investors Need Both ##br##Stimulus And Earnings Clarity And for now, several signs point to potentially material downside risk for earnings: While the now considerably larger shock from U.S. tariffs has yet to impact the Chinese economy, trailing earnings growth has already peaked and has recently fallen below its trend (Chart 5, panel 1). Despite the recent deceleration in trailing earnings growth and the sharp decline in stock prices, analysts' 12-month forward growth estimates remain quite elevated (Chart 5, panel 2). This suggests that forward earnings could be vulnerable to a decline above and beyond what occurs to trailing earnings, as a full 1/3rd of the increase in the former since late-2015 has been due to very significant shift in growth expectations. The rise in trailing earnings over the past few years appears to be stretched, based the trend in profit margins (Chart 6). The chart highlights that 12-month trailing earnings have well surpassed sales since late-2016, causing margins to rise to their highest level on record and raising the risk of a significant mean-reversion in response to a meaningful economic shock. Net earnings revisions have done a good job at predicting inflection points in forward earnings growth over the past decade, and have recently fallen into negative territory (Chart 7). Chart 5Lofty Earnings Growth Expectations ##br##Are A Risk To Stocks Chart 6The Earnings Recovery Has Been Partly ##br##Reliant On A Margin Expansion Chart 7Earnings Revisions Herald ##br##Slowing Earnings Momentum It is true that some of the above-average levels for profit margins and 12-month forward growth expectations can be explained by the substantial rise in the share of the tech sector in the MSCI China index, whose constituents are significantly more profitable than ex-tech stocks, may have better longer-term growth prospects, and may be more immunized from the trade war with the U.S. Still, Chart 8 illustrates the high earnings hurdle rate for tech stocks over the coming year. Bottom-up analysts continue to expect tech stocks to grow their earnings more than 20% over the next 12 months, despite: Chart 8Are Chinese Tech Stocks Going To Be##br## Able To Grow Earnings 20+%? A poor economic outlook that is likely to impact consumer spending (even if households "outperform" the business sector), and The fact that tech sector net earnings revisions have fallen deeply into negative territory (panel 2). How should investors allocate capital within China in the middle of a trade war with the U.S? First, despite the fact that Chinese stocks have already fallen significantly from their early-January high, it is clearly too early to bottom fish either domestic or investable stocks. Stay neutral China, at best, relative to global stocks. Second, investors should certainly favor low-beta sectors within the Chinese equity universe. Currently, our low-beta equity portfolio includes industrials, telecom services health care, utilities, and consumer staples, but we update the portfolio weights at the end of every month. Third, as discussed below, investors should ignore the very bearish narrative towards Chinese corporate bonds, and hold a long but diversified position over the coming 6-12 months. Bottom Line: The Trump administration's decision to effectively tariff the second round of imports at 25% materially raises the odds of another significant uptick in Chinese financial market volatility. Even if China ramps up its stimulus efforts in response, the lesson of the 2014-2016 episode is that investors are likely to wait for earnings clarity before buying stocks aggressively. Stay neutral China, at best, relative to global stocks, and overweight low-beta sectors within the investable equity universe. Chinese Corporate Bonds: A Contrarian Long Our analysis of the earnings risk facing equities suggests that it is probably still too early to buy Chinese stocks, but in our (contrarian) view there is still one pro-cyclical asset that investors should favor: Chinese corporate bonds. Headlines about defaults in China's corporate bond market continue to appear in the financial press, with concerns most recently focused on low recovery rates of defaulted issues.1 We last wrote about Chinese corporate bonds in June,2 and took a contrarian (i.e. optimistic) stance towards the market. In the meantime, our long China onshore corporate bond trade has continued to gain ground, and an analysis of the inferred credit rating of the market actually strengthens our conviction to stay long. One key element of the bearish narrative towards Chinese corporate bonds is the fact that investment-grade issues in the market are trading like junk. Table 1 highlights that this is largely true: the table presents the spread-inferred credit rating of the four major rating categories of the ChinaBond Corporate Bond Index, and shows that AAA bonds are trading on the border of equivalent maturity investment- and speculative-grade bonds in the U.S. Bonds rates AA+/AA/AA- in China are trading between lower-B and high-CAA, which is firmly in speculative-grade territory. However, in our view market participants are making a mistake when they assume that de-facto junk ratings on Chinese corporate bonds will translate into U.S. junk-style default rates on bonds over the coming 6-12 months (or, frankly, beyond). Chart 9 presents an estimate of the market-implied default rate for the four rating categories shown in Table 1, and suggests that investors are pricing in roughly a 1% default rate for AAA-rated corporate bonds and a 4-5% default rate for AA+/AA/AA-. Table 1Chinese Corporate Bonds Are Trading##br## Like Speculative-Grade Issues Chart 9Allowing Market-Implied Default Rates##br## To Occur Would Be A Huge Policy Error There are two important factors to consider when gauging the validity of these expectations: Based on Moody's most recent Annual Default Study, the market's current expectations for Chinese corporate bond defaults are actually above the average historical one-year default rates for their inferred credit ratings. Average default rates almost never actually occur over a given 12-month period. Chart 10 highlights that default rates in the U.S. have a binary distribution that is almost entirely determined by whether the economy is in recession (not just slowing down). The late-1980s and the post-2015 environment have been exceptions to this rule, which in large part can be explained by industry-specific events (namely, a surge of energy-sector defaults due to a collapse in the price of oil). But the key point is that investors are likely to overestimate the actual default rate over a given 12 month period when assuming an average historical rate, unless the economy shifts from an expansion to an outright recession over the period. From our perspective, the combination of the market's default expectations and the fact that China is easing suggests an outright long position in Chinese corporate bonds is warranted over the coming year. In our judgement, there is simply no way that policymakers can allow default rates on the order of what is being priced in to occur, as it would constitute an enormous policy mistake that would risk destabilizing the financial system at a time when officials are attempting to counter the looming shock to the export sector. In fact, we doubt that China's typical policy of gradualism when liberalizing its economy and financial markets would allow default rates to rise from 0% to 5% over a year in any economic environment, particularly the current one. As a final point, Chart 11 highlights why a significant rise in the default rate is required in order for investors to lose money on Chinese corporate bonds. The chart shows the 12-month breakeven spread for the ChinaBond AA- Corporate Bond index, unadjusted for default. The breakeven spread represents the rise in yields that would be required for investors to lose money over a 12-month horizon (i.e. the yield change that exactly erases the income return from the position), assuming no defaults. Chart 10"Average" Default Rates ##br##Do Not Really Occur Chart 11A 2% Rise In Yields From Tighter Policy Is Not##br## Going To Occur Over The Coming Year The chart shows that AA- bond yields would have to rise approximately 215 bps over the coming year before investors suffer a negative total return, which would be an enormous rise that has a near-zero probability of occurring due of tighter monetary policy. As such, defaults (or the pricing of default risk) remains the only real credible source of potential capital loss from these bonds over the coming year. Our bet, with high conviction, is that holders of Chinese corporate bonds hold a put option that will prevent this from occurring. Bottom Line: Fade investor concerns about rising defaults, and stay long Chinese corporate bonds over the coming 6-12 months. We acknowledge that idiosyncratic risk is likely to be elevated for this asset class, and we recommend that investors take a diversified, portfolio approach when investing in China's corporate bond market. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 For example, please see "In China, Less Than 20% Defaulted Bonds Have Been Paid Back" by Bloomberg News, August 27, 2018 2 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "A Shaky Ladder", dated June 13, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Underweight In yesterday's Daily Insight, we highlighted our neutral barbell portfolio in tech, staying overweight secular growth defensive tech sub-sectors (namely S&P software and S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals, both of which are high-conviction overweights) and underweight the hyper-cyclical chip and chip equipment stocks. With respect to the latter, we think the macro environment has deteriorated. Three factors underpin our negative view on semi equipment's growth prospects and there is no light at the end of the tunnel yet. Bitcoin's (and other cryptocurrencies) collapse is dealing a blow, at the margin, to demand for semi equipment (second panel). Taiwan's financials statement-reported data on IT capex and national data on overall Taiwanese capital outlays corroborates this downbeat demand backdrop (third panel). Finally, the drubbing in EM currencies is sapping purchasing power from the consumer and also warns that things will get worse for U.S. semi equipment stocks before they get better (bottom panel). Bottom Line: Continue to avoid the S&P semis and S&P semi equipment indexes; see Monday's Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: BLBG: S5SECO - INTC, NVDA, QCOM, TXN, AVGO, MU, ADI, AMD, MCHP, XLNX, SWKS, QRVO, and BLBG: S5SEEQ - AMAT, LRCX, KLAC, respectively.

Highlights So What? President Trump is treating the midterm election as a hurdle. Once cleared, he will restart "Maximum Pressure" policy towards China and Iran that will induce market volatility. The outcome of the election, however, has only a marginal investment relevance. Why? A Democrat-held Congress will not have the votes to overturn President Trump's signature economic policies: tax cuts, deregulation, and stimulus. Removal from power requires 67 votes in the Senate, out of the reach for Democrats. President Trump will pursue aggressive foreign and trade policies, regardless of the midterm outcome. As such, the midterm outcome is a non-diagnostic variable. Also... Rising stroke-of-pen risk, combined with President Trump's unorthodox foreign and trade policies, will likely intensify following the midterm election. Therefore, it is difficult to "buy on (midterm-related) dips," despite our call that the election does not matter. Feature Should investors care about the upcoming midterm election? The answer is yes, but marginally. A gridlocked Congress, our most likely outcome, is historically less positive for equities than an electoral outcome that results in a unified executive and legislature (Chart 1). The reality, however, is that economic and monetary variables are overwhelmingly more important for investors than politics.1 Table 1 illustrates the impact of four factors on monthly S&P 500 price returns. The first two columns demonstrate the effect on returns of recessions and tightening monetary policy, respectively, whereas the last two columns measure the effects of gridlock and reduced uncertainty in the 12-months following presidential and midterm elections.2 The table presents the beta of a simple regression based on dummy variables for each of the four components (t-statistics are shown in parentheses). Chart 1A Unified Congress Is A Boon For Stocks Table 1A Divided Government Is Marginally Negative For Stocks As expected, the macro context has a much larger impact on stock returns than politically driven effects. The impact of political gridlock is shown to be negative regardless of the timeframe, but only just. Could 2018 be different? Given the extraordinary level of polarization - captured in Chart 2 by the difference in presidential approval by party identification - this time could, indeed, be different. But, we do not think it will be. As we discussed last week,3 Democrats in Congress would not be able to impact the three crucial pillars of the Trump Reflation Trade: De-regulatory agenda: The executive branch is in charge of the deregulatory agenda, which investors should note kindled corporate animal spirits on day 1 of the Trump presidency (Chart 3). Chart 2Presidential Approval Variance Signals Peak Polarization Chart 3Trump's Mere Election Stoked Animal Spirits Tax cuts: Without 67 votes in the Senate, the Democrats cannot overturn a presidential veto that is certain to be used on any tax-hikes as long as President Trump is in power. They won't even get to the 60 votes necessarily to invoke cloture and thus avoid a Republican filibuster on tax, immigration, or other policy reforms. Fiscal policy: We see no chance of the Democratic Party becoming the party of fiscal discipline ahead of the 2020 election. Voters are not demanding budget discipline, despite the obvious rise in budget deficits (Chart 4), so why would the Democratic Party nail itself to the fiscal conservative cross over the next two years? What of the impeachment risk? There is no empirical evidence that impeachment proceedings have any impact on U.S. equity markets.4 And we would fade any concerns that an impeachment push would cause President Trump to seek relevancy abroad with aggressive foreign and trade policies because we expect him to do so regardless of the midterm outcome! Nonetheless, we do think that investors are in for a mild surprise this November (Chart 5). First, the data suggests that Democrats will have a wave election. In fact, we are raising our probability of a Democratic House victory to 70%, largely in line with current expectations. Second, we are also raising our call on the Senate to a "too-close-to-call." Essentially, we think that the Democratic Party may be able to pick up a Senate seat, which would be an extraordinary outcome given that they are defending 26 seats out of the 35 in contention.5 While such an electoral surprise may not have immediate investment implications in 2018 and 2019, it could have implications beyond 2020. The Senate electoral math significantly changes in 2020, with Republicans currently set to defend 21 seats out of 33 in contention (a number that could grow due to retirements). A Democratic sweep of U.S. institutions in 2020 could significantly alter the long-term earnings outlook in the U.S., especially if America's center-left party swings further to the left by then. Such an outcome would put an end to the two-decade long divergence in profits and wages as share of the total economy (Chart 6). But more on that at a later point. In this report, we focus on the upcoming election itself. Chart 4Voter Fiscal Preferences Are Not Fixed Chart 5Our Senate Call Is Out Of Consensus Chart 6What Is Not Sustainable Will Stop Midterm Election: The Twenty Charts To Watch History is stacked against the Republican Party. Chart 7 shows that the president's party has lost, on average, 24 seats since the 1950 midterm election. Only Clinton in 1998 - at the top of an epic bull market and with an approval rating of 66% (!) - and Bush Jr. in 2002 - following a once-in-a-generation terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland - managed to eke out positive gains. Even in those Goldilocks conditions, Clinton's Democrats only picked up a paltry five seats in the House (none in the Senate), while Bush's GOP gained two Senate and eight House seats. Chart 7Midterm Elections Normally Spell Doom For The President's Party Polls suggest that this time will not be different. Both the congressional generic ballot (Chart 8) and President Trump's popularity - at just 39% - (Chart 9) are signaling a wave election for the Democrats. Chart 8Polling Gives Dems The Advantage Chart 9President Trump Is A Drag On The GOP... But what about the roaring economy? Astonishingly, economic performance has a negative correlation with electoral outcomes in congressional elections (Chart 10)! This data point is so counterintuitive that it must be wrong. At the very least, history suggests that there is no clear relationship between the economy and congressional returns. Chart 10...Whereas The Economy Is Unlikely To Provide A Tailwind The economy only matters when things are going wrong. Current polls, in other words, are already pricing in a solid economic context, with the Democratic lead over the Republicans having narrowed from double-digits since the economy began roaring in January (Chart 11). At this point, however, it is highly unlikely that two more months of solid economic performance will have much of an effect on voter preferences. In fact, the importance of the economy, jobs, and budget deficits to voters has been declining since 2014 (Chart 12). Chart 11The Economy Is Already Baked In The (Polling) Cake Chart 12Voters Care Less About Economic Issues In addition, investors should remember that voter experience of the economic recovery is highly polarized. During Obama's presidency, Republican voter consumer sentiment and expectations were at recession levels. Magically, on November 8, 2016, both Republicans and Democrats changed their sentiment (Chart 13). Independent voters are, unsurprisingly, somewhere in the middle. Chart 13Voters Cannot Agree On Economic Performance Anyway Primary election turnouts are confirming that the economy is not the primary driver of voter enthusiasm. Democrats have seen 8.9 million more voters vote in the 2018 primaries, compared to the 2014 midterm election. Meanwhile, GOP voters - who are presumably more enthused about the economy - have only seen a pickup of 3.8 million new primary voters. The pattern of primary voting is similar to the one in 2010, when the Tea Party revolt energized the Republican base in opposition to President Obama. In 2010, Republicans increased primary turnout in 186 congressional districts compared to the 2006 election. Satisfied with President Obama's win in 2008, Democrats only increased the primary turnout in 35 districts. As a result, the GOP picked up 63 House seats and gained control of the lower chamber of Congress. This time around, the numbers foreshadow a similar wave, but in favor of the left. Democrats have seen their turnout increase in 123 electoral districts, compared to the 2014 election. This includes 20 of the most competitive races this year. Republicans, meanwhile, have seen an increase in enthusiasm in only 19 congressional districts this year. The death knell for Republicans in the House of Representatives, in our view, will be the abnormally large number of retirements (Chart 14). Incumbency has a powerful effect in congressional races. On average, incumbents easily win over 90% of their races for the House (Chart 15). Chart 14Double More GOP Retirements This Year Chart 15Incumbents Normally Carry The Day The average margin of victory for the Republican representatives not running for re-election in the 42 electoral districts in 2016 was 28.3%6 (Table 2). This sounds like too high of a hurdle for Democrats to leap over. However, that is precisely what Democratic candidates have done in the House and Senate special elections in 2017 and 2018. The average GOP lead in those races is down from 29.2% in 2016 to just 8.5% today, a 20.7% swing (Table 3). This math explains why the Cook Political Report, the premier U.S. election forecasting consultancy, sees the number of competitive Republican-held seats more than doubling in 2018 (Chart 16), whereas the number of competitive Democratic-held seats has collapsed. Table 2Republicans Not Seeking Re-Election In 2018 Table 3Non-Incumbent Republicans Lost 20% Advantage In Special Elections Our Senate model is similarly flashing red for the Republican Party. Despite an overwhelming structural advantage in the 2018 cohort - having to only defend nine seats - our model is predicting that the Democrats will hold all their Senate seats and pick up one (in Nevada) (Chart 17). Chart 16Number Of GOP Seats At Risk Has More Than Doubled! Chart 17Our Senate Model Is Generous To The Democrats We modeled the individual Senate races by combining the state and national economic and political variables with the latest available opinion polling.7 We only focused on the races that we believe are currently competitive and we may change the mix as new information becomes available. The results of our "beta" model, expressed as a margin of victory by the Republican candidate (GOP total vote minus Democrat total vote), show that the Democrats have a surprisingly decent chance of picking up the Senate. Highly concerning for President Trump and the GOP is that the Democratic Senate candidates have a healthy lead in three out of the four contested Midwest races (Chart 18), suggesting that Trump's crossover appeal to blue-collar voters is not working when he is not the candidate (or perhaps, even more alarming for the GOP, when Hillary Clinton is not his opponent). The only tight Midwest election is in Indiana, where Democratic incumbent Joe Donnelly's lead is within the margin of error. Another concern for the Republicans is that the Democrats have largely fielded centrist candidates in the House and Senate races. For example, former Tennessee Governor (2003-2011), Phil Bredesen, is a conservative Democrat currently leading in the polls against his Republican opponent. Democratic candidates for election in Republican-held Arizona and Nevada are similarly centrists and thus competitive (Chart 19). Furthermore, in the 42 seats where Republicans are fielding non-incumbents, our research suggests that Democrats only fielded 14 left-wing/progressive candidates.8 Despite the media's focus on left-wing/progressive candidates - such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the Bronx or Ayanna Pressley in Boston - the vast majority of Democratic candidates in the non-coastal U.S. have been centrists. This means that GOP candidates will have very few "lay-ups" in November. Putting it all together, we would give Democrats a 70% chance of picking up the necessary 23 seats to take over the House. In the Senate, the next two months will determine the outlook for GOP candidates. Investors should fade the message from the current polling - and thus our model - as voters have paid very little attention to local races before Labor Day. However, if the current trajectory in the congressional generic poll and Trump's popularity holds until November, the likelihood of a GOP hold in the Senate will fall. For President Trump, a result where he loses the House and the Senate would be a political disaster. Should investors prepare for the volatility of impeachment in that case? The midterm election is a non-diagnostic variable. The Senate requires 67 votes to convict the president and thus remove him from power. A 50 +1 majority will not help Democrats get to that level any more than a 50 -1 minority would. They will need Republican Senators to join them in the impeachment endeavor. For that to happen, Republican voters will have to lose confidence in President Trump in droves, as they once did in President Nixon. As Chart 20 clearly illustrates, we are nowhere near that point today. Chart 18The Midwest: Is The Trump Magic Gone? Chart 19The Sun-Belt: No Place To Hide For The GOP? Chart 20Trump Is Not Nixon (Yet) Investment Implications: Much Ado About Nothing Putting it all together, this year's midterm election has a good chance of dominating the news flow by producing a shocking electoral surprise. In the immediacy of an outcome that hands the control of the entire Congress to the fired-up Democrats, it would be smart to bet on a brief risk asset pullback. However, the Democrats will not be able to unravel any of President Trump's main economic policies. In fact, investors may be presented with higher odds of an infrastructure plan and even of an immigration deal, if President Trump faces reality and comes to the middle ground on some of his demands (as President Clinton did after his disastrous 1994 midterm election). As for impeachment and the risk of President Trump "seeking relevancy abroad," our high conviction view is that he will continue pursuing unorthodox foreign and trade policies regardless of the midterm outcome. The just-announced 10% tariff on $200 billion of Chinese imports confirms our alarmist view on trade tensions. In fact, President Trump has explicitly threatened an increase of the tariff rate to 25% by the end of the year in order to put more pressure on Beijing. The increase in the tariff rate would be a significant escalation in the trade war, one that we do not expect Chinese policymakers to simply roll over and accept. Meanwhile, the U.S. embargo on Iranian oil exports will officially begin on November 4, just two days before the midterm election date. This is not a coincidence, but a product of White House design. We expect President Trump to turn the screws on Iranian exports in ways that President Obama did not.9 Given the potential impact on domestic gasoline prices, the White House has decided to coincide the pressure on Tehran with the end of the election season. The midterm election, therefore, is important only in terms of timing. Once it is out of the way, President Trump will refocus on his "maximum pressure" tactic, which he believes (and we agree) led to a breakthrough in North Korea policy. Unfortunately for the markets, we do not expect that the maximum pressure tactic will work as smoothly with Iran and China.10 The final risk to markets is the creeping "stroke of pen" risk from potential regulation of technology enterprises. Joseph Simons, the Trump appointed new chair of the Federal Trade Commission, recently said that "the broad antitrust consensus that has existed... for about 25 years is being challenged... the U.S. economy has grown more concentrated and less competitive."11 His comments have dovetailed the threat to FAANG stocks that exists from a shift in U.S. anti-trust enforcement, one that would take the anti-trust practice away from the consumer-friendly approach of the "Chicago School."12 Chart 21FAANG Stocks + Microsoft Have Dramatically Outperformed... Table 4...Generating 50% Of The 2018 S&P 500 Return! This is a big risk for the ongoing bull market as the reason why the S&P 500 has performed well is due to the performance of a few (enormous) technology stocks that have seen both earnings and valuation multiples expand amid one of the longest economic growth phases in history (Chart 21 and Table 4). And yet the one thing that a plurality of Democrats and Republicans seem to agree with is that major tech companies should be regulated (Chart 22). Privacy advocates - who tend to lean left or libertarian - and conservatives, who feel that their commentators are being silenced by Silicon Valley, could form a classic "bootleggers and abolitionists" coalition against the FAANGs post midterm election. In fact, it is the one thing that Trump, and his supporters may (Chart 23), have in common with a potentially left-leaning Congress. Chart 22Majority Of Americans Want Tech Regulated Chart 23Conservatives Distrust Tech Companies How should investors play the midterm election? It is tough to say. We do not think the Democrats' takeover of Congress will be a catalyst for the markets. However, there are a slew of concerning geopolitical developments that will accelerate post-election, some specifically because President Trump will become more aggressive following the electoral hurdle. As such, we would be cautious. While it may serve investors well to "buy on dips" related to the fear of a "Socialist" takeover of Congress, it will be difficult to disassociate such hysteria from genuinely bearish narratives emanating from the Middle East, with trade policy, or stroke of pen risks looming over FAANG stocks. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Associate ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Party On The QE2," dated November 8, 2010, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 We include the last factor in the regression because it could be that the market responds positively in the post-election period, irrespective of the election outcome, simply because political uncertainty is diminished. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit," dated September 12, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 We are counting Senators Angus King (Maine) and Bernie Sanders (Vermont) as "Democrats" in this tally as they both caucus with the Democratic Party and generally vote very much in line with their left-leaning peers. 6 Excludes Pennsylvania due to redistricting in early 2018, and OK-01, as the candidate ran unopposed. 7 The state variables include the annual percent change in personal income, the annual change in the Philadelphia Fed Coincident index, and incumbency. The national variables include presidential approval ratings, a variable indicating whether the last presidential election was close, and the annual percent change in real GDP, CPI, industrial production, and the DXY. We add to this mix of national and state data the latest opinion polling by state race and the generic congressional ballot. 8 This number is largely our judgement call based on the statements from the Democratic primary winners. However, the fact that there is no unified progressive movement - akin to the 2010 Tea Party revolution - confirms our view. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Are You Ready For 'Maximum Pressure?'," dated May 16, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see Diane Bartz, "Trump's antitrust enforcer considers shifting up a gear," dated September 13, 2018, available at reuters.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG?" dated August 1, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.