Economic Growth

Special Report

Highlights Rates are going higher ... : Flight-to-quality episodes aside, the bond bear market that began in July 2016 remains in force. Investors should maintain below-benchmark Treasury duration. ... but that doesn't necessarily spell immediate trouble for stocks: Consistent with our work on the fed funds rate cycle, it appears that the level of rates matters more for equity returns than their direction. Empirical evidence of a rates tipping point is elusive ... : The notion that investors migrate from stocks to bonds at a particular level of rates exerts a powerful intuitive appeal, but the data fail to validate it. ... but a 10-year yield Treasury of 3.75 - 4% might halt the bull market in its tracks: Higher rates reliably slow equities only when they rise enough to slow the economy. We estimate that the pinch point is somewhere in the neighborhood of a 3.75 - 4% 10-year Treasury yield. Feature A share of stock is a pro rata claim on the future earnings of the company that issued it. Holding future earnings constant, the price an investor will be willing to pay for a share is wholly a function of the rate used to discount its earnings back to the present day. The simplicity and ubiquity of this valuation approach suggest that equity returns should be predictably related to moves in interest rates. It may also point the way to a tipping point - either in the level of rates, or the magnitude of their rise - at which capital and savings migrate from stocks to bonds. This Special Report reviews the historical record to see how U.S. equities have interacted with real 10-year Treasury yields. It considers the key variables that would logically seem to bear on equity performance and investors' propensity to rotate between asset classes. We find that the relationship between rates and equity returns is conditional, depending on which crosscurrent dominates in any given episode. We did not uncover any predictable rotation pattern. Do The Math As noted above, valuing a stream of future cash flows is a simple mechanical process once one settles on an appropriate discount rate for converting future dollars to current dollars. According to the security analysis textbooks, then, moves in stock prices are inversely related to changes in interest rates. But the textbooks leave out one key point: changes in interest rates don't occur in a vacuum. When they change, earnings estimates are likely to change, too, most often in the same direction as real rates. To be sure, the denominator discounting future cash flows rises when real rates rise, but the future-earnings numerator most likely rises, too. If real rates are rising, the economy is probably gaining momentum, and earnings estimates should probably be revised higher as well. Conversely, falling rates lead to a higher earnings multiple (ex-the not insignificant animal-spirits wild card), but will regularly be accompanied by downward revisions in future earnings. The net effect is uncertain, and depends on whether the multiple change outweighs the change in earnings or vice versa. Bonds Are A Snap Compared To Stocks It's far simpler to compute the impact on a bond portfolio from a given increase in interest rates because the denominator is the only variable that changes. The future-cash-flows numerator is contractually fixed, and it takes a big shift in the state of the economy to spark an economy-wide change in perceived repayment potential.1 This is why bonds' sensitivity to changes in interest rates can be captured in a single universal metric (duration). Stocks are pulled in so many different directions by factors affecting future cash flows that duration has no equity analogue. Investors should therefore be cautious about pinning too much on interest rates as they relate to equities. Bonds move in fixed orbits around the interest-rate sun, according to strictly ordered rules that establish a very clear cause-and-effect relationship. Equities improvise as they go along, taking their cues from a rotating cast of variables that interact differently over time. Attempts to stretch the concept of interest-rate sensitivity beyond bonds regularly trip up equity investors; we cannot know in advance how rates will come together with the other factors that influence equities. Confounding Intuition, Part 1: Equities Prefer Rising Rates (And Multiples Don't Care) U.S. postwar history makes it clear that equity investors need not run from rising rates. The S&P 500 has fared considerably better when real 10-year yields have risen by at least 100 basis points ("bps") than it has when they've declined by that magnitude (Chart 1), gaining 9.4% and 5%, respectively (Chart 2). Rates do not exhibit any sort of a consistent relationship with either forward (Chart 3) or trailing (Chart 4) S&P 500 multiples, though extremely high and extremely low real yields are both associated with lower trailing P/Es. Negative real yields carry an unwelcome whiff of deflation, and their scatterplot data points tend to cluster at below-the-mean forward and trailing multiples. Chart 1Stocks Actually Do Better When Rates Rise ... Chart 2... Considerably Better When Do Higher Rates Hurt The Economy? Charts 3 and 4 show that both forward and trailing multiples almost always decline when real 10-year Treasury yields cross above 5%. What's bad for multiples isn't necessarily bad for earnings, however, and a 5% real threshold is irrelevant to today's cycle. The steady decline in the average fed funds rate over the last several completed cycles (Chart 5) makes it clear that neutral rate thresholds are not constant across time periods. Assessing interest rates' impact on the economy over time requires a sliding scale. Chart 3Hard To See A Trend Through The Windshield ... Chart 4... Or The Rear-View Mirror Estimates of potential economic growth provide a useful yardstick for measuring the impact of real yields. Comparing real long rates to potential output offers insight into the burden of servicing debt across the economy. If real rates exceed the economy's potential growth rate by a material amount, several marginal borrowers are likely to be gasping for air, and their travails will weigh on the economy. Conversely, servicing debt should be easy when real rates are below potential growth, and investors are more likely to invest, businesses are more likely to expand, and consumers are more likely to spend. Chart 5One Size Does Not Fit All There have been 22 instances in the postwar era when real 10-year Treasury yields have increased by at least 100 bps, and Table 1 lists all of them, grouped by their relationship to real GDP's potential five-year growth rate. There are three possible states for interest rate increases in relation to potential output: starting and ending below trend growth, starting below trend growth and ending above it, and starting and ending above trend. The S&P 500 comfortably tops its overall postwar returns when rates go from Below-to-Below and Below-to-Above, but declines outright when rates start above potential growth and go even higher. Earnings consistently rise when rates start below potential growth, making multiples the swing factor - when they expand, S&P 500 gains tend to be very large (Box 1). Table 1Real Rates Versus Potential GDP Growth Box 1 Decomposing S&P 500 Returns Table 2 details the decomposition of S&P 500 returns during rising real rate episodes occurring after S&P 500 earnings estimates began to be compiled in 1979. Except in the crucible of 2009, when they were flat, forward earnings estimates have always risen when rates rise from a below-trend starting point, putting a tailwind behind the S&P 500 that regularly overcomes the multiple contraction that occurs in half of the Below/Above instances. Multiples are the swing factor; when they expand in conjunction with rising earnings estimates, U.S. equities soar. They always contract when rates go from high to higher, dragging stocks down against a mixed earnings expectations backdrop. The action is consistent with our fed funds rate cycle work: stocks do best when rates are below equilibrium and falling because earnings and multiples expand in tandem in that setting, but they do nearly as well after rate hikes commence, in spite of multiple contraction. Earnings surge when the Fed is confident enough about the economy to embark on a tightening cycle, but has not yet hiked enough to choke off the expansion. Multiple expansion in a majority of the Below/Above instances reveals that investors do not rotate out of equities en masse when rates rise, even by a considerable amount. The rotation story has intuitive appeal, but it doesn't show up in these data. Table 2Decomposition Of S&P 500 Returns During Rising Rate Periods A Little More Slicing And Dicing (Potential GDP Matters) Chart 6Mind The Gap Defining Below-to-Below and Below-to-Above states is easy in hindsight, but an investor cannot know in real time where a rising-rate instance that begins with rates below potential output will end. Earnings rise no matter where rates end relative to potential GDP, but re-rating in Below/Below can flip to de-rating in Below/Above, slamming the brakes on phase gains. The empirical data say investors should lighten up on S&P 500 exposure when real rates cross above real potential GDP. S&P 500 returns trounce their overall postwar gain when rates rise from below potential GDP to potential GDP but lag it once rates cross above potential GDP (Chart 6). Confounding Intuition, Part 2: Institutional Investors Don't Rotate Even if S&P 500 returns fail to demonstrate any consistent relationship with interest rates, one would expect that professional investors' asset-class positioning would. Bonds and stocks are alternatives for one another, and institutional investors presumably shift their allocations in line with the asset classes' relative prospects. We examine Pension Funds', Life Insurers', and Mutual Funds' asset-allocation profiles over time using balance-sheet data from the Federal Reserve's quarterly Flow of Funds report. The data show that asset-allocation decisions are made without apparent regard for relative valuations, at least as proxied by the equity risk premium. Pension funds' steady increase in equity allocations across the '90s appears to have been less a function of rate moves than buying into the bull market (Chart 7). Since the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, bond and equity allocations have mainly reflected the performance tides. The extended trend in pension funds' equity-to-bond allocation ratio suggests that the funds set a long-range goal and grind steadily toward achieving it, regardless of relative valuation movements. It also suggests that the funds may not bother with rebalancing, much less dynamic asset allocation. Life insurers kept their fixed income and equity allocations more or less fixed across the '70s (not shown) and most of the '80s. They then reduced equity exposure for three years after 1987's Black Monday, assiduously built it up across the '90s, and have more or less let it drift since the millennium (Chart 8). The equity risk premium does not appear to have been a consideration. Asset-allocation stasis may simply be a reflection of life insurers' stringent regulatory constraints, but their portfolio managers' limited discretion precludes opportunistic allocation shifts. Mutual fund allocations tend to depend much more on past events than future expectations. Equity holdings peak when the equity risk premium bottoms and bottom when the equity risk premium peaks (Chart 9). The problem is that mutual fund managers are structurally hostage to their investors' whims. They are sorted into narrow silos and then straitjacketed by the rigid allocation rules written into their fund prospectuses. Even if they think asset-class rotation is a great idea, only a tiny minority of fund managers can act upon it. Chart 7Pension Funds Don't Allocate Based On Yields Or The ERP ... Chart 8... While Life Insurers Appear To Allocate In Defiance Of Them Chart 9Mutual Funds##BR##Obey Their Owners ... Confounding Darwin's Intuition: Human Investors Never Learn Chart 10... Who Act On Real Emotion, Not Real Yields Kahneman and Tversky's groundbreaking research into decision-making under uncertainty revealed that our species is wired to make suboptimal investment decisions. Prospect theory, loss aversion and an unhealthy fixation on recent data all encourage retail investors to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot. When it comes to asset allocation, households appear to focus exclusively on the action in the rear-view mirror (Chart 10). Retail investors as a group rotate between equities and fixed income retroactively, in response to recent past returns, not proactively in response to cues about future relative-return prospects. Investment Implications Despite the compelling intuition that investors should set their course by the interest-rate stars, there is no evidence in the flow of funds data that they have done so in the past. We posit that structural constraints on institutional investors, combined with humans' durable cognitive biases, offer no reason to expect that they will do so in the future. While there may not be any predictable rotation pattern, rising rates have given rise to a predictable performance pattern. Equities reliably perform better when real rates are rising by at least 100 basis points than they do when they're falling. Decomposition of S&P 500 returns indicates that the pattern holds because earnings rise a good bit more in rising-rate periods than multiples decline. And multiples don't always decline when rates rise, anyway; sometimes emotion overrides cash flow discounting mechanics. Investors should lighten up on Treasury allocations, while keeping the exposures they do hold at below-benchmark duration. They should not flee equities, however. Rates have not yet risen enough to cool off the economy in any material way, and we judge that they won't until somewhere around a 3.75% 10-year Treasury yield.2 Tight supplies in labor and goods markets will eventually stoke realized inflation and provoke the Fed into tightening enough to cut off the rally, but it hasn't happened yet, and it is far too early to de-risk portfolios on account of interest rates. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 An unusually large drop in rates may well be associated with economic distress, but default-adjusted bond payment streams are much less variable than near- and intermediate-term earnings estimates. 2 Based on the evolution of the Congressional Budget Office's longer-run estimates of real potential GDP growth, and the trend in our own model of long-term inflation expectations, it appears as if nominal potential GDP growth will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.75-4% next year. This is a much lower estimate than one would get from adding the Fed's 2% inflation target to the current rate of GDP growth, but we need to look past the immediate boost of the stimulus package to get a read on its longer-run effects. As with all of the estimates produced by our models, we look to it for a general guide to the future, not a precise point estimate.

Highlights Prediction 1: A major financial downturn will trigger the next major economic downturn, and not the other way round. Prediction 2: The straw that will break the back of a fragile financial system will be the global long bond yield rising by 60 bps within a short space of time. But for those who can fine tune, the global long bond yield must rise a further 30-50 bps before reaching the tipping point for the global risk-asset edifice. Take short-term profits in the overweight position in 30-year government bonds. Take short-term profits in the underweight position in basic materials. Take short-term profits in the underweight positions in Italy (MIB) and Spain (IBEX) and overweight position in Denmark (OMX). Feature The twenty-first century has witnessed three major downturns: the first started in 2000; the second started in 2007 culminating in the Lehman crisis a year later; and the third started in 2011 (Chart of the Week). Today, we are going to stick our necks out and make two predictions about the century's fourth major downturn. Chart of the WeekThree Episodes When Equities Underperformed Bonds By 20 Percent Or More A major financial downturn will trigger the fourth major economic downturn. The straw that will break the back of a fragile financial system will be the global long bond yield rising by 60 bps within a short space of time. Where The Consensus Is Very Wrong As investment strategists, our primary focus should be the financial markets rather than the economy. On this basis, we define a major downturn in terms of the markets: an episode in which equities underperform bonds by more than 20 percent over a period of more than six months.1 All the same, our market based definition of a major downturn perfectly captures the three occasions that the European economy went into recession or stagnation (Chart I-2). Does this mean that the economic downturns triggered the financial market downturns? No, quite the reverse. The onset of the three major financial downturns clearly preceded the onset of the three major economic downturns. Chart I-2Three Episodes When The Euro Area Economy ##br##Contracted Or Stagnated On reflection, this is hardly surprising. The twenty-first century's major economic downturns have all resulted from financial market distortions and fragilities: the bubble valuations of the technology, media and telecom sectors in 2000 (Chart I-3); the mispricing of U.S. mortgages and credit in 2007 (Chart I-4); and the mispricing of euro area sovereign credit risk in 2011 (Chart I-5). Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the downturns in financial markets should precede the downturns in the economy, even when both are measured in real time. Chart I-3The Major Downturns Stemmed From##br## Financial Market Distortions: The Dot Com ##br##Bubble In 1999/2000... Chart I-4...The Mispricing Of U.S. ##br##Mortgages And Credit##br## In 2007/2008... Chart I-5...And The Mispricing Of Euro Area ##br##Sovereign Credit Risk##br## In 2010/2011 Today, the consensus overwhelmingly believes that an economic downturn will cause the next major downturn in financial markets. But history has taught us time and time again that the causality is much more likely to run the other way. Why not learn the lesson? So here's our first prediction: a major financial downturn will trigger the fourth major economic downturn, and not the other way round. This prediction raises some obvious questions: what could be the major fragility in financial markets, and what could fracture it? A Sharp Rise In Bond Yields Triggered The Last Three Major Downturns Look carefully at the financial market downturns that started in 2000, 2007 and 2011, and you will see another striking similarity. In each episode, the global long bond yield rose by 60 bps or more in the months that preceded the onset of the financial market downturn: April 1999 through January 2000 (Chart I-6); March through July 2007 (Chart I-7); and October 2010 through April 2011 (Chart I-8). This strongly suggests that the spike in the bond yield was the trigger for the subsequent major downturn in financial markets. Chart I-6A Sharply Rising Bond Yield Triggered ##br##The Major Downturn Of 2000 Chart I-7A Sharply Rising Bond Yield Triggered##br## The Major Downturn Of 2007 And 2008 Chart I-8A Sharply Rising Bond Yield Triggered ##br##The Major Downturn Of 2011 A sharp rise in bond yields is usually the straw that breaks the back of financial market fragilities, in (at least) one of three ways: it flushes out those actors that are reliant on cheap liquidity; it pressures interest rate sensitive sectors in the economy; and it weighs on the valuations of other assets such as equities, especially if those valuations are already extremely elevated. Which segues us neatly to the current fragility in the global financial system. As we wrote last week, the post-2008 global experiment with quantitative easing, and zero and negative interest rate policy has boosted the valuations of all risk-assets across all geographies across all asset-classes. And the total value of those global risk-assets is $400 trillion, equal to about five times the size of the global economy.2 We have also consistently highlighted that not only do the rich valuations of $400 trillion of risk-assets depend (inversely) on bond yields, but that this relationship is an exponential function.3 So here's our second prediction: the straw that will break the back of a fragile financial system will be the global long bond yield rising by 60 bps within a short space of time - just as it did in 2000, 2007 and 2011. But Bond Yields Haven't Gone Up Far Enough... Yet Now comes some bullish news, at least for those who can play shorter-term moves in the market. The global long bond yield has been trapped within a tight channel and is only 20 bps up from its recent low in April (Chart I-9). Therefore, it has the scope to rise a further 30-50 bps before reaching the tipping point for the global risk-asset edifice and unleashing a 'risk-off' phase. Chart I-9In 2018, The Bond Yield Has Not Risen Sharply...Yet For those who want to fine tune their investment strategy, the journey up to that turning point would define a phase when many of this year's cyclical sector underperformances would end or even switch to a phase of modest outperformances. Bear in mind that the cyclical sector underperformances this year have been substantial: European banks have underperformed healthcare by 35 percent; global basic materials have underperformed the market by 10 percent; emerging market equities have underperformed developed market equities by 15 percent. So it is prudent to take some short-term profits, especially as these trends are likely to end, at least in the near term. Hence, three weeks ago we closed our underweight banks versus healthcare position, booking a tidy profit of 23 percent. Today, we are closing our underweight position in basic materials versus the market, booking a profit of 6 percent. In a similar vein, we are taking the modest profits in our overweight position in 30-year government bonds. Sector allocation has unavoidable implications for stock market allocation - because the mainstream stock market indexes all have dominant sector skews which determine their relative performances (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Italy Vs. Denmark = Banks Vs. Healthcare On this basis, closing our underweight banks versus healthcare removes the justification for being underweight bank-dominant Italy (MIB) and Spain (IBEX) and the justification for being overweight healthcare-dominant Denmark (OMX). These three positions now move to neutral. While we consider our next shift, our European stock market allocation is temporarily reduced to just five positions. Overweight: France, Ireland, Switzerland. Underweight: Sweden, Norway. Finally, just to say that there will be no report next week as I will be attending our annual Investment Conference which is in Toronto this year. I look forward to seeing some of you there. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Based on the relative performance of the MSCI All Country World Index versus the JP Morgan Global Government Bond Index, both in local currency terms. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'Trapped: Have Equities Trapped Bonds?' September 13 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'The Rule Of 4 For Equities And Bonds' August 2 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* This week, we note that the very strong recent outperformance of U.S. telecoms versus U.S. autos is technically extended, reaching a fractal dimension that has previously signalled the start of a countertrend move. Hence, the recommended trade is short U.S. telecoms, long U.S. autos. Set a profit target of 9% with a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Duration: The Fed is unlikely to slow its 25 bps per quarter rate hike pace until there is sufficient evidence pointing to a slow-down in economic growth. Maintain below-benchmark duration in U.S. bond portfolios. Yield Curve: The yield curve will remain near its current level and await confirmation from rising wage growth. The 2-year maturity point is becoming more attractive, and it will soon be time to switch our yield curve positioning from favoring the 5-year/7-year part of the curve to the 2-year. Economy: The global growth data improved somewhat during the past month, but weak foreign growth remains the greatest risk to the U.S. recovery and the Fed's 25 bps per quarter rate hike cycle. Feature Treasury yields increased last week. The 10-year is once again flirting with 3% and the market now discounts four 25 basis point rate hikes by the end of 2019. This time last week it was only priced for three (Chart 1). Chart 110-Year Testing 3% Last week's bearish price action occurred despite core inflation and retail sales both printing well below expectations. But the market saw through the economic data and instead took its cue from a speech given by Fed Governor Lael Brainard.1 A speech that was rightly interpreted as hawkish. We view last week's speech as important because Governor Brainard effectively refuted two arguments that the Fed could use to justify a slower pace for rate hikes in the coming months. Brainard's message to markets is that if any investor still expects the Fed to rely on one of those excuses, they should think again. Getting Close To Neutral One potential reason for the Fed to slow its 25 bps per quarter rate hike pace is that current FOMC estimates place the longer-run neutral fed funds rate between 2.8% and 3.5%.2 This means that four more rate hikes would be sufficient for monetary policy to move from accommodative to neutral. If those neutral rate estimates turn out to be correct, then the Fed might be justified in halting its rate hike cycle this time next year. The problem, as we have pointed out in several prior reports, is that the error bars around such neutral rate estimates are very wide. So wide that we think the FOMC will pay them little attention and focus instead on trends in the actual economy and financial markets.3 Governor Brainard attacks the issue from a different angle, but arrives at the same conclusion. Brainard's framework draws a distinction between the short-run neutral rate - which is allowed to fluctuate in response to changes in the economy - and the long-run neutral rate - which is the neutral rate that prevails "after transitory forces reflecting headwinds or tailwinds have played out." In practice, this distinction means that if the economy proves resilient to a rising fed funds rate, we should conclude that the short-run neutral rate is moving higher. This would mean that higher interest rates are required before monetary policy turns restrictive. If economic tailwinds are strong enough, the short-run neutral rate could even move above the long-run rate. This framework leads to the same investment strategy we have suggested in many prior reports. Investors should ignore neutral rate estimates altogether, and focus instead on monitoring the economy and financial markets for signals that monetary policy is turning restrictive. Some potential signals we have suggested in the past include:4 When year-over-year nominal GDP growth is below the fed funds rate When cyclical spending slows as a percentage of overall GDP When the Treasury curve inverts When the gold price breaks dramatically lower Governor Brainard's speech pointed to one more indicator that we should add to our list: evidence of tightening from indicators of overall financial conditions. The strong relationship between financial conditions and future economic growth is well documented, meaning that Fed rate hikes will only exert a drag on growth if they translate into tighter overall financial conditions. Charts 2, 3 and 4 show how this played out during the past three Fed tightening cycles. Chart 2 shows that financial conditions tightened immediately after the Fed first raised rates in March 1997. They continued to tighten until the Fed stopped hiking in mid-2000. In contrast, Chart 3 shows that financial conditions did not tighten immediately when the Fed first lifted rates in June 2004, but that they eventually tightened as the Fed persisted with hikes. Chart 4 shows how financial conditions have evolved in the current cycle. Broadly speaking, overall financial conditions appear easier now than when the rate hike cycle began in December 2015. In other words, Fed rate hikes have so far not translated into tighter financial conditions. In Brainard's framework this can only mean that the short-run neutral rate has been rising alongside the fed funds rate. This suggests that more rate hikes are required to tighten overall financial conditions and slow growth. Chart 2Financial Conditions: 1990s Chart 3Financial Conditions: 2000s Chart 4Financial Conditions: Present Day Inflation Is Well Contained A second reason why many have suggested that the Fed could slow its pace of rate hikes is that inflation remains well contained near the Fed's target, and the risk of a meaningful overshoot appears low. At 2.19%, year-over-year core CPI inflation is consistent with the Fed's target. However, our Base Effects Indicator suggests it will decelerate during the next six months (Chart 5). Our core PCE Base Effects Indicator sends a similar message, as we showed in a recent report.5 But Brainard suggested that the Fed should broaden its scope beyond a simple inflation target. Specifically, she observed that: The past few times unemployment fell to levels as low as those projected over the next year, signs of overheating showed up in financial-sector imbalances rather than in accelerating inflation. The Federal Reserve's assessment suggests that financial vulnerabilities are building[.] As evidence that financial vulnerabilities are rising, Brainard pointed to low corporate bond spreads, rising corporate debt levels and easing underwriting standards (Chart 6). This would appear to make the case for further rate hikes even if inflation remains well contained near the Fed's target. Chart 5Inflation Will Stay Close To Target Chart 6Brainard Looks Beyond Inflation Bottom Line: The Fed is unlikely to slow its 25 bps per quarter rate hike pace until there is sufficient evidence pointing to a slow-down in economic growth. Maintain below-benchmark duration in U.S. bond portfolios. Treasury Curve: Considering The 2-Year As we pointed out last week, the Treasury curve has already discounted a significant acceleration in wage growth (Chart 7).6 This is fairly common cyclical behavior. In each of the past two cycles the Treasury curve has flattened sharply and then leveled-off at a low level as wages accelerated. We expect we have now reached this latter stage. The 2/10 slope will stay near its current level for a time, awaiting confirmation from wage growth. Chart 7Waiting For Wages In our view, the more interesting yield curve trend is that the spread between the 2-year yield and the fed funds rate has widened to above the 2/10 slope (Chart 7, panel 2). Periods where the fed funds/2-year slope exceeds the 2-year/10-year slope are rare, and tend to be quickly followed by fed funds/2-year flattening. The attractiveness of the 2-year note is confirmed by our butterfly spread models. We model different butterfly spread (bullet over duration-matched barbell) combinations relative to the slope between the two legs of the barbell.7 Our models show that the 2-year bullet is consistently cheap relative to different barbell combinations, and in fact cheaper than all other bullet maturities (Table 1). Table 1Butterfly Strategy Valuation At present, we recommend a yield curve position that is long the 7-year bullet and short the 1/20 barbell. We will continue to hold this position for the time being because, while the 2-year note appears cheaper than the 7-year, we think the 2-year has room to cheapen even further. As mentioned at the beginning of this report, the Treasury market is priced for just barely four rate hikes between now and the end of 2019. The 2-year yield has further upside as more rate hikes get priced in. The upside in the 7-year yield is more limited. Bottom Line: The yield curve will remain near its current level and await confirmation from rising wage growth. The 2-year maturity point is becoming more attractive, and it will soon be time to switch our yield curve positioning from favoring the 5-year/7-year part of the curve to the 2-year. Global Growth Update Governor Brainard's speech shot down two arguments for why the Fed might turn more dovish, but this certainly does not rule out the Fed slowing its pace of rate hikes if economic growth starts to weaken. In past reports we noted that the Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) excluding the U.S. is below zero (Chart 8). Since 1993, every time the Global ex. U.S. LEI has fallen below zero, the U.S. LEI has eventually followed. It is conceivable, and perhaps even likely, that the same dynamic will play out again. However, the most recent data on global growth have been somewhat more optimistic. While the Global Manufacturing PMI (excluding the U.S.) has been trending lower, it remains at healthy levels compared to recent history (Chart 8, panel 2). Further, our Global PMI Diffusion index perked up in August, and now shows that 86% of the 36 countries in our sample have PMIs above the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 8, panel 3). The Global LEI also ticked higher in July, and its diffusion index increased, though it remains below 50% (Chart 8, bottom panel). While the monthly LEI and PMI data have improved, indicators of investor sentiment derived from both surveys and financial market prices remain downtrodden. The Global ZEW survey of investor sentiment, the performance of cyclical equity sectors versus defensives and our Boom/Bust Indicator all suggest that U.S. bond yields are too high for the global growth environment (Chart 9). Chart 8Slight Improvement In Global Growth Chart 9High Frequency Global Growth Indicators It's difficult to say how this will all play out, but our sense is that there remains a strong chance that weak foreign growth will eventually drag the U.S. lower. This will cause the Fed to pause its rate hike cycle for a time. However, given the uncertainty surrounding this outcome and the fact that the market is already priced for only two rate hikes in the remainder of 2018 and two more in all of 2019, we view the balance of risks as still consistent with below-benchmark portfolio duration. Bottom Line: The global growth data improved somewhat during the past month, but weak foreign growth remains the greatest risk to the U.S. recovery and the Fed's 25 bps per quarter rate hike cycle. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20180912a.htm 2 Governor Brainard defines the neutral fed funds rate as: "the level of the federal funds rate that keeps output growing around its potential rate in an environment of full employment and stable inflation." 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Powell Doctrine Emerges", dated September 4, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Tracking The Two-Stage Treasury Bear", dated August 14, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Powell Doctrine Emerges", dated September 4, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Playing Catch-Up", dated September 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Last week's View Meeting underlined the point that BCA's take on the macro backdrop hasn't changed. Decelerating global growth and the potential for a nasty EM debt episode still argue for slightly cautious asset allocation. Global desynchronization is in full swing, with the U.S. leading the other major DM economies by a wide margin. The growth disparity will be dollar-positive while it lasts, but the deteriorating U.S. budget position will weigh on the dollar in the long run. S&P 500 performance across the earnings cycle reveals that decelerating earnings growth is not a problem for stocks as long as earnings are still growing year-on-year. Acceleration beats deceleration, but peaking earnings growth is not a signal to trim equity exposures. The U.S. is not impervious to a meaningful EM credit event, but its direct exposures are very limited. Post-crisis banking regulations have meaningfully reduced the banking system's vulnerabilities and make it very unlikely that another LTCM-like event might occur. Feature BCA researchers convened last week for our monthly View Meeting with the explicit goal of taking stock of our strategy teams' macro views. The nine-year-plus U.S. expansion is well advanced, and we are carefully monitoring the business cycle, the credit cycle, and the policy cycle for early warning of inflections in the rates, credit, and equity markets. In addition to the regular cyclical movements, we also have to gauge the impact of the ongoing reversal of extraordinary monetary accommodation and a raft of geopolitical issues. The investment outcome of the many crosscurrents continues to be subject to spirited debate, but the warily constructive house view, in place since mid-June, was not challenged. Decelerating global growth was a key driver of our June downgrade to neutral on equities. The U.S. economy may be surging as two years of fiscal stimulus makes its presence felt, but the other major developed-world economies are softening, and the emerging-market bloc faces considerable pressure. Although the S&P 500 has since made new highs (Chart 1, top panel), the MSCI All-Country World Index ("ACWI") has gone nowhere (Chart 1, second panel). Within the ACWI, DM equities (Chart 1, third panel), have handily outperformed struggling EM equities (Chart 1, bottom panel). We continue to expect more of the same. Tax cuts will keep corporate profits growing at better than 20% for the rest of the year, and federal spending will boost the U.S. economy through the end of 2019. The pickup in aggregate demand will strain dwindling spare capacity, feeding inflation pressures, and keeping the Fed from easing up on its rate-hiking campaign. A resolute Fed will ratchet up the pressure on EM borrowers, while increasing trade barriers pose a headwind for the many DM and EM economies that are more open than the U.S. Chinese policymakers could provide some respite to the global economy, but our China and EM strategists aren't counting on it. Easing monetary and/or fiscal policy would run counter to the Party's ongoing deleveraging and anti-corruption campaigns (Chart 2). Though China's rulers have demonstrated a tendency to overreact when acting to offset adverse economic events, our in-house experts think conditions will have to get a good bit worse to provoke meaningful stimulus of any sort. The strike price on a Chinese policy put may be considerably out of the money. Chart 1So Far, So Good Chart 2Will They Swim Against The Tide? Bottom Line: Overindebtedness, rising trade barriers, and a U.S. economy with the potential to overheat will keep the pressure on the EM bloc and cast a shadow over global growth. The Chinese policy cavalry may not feel any particular urgency to ride to the rescue. Leading The Pack There was no dispute about the U.S. growth outlook, absolute or relative. The U.S. economy is flying high, and will continue to outdistance its DM peers for the rest of this year and next. S&P 500 EPS growth will maintain its better than 20% pace in the third and fourth quarters. Next year's 10% consensus may be ambitious, given that this year's dollar appreciation probably hasn't shown up in earnings data, but corporate management teams have not yet expressed much in the way of dollar concerns. Decoupling cannot go on forever in the 21st-century global economy, but the comparatively closed U.S. economy has room to run in the near term. Last week's August ISM Manufacturing survey reached a 14-year high while the global PMI continued to hook lower (Chart 3). The gap between the U.S. LEI index and the global ex-U.S. LEI index has been widening for over a year (Chart 4), and would seem to herald additional dollar strength (Chart 4, bottom panel). Our corporate earnings models see U.S. EPS growth widening its lead on Europe and Japan over the rest of the year (Chart 5). Chart 3You Go Your Way And I'll Go Mine Chart 4Dollar Strength... Chart 5...Hasn't Gotten In Earnings' Way Yet Bottom Line: The U.S. is outgrowing its developed market peers, and there is nothing on the immediate horizon that suggests a reversal is in store. Superior corporate earnings growth and dollar strength should allow U.S. equities to outperform their major DM peers on a common-currency basis well into 2019. The Change, Or The Change Of The Change? Deceleration has been at the heart of BCA's managing editors' concerns, and there is an intuitive appeal to the idea that equity markets prize the change of the change (the second derivative) over the first-order move itself. It has the potential to clash, however, with the empirical fact that stocks typically rise unless earnings are contracting. To determine the degree to which decelerating earnings growth has historically presented a challenge to the S&P 500, we posit a four-phase earnings cycle based on the interaction between earnings-estimate growth and acceleration (Diagram 1), as follows: Diagram 1The Earnings Cycle Phase I begins when the worst part of the cycle has ended. Earnings estimates are contracting on a year-over-year basis, but at a slowing rate. Because earnings typically grow, and the bounce off the bottom is typically swift, this phase has occurred just 8% of the time. In Phase II, year-over-year earnings are growing at an accelerating rate. In Phase III, year-over-year earnings are still growing, but at a slowing rate. Phase II and Phase III are the de facto default phases, each accounting for 39% of all observations. In Phase IV, year-over-year earnings are contracting at an accelerating rate. Phase IV is more common than Phase I because the decline to the bottom tends to unfold more slowly than the bounce off of it, but it still occurs just 14% of the time. Table 1 shows annualized S&P 500 price returns for each phase of the cycle and then groups the phases by acceleration/deceleration and expansion/contraction. Stocks perform better when the rate of earnings growth is accelerating than they do when it's decelerating, but they also perform better when earnings are growing on a year-over-year basis than they do when they're declining. Stocks perform terribly when earnings are falling year-on-year at an increasing rate (Phase IV), and do great when the pace at which they're falling slows (Phase I), but those occurrences are few and far between. Earnings grow four-fifths of the time, and when they do, the differences between accelerating and decelerating growth aren't all that big a deal (Chart 6). Table 1Acceleration Is Better, But Deceleration Isn't All Bad... Chart 6...As It's Not A Problem As Long As Earnings Still Grow Bottom Line: Deceleration in the rate of earnings growth is not a signal to abandon stocks as long as earnings are still growing year-on-year. Investors have fared well for 40 years when earnings estimates expand, regardless of whether the rate of expansion is accelerating. 2018 Is Not 1997-98 In the wake of August's wobbles, several clients have been eager to explore various EM economies' vulnerabilities1 in more detail. We have fielded several questions relating to U.S. banks' EM exposures and how they compare to their exposures to the Asian Tigers on the cusp of the Asian Crisis. Per data from the Bank for International Settlements and the FDIC, U.S. claims on Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and Taiwan amounted to about 14% of all U.S. bank credit at the end of 1996. That exposure is very similar to the U.S. banking system's current exposure to Argentina, Turkey, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Chile, South Africa, and Indonesia. Direct exposure to fragile EM economies did not drive the S&P 500's 19% decline across July and August of 1998, however, nor did it inspire a consortium of fourteen major global financial institutions to come together to attempt to ring-fence the U.S. banking system. Those outcomes can be laid to the brokers' and investment banks' indirect exposure to the massively leveraged investment portfolio of the Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund (LTCM). To gauge the system's fragility back then, we perform a simple comparison of LTCM's debt to the publicly traded U.S. investment banks' total equity. In our back-of-the-envelope analysis (Table 2), we assume that the four investment banks, which contributed a quarter of the funds to rescue LTCM, had provided at least a quarter of LTCM's financing.2 Per our assumptions, LTCM claims accounted for 82% of the four banks' total equity. Losses given default would not have been anywhere near 100%, but a disorderly exit from LTCM's positions would surely have forced several of LTCM's creditors to conduct urgent capital raisings of their own. Fortunately for investors, today's banking system is nowhere near as vulnerable. Investment bank leverage ratios of 30 or more, commonplace in the late '90s, are a practical impossibility today. While lenders are no less likely to chase business late in the cycle today, post-crisis regulation makes it far more difficult to indulge their folly. Today's investment banks operate with a third of the leverage of 20 years ago (Table 3). The odds that another overextended investor, or group of investors, could imperil the U.S. banking system are much longer today than they were then. It's considerably harder to come by leverage via the regulated banking system, and leverage is the essential contagion ingredient. Table 2Enormous Leverage Made The Banking System Unstable In The Summer Of 1998 ... Table 3... But It's Not A Problem Anymore Bottom Line: Basel III, Dodd-Frank and the Volcker Rule save lenders from their own worst impulses. The odds of another LTCM crisis are far slimmer than they were in the late '90s. Investment Implications We continue to have a constructive view of the business, market and policy cycles in the U.S., but there's more to the global investing backdrop than just the U.S. Global investors should overweight U.S. equities versus equities in the rest of the world and U.S. investors should be sure to be at least equal weight equities, but the environment is sufficiently risky to inspire caution. We join our colleagues in continuing to recommend a benchmark equity allocation, while underweighting bonds and overweighting cash. August's employment report supports our economic and investment takes. The labor market remains tight, with the broader U-6 definition of unemployment (including involuntary part-time and discouraged workers) making a second straight 17-year low (Chart 7, top panel), and average hourly earnings extending their slow march higher (Chart 7, bottom panel). With the three-month moving average of payrolls (185,000) expanding at a rate well above the 110,000-per-month pace required to absorb new entrants to the labor market, qualified candidates are going to become even more difficult to find. The upshot is that the Fed remains firmly on a path to hike rates more than the market consensus currently expects. Despite the potential for a near-term flight-to-safety bid for Treasury bonds, we are sticking with our below-benchmark duration call. Chart 7As Slack Is Absorbed, Wages Will Rise Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the August 20, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Rude Health," available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Lehman did not contribute to the bailout, but it is highly improbable that it had not lent to LTCM.

Highlights We remain bullish on the dollar, but no longer think that being long the greenback is the "slam-dunk" trade that it was earlier this year. A reacceleration in growth outside the U.S. and an overly dovish Fed represent the biggest risks to our constructive dollar view. China is likely to stimulate its economy, but concerns about high debt levels and malinvestment will limit the scale of any fiscal/credit stimulus. Letting the RMB slide may prove to be the preferable option. Worries about debt sustainability in Italy and EM contagion to European banks will constrain credit growth in the euro area, thus keeping the ECB in a highly dovish mode. For the time being, we favor developed market stocks over their EM peers. At the sector level, we would overweight defensives relative to deep cyclicals. U.S. stocks will outperform European stocks in dollar terms, although the performance is likely to be much more balanced in local-currency terms. The longer-term path for Treasury yields is to the upside. Nevertheless, a stronger dollar, coupled with safe-haven flows into the Treasury market, could temporarily push the 10-year yield down to 2.5% over the next few months. Feature The Dollar At A Crossroads After surging by 10% between February 1st and August 15th, the broad trade-weighted dollar has fallen by 0.9% over the past two weeks. Despite the latest setback, the greenback is still 23.2% above its 2014 lows and only 2.8% below its December 28, 2016 high (Chart 1). BCA continues to maintain a bullish view on the dollar. However, given recent market action, it is useful to stress-test our thesis in order to explore what could go wrong with it. As we discuss below, a key risk to the dollar is that global growth reaccelerates, with the U.S. once again going from leader to laggard in the global growth horserace. Global Growth And The Dollar The dollar tends to strengthen when global growth is deteriorating. Since the U.S. is a "low-beta" economy dominated by services rather than manufacturing and primary industries, an environment in which the global economy is slowing is usually one where the U.S. is outperforming the rest of the world. Chart 2 shows that there is a strong correlation between the value of the trade-weighted dollar and the difference between The Conference Board's U.S. Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) and the non-U.S. LEI. The gap between the U.S. and the non-U.S. LEI is still quite large. However, it has started to shrink recently, reflecting both a dip in the U.S. LEI as well as a small improvement in the non-U.S. LEI. The implication is that the U.S. economy is outshining the rest of the world, but the magnitude of outperformance has begun to narrow. Looking forward, the fate of the dollar will hinge on whether growth in the rest of the world can catch up with the United States. By definition, this can happen either if U.S. growth falls or non-U.S. growth rises. We examine each possibility in turn. Chart 1Despite Recent Pullback, ##br##The Dollar Is Still Close To Its 2016 High Chart 2The U.S. Economy Is Still Outperforming The Rest Of The World, But The Gap Is Starting To Narrow U.S. Growth: As Good As It Gets? The second quarter was probably the high watermark for U.S. growth for the rest of this cycle. Real GDP expanded by 4.2%, more than double most estimates of trend growth. The deceleration in payroll growth in July, a string of weak housing data releases, and the drop in the national ISM surveys alongside declines in a number of regional surveys such as the Philly Fed PMI, all point to a somewhat softer third quarter GDP growth reading. How worried should dollar bulls be? We see three reasons to downplay the negative impact on the dollar from the recent string of softer economic data. While the U.S. economy has slowed, it is still quite strong. The Bloomberg consensus forecast suggests that real GDP will increase by 3% in Q3. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model predicts 4.1% growth, while the New York Fed's Nowcast anticipates a more modest growth rate of 2%. The underlying drivers of aggregate demand remain supportive. U.S. financial conditions have loosened recently, thanks mainly to narrower credit spreads and higher equity prices (Chart 3). The effects of fiscal stimulus have also yet to make their way fully through the economy, especially with respect to government spending. The consumer is in great shape. The unemployment rate is near a 20-year low and the savings rate stands at a comfortable 6.7%, well above the level that the current ratio of household net worth-to-disposable income would predict (Chart 4). The housing vacancy rate is close to all-time lows, which limits the downside risk both to home prices and construction activity (Chart 5). Chart 3U.S. Financial Conditions Have Eased Recently Chart 4The Savings Rate Has Room To Fall Some of the apparent slowdown in U.S. growth appears to be due to intensifying supply-side constraints rather than faltering demand (Chart 6). This is important because slower growth resulting from weaker demand should, in principle, cause the Fed to moderate the pace of rate hikes, whereas slower growth resulting from an overheated economy should prompt the Fed to accelerate the pace of rate hikes. The latter is much better for the dollar than the former. Chart 5Low Housing Inventories Will ##br##Support Home Prices And Construction Chart 6U.S. Economy Is Hitting Supply-Side ##br##Constraints The Fed's Fate Is In The Stars What is true in principle, however, does not always match what happens in practice. In his Jackson Hole address, Jay Powell invoked a Draghi-esque phrase when saying that the FOMC would "do whatever it takes" to keep inflation expectations from becoming unmoored.1 Nevertheless, he also said that "there does not seem to be an elevated risk of overheating" at the moment. This is a curious statement considering the abundant evidence that U.S. firms are struggling to find qualified workers. To his credit, Powell stressed the inherent difficulty of "navigating by the stars," that is, of setting monetary policy based on highly imprecise estimates of the natural rate of unemployment, u*, and the neutral real rate of interest, r*. What he did not say is that the Fed's current estimates of these "stars" stand at record lows, which introduces a dovish bias into monetary policy should these estimates prove to be too low. Our baseline view is that the Federal Reserve will raise rates more than the market is currently discounting. We also doubt the Fed will succumb to President Trump's pressure to keep rates low or to accommodate any effort by the Treasury to intervene in the foreign exchange market with the aim of driving down the value of the dollar. That said, the risk to this view is that the Fed reacts too slowly to rising inflation. This could cause real rates to drift lower, with adverse consequences for the dollar. The China Policy Wildcard The discussion above suggests that the dollar would suffer either if U.S. growth slows significantly or if the Fed falls too far behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. An additional risk to the dollar is that growth outside the U.S. picks up. This would suck capital away from the U.S. and into the rest of the world, with adverse consequences for the greenback. At present, the biggest question mark around the global growth outlook concerns China. The Chinese economy has struggled of late, with trade tensions adding to the misery (Chart 7). The stock market is down in the dumps. On-shore corporate yields for low-quality borrowers continue to rise. Industrial production, retail sales, and fixed asset investment all disappointed in July, following a further drop in the PMIs. The economic surprise index remains in negative territory. Only the housing market is showing renewed vigour, with both starts and sales rebounding (Chart 8). Chart 7China: Some Signs Of A Struggling Economy... Chart 8...With Housing Being The Main Exception The central bank has responded by easing liquidity. Interbank rates fell from a peak of 5.9% in late 2017 to 2.9% today. The authorities have also instructed local governments to expedite their spending plans, while ordering state-owned banks to expand lending to the export sector and for infrastructure-related projects. Fiscal/credit stimulus of the sort the authorities engaged in both 2009 and 2015 carries significant risks, however. Debt levels have reached stratospheric levels and concerns about excess capacity and malinvestment abound. We suspect these facts will cause policymakers to be more guarded than they would otherwise be. What's Next For The RMB? Letting the RMB weaken offers an alternative way to stimulate the economy - and one, crucially, that does not require piling on evermore debt. In contrast to more roads and bridges, a cheaper Chinese currency would not be welcome news for the rest of the world. A weaker RMB makes it more difficult for other economies to compete against China. A weaker currency also increases the costs to Chinese firms of importing raw materials, thus putting downward pressure on commodity prices. Despite efforts by emerging markets to diversify their economies, EM earnings remain highly correlated with industrial metals prices (Chart 9). Despite the presence of capital controls, the USD/CNY exchange rate has broadly tracked the one-year swap differential between the U.S. and China over the past few years (Chart 10). The differential has dropped from close to 300 basis points at the beginning of this year to less than 100 basis points today. Given that prospect of further Fed rate hikes, the only way the Chinese authorities will be able to keep the interest rate differential from falling even more is by tightening monetary policy themselves. This could slow credit growth and thus weaken the economy. The failure to raise rates, however, would probably cause the RMB to fall further. Both outcomes would be problematic for the rest of the world. Chart 9EM Earnings Are Correlated ##br##With Industrial Metal Prices Chart 10USD/CNY Tracks China-U.S. ##br##Interest Rate Differentials Our bet is that the authorities will ultimately choose to keep domestic monetary conditions fairly easy - leading to a weaker RMB - but will use administrative controls to prevent credit growth from accelerating too rapidly. That said, we would not rule out the possibility that the authorities succeed in stimulating the economy in a way that precludes further currency weakness. If this stimulus coincides with a thawing in trade tensions, it could lead to a burst in optimism about China specifically, and global growth in general. Such an outcome would hurt the dollar. The Euro Area: Keeping The Recovery On Track After putting in a strong performance in 2017, the economy in the euro area has struggled to maintain momentum this year. Growth is still above trend, but the overall tone of the data has been lackluster at best, with the risks to growth increasingly tilted to the downside. Weaker growth in China and other emerging markets certainly has not helped. However, much of the problem lies closer to home. The election of a populist government in Italy renewed concerns about debt sustainability in the euro area's third largest economy. The 10-year yield reached a four-year high of 3.2% this week. It is now 150 basis points above its April 2018 lows (Chart 11). The resulting tightening in Italian financial conditions will continue to weigh on growth in the months ahead. Bank credit remains the lifeblood of the euro area economy. Chart 12 shows that the 12-month credit impulse - defined as the change in credit growth from one 12-month period to the next - tends to move closely with GDP growth. Euro area credit began to moderate this year even before the Italian imbroglio and worries about the exposure of European banks to vulnerable emerging markets came on the scene. It will be difficult for euro area GDP growth to accelerate unless credit growth revives. In the absence of faster credit growth, the ECB will have little choice but to remain firmly in dovish mode. Chart 11Italian Populism Meets The Bond Market Chart 12Euro Area Credit Growth Has Flatlined The best-case scenario for the common currency is that EM stresses subside, and the Italian government reaches a friendly agreement with the European Commission over next year's budget. The thawing in Brexit negotiations would also help. We are skeptical that any of these three things will happen, but if one or a number of them did occur, this would benefit the euro at the expense of the dollar. Investment Conclusions We are not as bullish on the dollar as we were earlier this year. Sentiment towards the greenback has clearly improved (Chart 13). The narrative about a "synchronized global growth recovery" that was all the rage last year has also given way to a more sober appreciation of the problems facing emerging markets. In short, markets have moved a long way towards our view of the world. Still, we are not ready to abandon our strong dollar view. Chinese stimulus or not, the structural challenges facing emerging markets - high debt levels, poor productivity growth - will not go away. The same goes for Europe and its litany of political and economic travails. Even if the dollar did manage to weaken again, this would constitute an unwelcome easing in U.S. financial conditions at a time when the Fed wants to tighten financial conditions in order to keep the economy from overheating. From this perspective, a weaker dollar just means that the Fed would need to hike rates even more than it otherwise would. Since more rate hikes will buttress the dollar, the extent to which the dollar can weaken is self-limiting. In short, interest rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners should continue to favor the greenback. Assuming the dollar does strengthen from here, emerging markets will be the main casualties. While EM assets have cheapened considerably, Chart 14 shows that neither EM equities, credit, nor currencies are at levels that have marked past bottoms. Global investors should continue to favor developed market stocks over their EM peers. At the equity sector level, investors should overweight defensives over deep cyclicals. Regionally, this posture implies that U.S. stocks will outperform European stocks in dollar terms, although the performance is likely to be much more balanced in local-currency terms. Chart 13Investors Have Turned More Bullish On The Dollar Chart 14EM Assets Are Not Very Cheap As we recently discussed in a two-part Special Report,2 the longer-term path for Treasury yields is to the upside. Nevertheless, a broad-based appreciation in the value of the dollar, coupled with safe-haven flows into the Treasury market, could temporarily push the 10-year yield down to 2.5% over the next few months. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Jerome H. Powell, "Monetary Policy in a Changing Economy," Speech at "Changing Market Structure and Implications for Monetary Policy," a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, August 24, 2018. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Reports, "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 1)," dated August 10, 2018; "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2)," dated August 24, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights Since 2010, China's private sector has accounted for the majority of the country's increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio, most of which has been on the balance sheets of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and the household sector. While policymakers achieved their goal of maintaining aggregate demand in the decade following the global financial crisis, the financial condition of SOEs has been greatly sacrificed as a result. An analysis of SOE return on equity highlights a sharp decline in return on assets, which has occurred due to both declining profit margins and a falling asset turnover ratio. Even worse, a comparison of adjusted SOE ROA to borrowing costs suggests that the marginal operating gain from debt has become negative. This has profound implications for policymakers, as it suggests that further leveraging of SOEs could push them into a debt trap and/or shackle the monetary authority's ability to meaningfully raise interest rates. We can envision a modest releveraging scenario over the coming 12-18 months, but even that scenario is not consistent with a surge in investment-driven economic activity. Policymakers face a clear choice between growth and leveraging, and our bet is that they will choose just enough of the latter to prevent the former from decelerating significantly. This implies that the typical beneficiaries of Chinese reflation are not likely to outperform global risk assets, and that China's contribution to global growth is not set to rise sharply. However, over the coming 6-12 months, we acknowledge that domestic stocks are significantly oversold, and we are watching closely for an opportunity to time a reversal. Feature Global investors have paid considerable attention to China over the past month, focusing on the likely stimulative response of policymakers to an upcoming, tariff-induced export shock. We recently presented our view of the likely character and magnitude of upcoming Chinese stimulus in a two-part joint special report with our geopolitical team,1 and concluded that an acceleration in fiscal spending was far more likely than a sharp pickup in credit growth. In this report, we further examine the constraints facing Chinese policymakers and again conclude that they are likely to remain committed to preventing a significant releveraging of the economy. The financial condition of Chinese state-owned enterprises features prominently in our argument, and we highlight how the damage caused by China's post-2008 "business model" is a serious roadblock to further credit excesses. Whereas most modern central banks characterize their monetary policy decisions within the context of a trade-off between growth and inflation, Chinese policymakers now appear to understand that they face a trade-off between growth and leveraging. While we agree that economic stability will always remain the paramount objective of policymakers and a major policy mistake is not likely in the cards, reflationary efforts are likely to be carefully calibrated to avoid a dramatic overshoot of credit growth. This means that there is both limited downside and upside to Chinese economic activity, implying that expectations of a material, credit-driven reacceleration in growth are not likely to be met. A Brief Review Of Chinese Private Sector Debt Chart 1A Now Familiar Concern After several years of intense concern about China's elevated debt, Chart 1 should be familiar to most investors. It highlights the significant rise in Chinese credit to the non-financial sector (i.e. total credit to governments, households, and non-financial corporations) based on data from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), most of which has occurred in the private sector (non-financial firms and households). But Charts 2-4 presents a different breakdown of credit to the non-financial sector, based on IMF data, that includes a separation of corporate debt into private and state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The data shown in Charts 2-4 covers the 2010-2016 period; for reference, private non-financial sector debt continued to rise relative to GDP in 2017, in large part due to households (see Table A1 in Appendix 1 for the most recent IMF estimate of China's non-financial sector debt, absent the breakdown in corporate debt by ownership that the fund previously provided). Chart 2 presents the IMF's version of the rise in total non-financial debt (akin to Chart 1 from the BIS), and Charts 3 and 4 attribute the rise in debt to different sectors. Chart 3 shows that the increase in private sector debt accounts for 70% of the increase in leverage since 2010, and Chart 4 shows that the rise in SOE debt has accounted for nearly half of the rise in private sector debt. Within the private sector, household leverage has also risen substantially, accounting for roughly 40% of the rise from 2010-2016. Non-SOE corporates accounted for only 12% of the total rise in private leverage, the smallest of all sectors. Chart 2Another Perspective On Chinese Leveraging, With A Breakdown Of Corporate Debt By Ownership   Chart 3The Private Sector Has Accounted For ##br##Most Of Chinese Leveraging... Chart 4...Due Mostly To State-Owned ##br##Enterprises And Households     When considering the potential economic impact of a sharp rise in leverage, BCA's view is that the focus should usually be on the increase in private sector debt rather than government debt. Public sector deleveraging is fundamentally a political choice in countries that have control over their own monetary policy, and simply will not occur in China over the coming year given the headwinds facing the economy. Given this, Chart 4 suggests that to understand any constraints facing policymakers from excessive leverage, investors should primarily devote their attention towards China's SOEs. China's State-Owned Enterprises: The Sacrifice Of Profitability For Stability Chart 5Within SOEs, Industrial And Construction Firms ##br##Account For Half Of The Increase In Debt When assessing the risk of a potential private sector debt crisis in China, many investors have a sanguine view. The common refrain is that Chinese corporations, particularly state-owned enterprises, will be bailed out by the government if debt problems arise. Ultimately, we agree with this view, although we would note that the market pressure required to force the government to act could be quite severe. Still, there is a more pressing concern for investors: an analysis of the financial condition of China's state-owned enterprises suggests that the country may have reached the limit of how much SOEs can be further leveraged by policymakers in an attempt to rescue the economy, without significantly increasing the ultimate cost to the public. Our sense is that the campaign to control debt growth over the past two years reflects this economic reality, suggesting that the motivation behind the campaign will not be easily abandoned. Chart 2 showed that non-financial SOE debt-to-GDP rose by 20 percentage points from 2010-2016, a change in the stock of debt of roughly RMB33 trillion. Chart 5 shows that roughly half of this amount can be accounted for by the change in liabilities of state-owned industrial and construction enterprises over the same period. To the extent that they broadly reflect the condition of all non-financial SOEs, the availability of income statement and balance sheet data for these two industries allows us to make some inferences about the debt sustainability of China's state-owned firms.   Table 1 presents a breakdown of return on equity (ROE) for state-owned/state-holding companies in these industries, using the DuPont approach. Several points are noteworthy: Industrial & construction SOEs are highly leveraged entities, with an assets to equity ratio of 2.7. This explains the substantial difference between return on equity, which has been decently high, and a low single-digit return on assets (ROA). From 2010-2016, the ROE for industrial & construction SOEs fell from 14% to 8%, entirely because of a substantial decline in ROA. The decline in ROA occurred because of a roughly equal combination of declining profit margins and a falling asset turnover ratio. Based on the DuPont approach to expressing leverage,2 SOEs in the industrial and construction industries increased their leverage only very modestly during the period. But when leverage is expressed as liabilities relative to net income, a considerably more relevant measure when considering the potential to service debt, leverage nearly doubled. Table 1A Meaningful Decline In SOE Efficiency And Profitability We presented Chart 6 in our last weekly report of 2017,3 and used it to represent a stylized timeline of China's economic history over the past 15 years. The chart describes how China's extremely rapid growth phase from 2002-2008 was followed by the global financial crisis and a normal, counter-cyclical rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio from 2008 to 2010. Chart 6A Stylized Timeline Of China's Recent Economic History However, amidst the Great Recession, it became clear that China's export-enabled catchup growth phase was durably over, and policymakers were faced with a hard choice. They could either replace exports with debt-fueled domestic demand as a growth driver in order to buy time to transition to a services-led economy (the "reflate" path), or allow the labor market to suffer the consequences of a sharp slowdown in export growth while preserving fiscal and state-owned firepower for some uncertain future opportunity (the "stagnate" path). The picture that emerges from the combination of this narrative and our analysis of the evolution of SOE financial health is straightforward, but sobering. State-owned enterprises, already highly indebted at the onset of the global economic recovery, were levered even further in order to pursue the "reflate" path described above. While policymakers achieved their goal of maintaining aggregate demand, the consequence of their choice is that both the profitability and efficiency of SOEs have declined significantly. Avoiding An SOE Debt Trap A significant deterioration in SOE efficiency against the backdrop of a sharp rise in leverage speaks to the existence of capital misallocation, i.e. investment that has been funded by debt but cannot produce sufficient income to repay the debt. This suggests that SOEs are likely to have a bad debt problem at some point that will need to be resolved with government support. But in our view, the decline in profitability is a more immediate problem for policymakers, because it does not appear that SOEs can be leveraged any further without pushing them dangerously towards a self-reinforcing debt trap. Chart 7 illustrates why. The chart shows SOE ROA adjusted for interest expenses (a proxy for EBIT/Assets) versus a market-based proxy for SOE borrowing rates.4 Adjusted ROA fell below borrowing rates in 2013, suggesting that some of the observed decline in SOE profitability has occurred because the marginal operating gain from debt for Chinese state-owned enterprises has become negative. If so, this has profound implications for Chinese policymakers. Chart 8 illustrates how the process of perpetually leveraging an entity with a negative marginal operating gain from new borrowing eventually leads to a debt trap. An initial increase in debt causes interest costs to rise and profits to fall, as the return on new assets fails to exceed the interest rate on the debt used to acquire the assets. The process repeats itself as the entity is directed to leverage further, although management may choose to raise the entity's debt in this situation regardless of policy objectives (e.g. to cover a working capital deficit) if they mistakenly believe that the decline in ROA below debt costs is temporary. In addition, the existence of a negative marginal gain from new borrowing for a significant portion of the private sector would imply that China's natural rate of interest may have fallen. Chart 9 shows some evidence in support of this notion: the rise in the weighted average lending rate since late-2016 was relatively minor compared with levels that have prevailed over the past decade, and yet it is clear that it succeeded in materially slowing the investment-driven sectors of China's economy. This suggests that further leveraging of SOEs could tighten the shackles on the PBOC in terms of its ability to meaningfully raise interest rates, potentially fueling credit excesses in other sectors of the economy Chart 7SOEs Now Appear To Have A Negative ##br##Financial Gain From Debt Chart 8A Stylized Example Of ##br## Debt Trap Dynamics Chart 9Has SOE Leveraging Caused China's ##br##Natural Rate Of Interest To Fall?         In short, the financial condition of China's state-owned enterprises appears to represent a proximate constraint preventing policymakers from responding to economic weakness with a significant acceleration in credit growth. It is not just that SOEs are highly levered and there is "a lot of debt in the system"; material further leveraging of these entities risks deteriorating what is already very poor profitability, which may push SOEs into an outright debt trap. That would precipitate a crisis and necessitate a bailout from the government, the cost of which will increase directly in line with the amount of additional debt taken. We agree that economic stability will always remain the paramount objective of policymakers, and we fully expect a policy response to address the upcoming export shock from the U.S. But whereas most modern central banks characterize their monetary policy decisions within the context of a trade-off between growth and inflation, our analysis of China's state-owned enterprises suggests that Chinese policymakers now seem to understand that they face a trade-off between growth and leveraging. This implies that current reflationary efforts from policymakers are likely to be carefully calibrated to avoid a dramatic overshoot of credit growth. Envisioning Modest Releveraging Chart 10Modest Releveraging Is Ok, As Long As ##br##Its Pace Continues To Slow What is a carefully calibrated credit response likely to look like, and what does it mean for private sector debt growth? As noted above, my colleague Matt Gertken addressed this question by presenting three scenarios in part 1 of the recent joint special report with our geopolitical team.5 His base-case view, to which he assigned 70% odds, implied that there would be a very modest reacceleration in total social financing (on the order of 1% or so). In this report we take a second approach to estimating the potential magnitude of a modest reacceleration scenario using the BIS private sector credit data, primarily to incorporate different growth rates for the corporate and household sectors. Using the BIS data, Chart 10 shows the growth rate in Chinese total private sector debt, nominal GDP, and the difference between the two. The significant leveraging period from 2010-2016 is evidenced by the persistently positive gap between credit and GDP growth (it was only briefly negative in 2011).   But the chart also shows that there has been a downtrend in the gap since 2013, with 2017 representing a major overshoot (to the downside). Given that the trend shown in Chart 10 points downward and reflects policy efforts to control debt growth, we could envision Chinese policymakers tolerating some acceleration in credit growth relative to GDP, as long as it does not materially overshoot the trendline to the upside. Using this framework as a guide, we can calculate what modest releveraging might mean for corporate sector debt, assuming the following: Chinese policymakers, through a combination of fiscal spending and modest releveraging, succeed in stabilizing nominal GDP growth at current levels. Policymakers tolerate total non-financial private sector credit growth that is 4% in excess of nominal GDP growth. Household credit growth remains well in excess of GDP growth, in-line with its average of the past 5 years. Given the significant leveraging of the household sector and the recent uptick in home sales, this appears to be a reasonable assumption barring a major crackdown on the property market by Chinese officials. Chart 11 presents the result of these assumptions, which shows non-financial corporation credit growth accelerating to roughly 12% by the end of 2019. At first blush, the chart appears to show a meaningful acceleration, as the annual change in year-over-year credit growth based on this measure would meet or exceed that of the past two credit cycles. But there are two important caveats for investors: Even as depicted in Chart 11, non-financial corporate credit growth would still be extremely weak relative to its recent history. At the end of 2019, the chart shows that corporate credit growth would be almost two percentage points lower than its weakest point in 2015. Chart 11 illustrates a scenario where the level of credit to the total private non-financial sector grows by RMB36 trillion by the end of 2019. Chart 12 shows that when compared to our estimate of the stock of adjusted total social financing, this rise barely even registers as an acceleration. Chart 11A Rebound, But Weak Relative To History Chart 12Barely Even Registers As An Acceleration In Adjusted TSF In short, while the degree of acceleration in credit growth as implied in our scenario varies depending on the definition of credit employed, the bottom line for investors is that a modest releveraging scenario is not consistent with a surge in investment-driven economic activity. Policymakers face a clear choice between growth and leveraging, and our bet is that they will choose just enough of the latter to prevent the former from decelerating significantly. This cautious, contingent attitude towards an acceleration in private sector credit growth would be in marked contrast to previous episodes of reflation, suggesting that investors who are following China's "old stimulus rulebook" are likely to be disappointed. Implications For Investment Strategy Chart 13No Signs Yet Of A Heavy, Credit-Based Response There are two clear implications of our analysis for investment strategy. First, in ironic reference to Reinhart & Rogoff's book that coined the term, "this time" is likely to be different for China because policymakers seem resolute in their intention to prevent a financial crisis (as opposed to the term having been used in the past by those who have ended up contributing to one). Our analysis shows that the debt burden for state-owned enterprises is already extreme, and that further, material, forced leveraging of the sector risks a possible debt trap. This implies that the typical beneficiaries of Chinese reflation are not likely to outperform global risk assets, and that China's contribution to global growth is not set to rise sharply. For now, our BCA China Play Index and the relative performance of infrastructure stocks seem to support our conclusion (Chart 13). Second, if this time is not different, i.e. if policymakers allow a significant further releveraging of the private sector, either intentionally or by accident, investors should recognize that the longer-term outlook for China may darken considerably if the country is not capable of quickly shifting away from its old growth model over the next few years. Unfortunately for officials in China, the reality of economics is that positive NPV projects for SOEs to invest in cannot simply be willed into existence. The significant decline in profitability and asset turnover that we have observed in state-owned enterprises since 2010 speaks to the poor use of credit, and policymaker reliance on the traditional methods of stimulus is likely to achieve the country's short-term goals at the expense of making the already large debt problem (and the cost of the eventual bailout by the public sector) much worse. This would raise both the political and economic risks facing the country, at a time when a U.S. and/or global recession appears likely within the next 2-3 years. As a final point, despite our caution against over-optimism concerning China's stimulative response, we acknowledge that policymakers are likely to succeed in preventing a significant deceleration in their economy over the coming 6-12 months. Given how materially Chinese stock prices have declined, it remains a debate whether a mere stabilization of economic activity at a modest pace will be enough for domestic or investable equities to meaningfully rally in absolute or relative terms. For now, we have highlighted that the relative selloff in domestic stocks appears to be quite late, particularly in common currency terms, and we are watching closely for an opportunity to time a reversal.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com   Appendix 1 Appendix A-1Chinese Non-Financial Sector Debt 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Reports "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?", dated August 8, 2018, and "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? Part Two", dated August 15, 2018 available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 The DuPont approach breaks down return on equity into the product of profit margins (profits / revenue), asset turnover (revenue / assets), and financial leverage (assets / equity). 3 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Legacies Of 2017", dated December 21, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 We use the yield-to-maturity of the ChinaBond Corporate Bond Index as our proxy for the interest rate paid by state-owned firms, given that the index includes bonds issued by central and local government SOEs. Importantly, our proxy is closely aligned with the weighted average bank loan borrowing rate paid by SOEs from 2014-2016, as per a 2017 report from the China Academy of Fiscal Science ("Cost reduction: 2017 survey and analysis", August 28, 2017). 5 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Reports "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?", dated August 8, 2018, and "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? Part Two", dated August 15, 2018 available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Dear Client, There will be no U.S. Bond Strategy report next week. Our regular publishing schedule will resume on September 4th. Best regards, Ryan Swift Highlights Global Growth Divergences: The impact of weak foreign growth will eventually be felt in the U.S. and could even result in the Fed pausing its rate hike cycle for a time. But history tells us that the resulting decline in Treasury yields will not last long. Investors should hedge the risk of weak foreign growth by maintaining only a neutral allocation to spread product, but should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Corporates: As global growth divergences deepen and the dollar strengthens, corporate profit growth will eventually fade and corporate leverage and defaults will rise. Accelerating wages will exacerbate the problem, much like in the late 1990s. Municipal Bonds: Municipal bonds offer attractive yields relative to corporate bonds, especially considering that they are more insulated from weakening foreign growth. Remain overweight municipal bonds. Feature "It is just not credible that the United States can remain an oasis of prosperity unaffected by a world that is experiencing greatly increased stress." - Alan Greenspan, September 19981 Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan uttered the above sentence in early September 1998. Russia had just defaulted on its government debt and a few weeks later the heavily-exposed hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management would require a bail-out, kicking off a period of turmoil in U.S. financial markets. The Federal Reserve responded by cutting interest rates by 75 basis points between September 30th and November 4th, despite a domestic labor market that Chairman Greenspan described as "unusually tight." We recall this tumultuous period because a divergence between strong U.S. and weak non-U.S. growth is once again putting upward pressure on the U.S. dollar, leading to pain in emerging markets. So far it is the Turkish lira bearing the brunt of the sell-off, but the lesson from the late 1990s is that other EMs, and eventually the U.S., are also vulnerable. A joint Special Report, published last week, from our Foreign Exchange Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy services provides a blow-by-blow account of the late 1990s period, with implications for today's currency markets.2 In this week's report, we focus on what divergences between strong U.S. growth and weak non-U.S. growth mean for U.S. bond portfolios. A History Of False Starts The divergence between strong U.S. and weak non-U.S. growth is illustrated in Chart 1. The shaded regions in the chart correspond to periods when the Global (ex. U.S) leading economic indicator (LEI) is contracting while the U.S. LEI continues to rise. There have been 10 such episodes since 1966. In the four instances that occurred prior to 1993, the U.S. economy remained insulated from flagging growth in the rest of the world. That is, the U.S. LEI continued to expand and the Global (ex. U.S.) LEI eventually recovered into positive territory. However, since 1993, every time the Global (ex. U.S) LEI has dipped below zero the U.S. LEI has eventually followed. In other words, prior to 1993 the U.S. economy acted very much like an oasis of prosperity. But global events have become much more important since then. Chairman Greenspan's claim was correct in 1998 and remains relevant today. Case Study: 1997 Two of the post-1993 growth divergence episodes are particularly relevant for bond investors today. The first occurred in 1997 (Chart 2). The Fed tried to kick off a rate hike cycle in March 1997, but the combination of a Fed rate hike and weak foreign growth led to a surge in the dollar. Eventually, the strong dollar dragged our Fed Monitor below zero and the Fed was forced to abandon rate hikes until June 1999. In the interim, the Fed's dovish turn caused the dollar to halt its uptrend (Chart 2, panel 3). Treasury yields collapsed and then recovered (Chart 2, panel 4). Credit spreads moved in line with the exchange rate (Chart 2, bottom panel), widening alongside a stronger dollar in 1997/98, and then leveling off as the Fed eased policy and the dollar moved sideways. The end result of the 1997 episode is that Treasury yields took a round trip, falling as the Fed backed away from its rate hike path, then rising again once rate hikes resumed. Credit spreads, however, never fully recovered their 1997 tights. Case Study: 2015 More recently, growth divergences flared again in 2015 (Chart 3). This time, our Fed Monitor was already recommending rate cuts in late-2015, but the Fed pressed on and delivered the first rate hike of the cycle that December. Once again, the combination of a hawkish Fed and weak foreign growth put upward pressure on the dollar (Chart 3, panel 3), and the Fed was forced to pause its rate hike cycle. Chart 1The Weight Of The World Chart 2False Start 1997 Chart 3False Start 2015 Much like in 1997, Treasury yields declined as the Fed went on hold and then started to rise again as rate hikes resumed (Chart 3, panel 4). Also like 1997, credit spreads widened alongside the strengthening dollar, though this time they actually managed to tighten back to new lows when the Fed went on hold and the upward pressure on the dollar abated in 2016/17 (Chart 3, bottom panel). Implications For The Present Day Chart 4Inflation Is Much Closer To Target What lessons can we take away from these two episodes? The first is that if growth divergences continue to worsen and the dollar continues to appreciate, it will eventually cause our Fed Monitor to dip below zero and the Fed will likely pause its rate hike cycle. Such a dovish pause will lead to a decline in Treasury yields and a flattening-off, or even depreciation, of the dollar. However, we also know from history that any decline in Treasury yields is likely to prove fleeting. Once dovish Fed action takes the shine off the dollar, foreign economic growth will improve and the Fed will soon be able to resume rate hikes. This was the case in both 1997 and 2015. There is even reason to believe that any pause in Fed rate hikes could be particularly short-lived this time around. Inflation is already closing-in on the Fed's target and there is some evidence that long-dated inflation expectations have become stickier. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have not fallen much in recent weeks, even as weakening foreign growth has dragged down commodity prices (Chart 4). As for credit spreads, history shows that they are likely to widen as global growth divergences deepen and the dollar appreciates. Then, any pause in Fed rate hikes will improve credit's outlook for a time. Once again, because relatively strong inflation will limit the length of time that the Fed can pause lifting rates, we think any period of spread tightening that coincides with more dovish Fed policy will be short-lived. We also see similarities with the 1997 episode in terms of the outlook for corporate defaults. Such similarities bode ill for credit spreads, as is discussed in the next section. Bottom Line: The impact of weak foreign growth will eventually be felt in the U.S. and could even result in the Fed pausing its rate hike cycle for a time. However, history tells us that the resulting decline in Treasury yields will not last long. Investors should hedge the risk of weak foreign growth by maintaining only a neutral allocation to spread product, but should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Corporate Defaults: Look To The Late 1990s Considering the two case studies presented above, the reason corporate bonds performed worse in 1997 compared to 2015 is that in 1997 corporate leverage and defaults started to creep higher and did not peak until the 2001 recession. In contrast, corporate leverage flattened-off and defaults fell once the Fed paused its rate hike cycle in 2016 (Chart 5). Chart 5Corporate Defaults: The Late 1990s Roadmap Looking closer, the bottom panel of Chart 5 shows that once profit growth fell below the rate of debt growth in 1997 it continued to trend down. In 2015/16, profit growth was again dragged lower by the strong dollar, but it quickly rebounded once the Fed turned dovish. In our view, if global growth divergences continue to worsen and the dollar continues to strengthen, the next increase in corporate leverage will probably look more like 1997. To see why, we consider the two reasons why profit growth decelerated in 1997. The first is the obvious reason that the strong dollar started to weigh on corporate revenues. The growth in business sales moderated and the PMI dipped below 50 (Chart 6). Today, we have not yet seen enough dollar strength to weigh on business sales or the manufacturing PMI, which is still hovering around 60 (Chart 6, bottom panel). But this will change as the emerging market turmoil spreads and eventually impacts the U.S. business sector. The second reason why the 1997 corporate default episode is the most comparable to the present day is that much like in 1997, but unlike in 2015, the labor market is extremely tight and wages are starting to accelerate (Chart 7). The growth in unit labor costs started to outpace the growth in corporate selling prices in 1997, and this caused our Profit Margin Proxy to fall (Chart 7, panel 2). At present, our Profit Margin Proxy is very close to the zero line, but with a sub-4% unemployment rate further downside is likely. Finally, much like in 1997, small businesses are increasingly citing labor quality as a more important problem than lack of sales (Chart 7, bottom panel). The difference between the rankings of these two problems has done a good job tracking profit growth historically. This indicator is currently at levels that are much more reminiscent of the late 1990s. Chart 6Dollar Strength Drags Down Revenue Chart 7Wages Will Weigh On Profits Bottom Line: As global growth divergences deepen and the dollar strengthens, corporate profit growth will eventually fade and corporate leverage and defaults will rise. Accelerating wage growth will exacerbate the problem, much like in the late 1990s. Take Shelter In Municipal Bonds Chart 8Munis As A Safe Haven Another implication of the divergence in growth between the U.S. and the rest of the world is that fixed income sectors that are more exposed to the domestic U.S. economy and less exposed to foreign growth and the exchange rate should fare better. In this regard, municipal bonds are an obvious candidate. While state & local government net borrowing has flattened off at a relatively high level during the past few quarters, state governments have recently re-committed to austerity (Chart 8). Data from the National Association of State Budget Officers show that states enacted a net $9.9 billion increase in revenues in fiscal year 2018, with another $2.8 billion planned for fiscal year 2019. Historically, revenue raises of this magnitude have led to declines in net borrowing, which should ensure that municipal ratings upgrades continue to outpace downgrades for the time being (Chart 8, bottom panel). But there's an even better reason for investors to favor municipal bonds. Quite simply, yields remain attractive compared to the riskier corporate alternatives, particularly at longer maturities. The top section of Table 1 shows relevant statistics for the 5-year, 10-year and 20-year tax-exempt Bloomberg Barclays Municipal bond indexes, along with the closest comparable indexes from the investment grade corporate sector. We observe that a 5-year Aa-rated municipal bond carries a yield of 2.18% versus a yield of 3.26% for a comparable corporate bond index. This implies that an investor with an effective tax rate of 33% should be indifferent between the two bonds. Any investor exposed to an effective tax rate above 33% should favor the municipal bond, even before considering the differences in risk between the two sectors. Moving further out the curve, the breakeven tax rate falls to 24% at the 10-year maturity point and to either 13% or 21% at the 20-year maturity point, depending on whether you use Aa-rated or A-rated corporate debt as the relevant comparable. We also find that High-Yield municipal debt looks attractive compared to the corporate alternative. The Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield Muni Index (excluding Puerto Rico) trades at a breakeven tax rate of 18% relative to a Ba-rated corporate bond, and 33% relative to a B-rated corporate bond. Even the taxable municipal space is attractive. The bottom section of Table 1 shows that the average yield on the 1-5 year taxable municipal bond index is slightly higher than that of the closest comparable corporate bond index. The same goes for the 5-10 year taxable muni index. Table 1A Comparison Of Municipal And Corporate Bond Yields Finally, drawing on work we presented in a recent Special Report, we provide total return forecasts for different municipal bond indexes along with the comparable corporate sector indexes (Table 2).3 We show results for three different effective tax rates, depending on how many rate hikes you expect from the Fed during the next 12 months and whether you expect Municipal / Treasury yield ratios to remain flat, widen to their post-2016 highs, or tighten to their post-2016 lows. Table 2Municipal Bonds Total Return Forecasts Vs. Corporate Sector Comparables For example, in an environment where the Fed delivers four rate hikes during the next 12 months and Municipal / Treasury yield ratios remain flat, an investor with a 24% effective tax rate can expect a total return of 2.81% from the 10-year Municipal bond index. If we adjust returns using the top marginal tax rate of 37% the expected total return rises to 3.52%. In the same scenario, where corporate spreads also remain flat, investors can expect a total return of 2.86% from a corporate bond with similar duration and credit rating. Bottom Line: Municipal bonds offer attractive yields relative to corporate bonds, especially considering that they are more insulated from weakening foreign growth. Remain overweight municipal bonds. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/1998/19980904.htm 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy / Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Bear And The Two Travelers", dated August 17, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing", dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights President Trump has little to do with the ongoing EM selloff; The macro backdrop is the real culprit behind Turkey's woes, particularly the strong dollar... ... Which is a product of global policy divergence, with the U.S. stimulating while China pursues growth-constraining reforms; Chinese stimulus is important to watch, as it could change the game, but we do not expect China to save EM as it did in 2015; Turkey's troubles are a product of its late-stage populist cycle and will not end with Trump's magnanimity; The positive spin on the EM bloodbath is that it may force the Fed to slow its rate hikes, prolonging the business cycle. Feature Chart 1EM: Bloodbath Markets are selling off in Turkey and the wider EM economies (Chart 1), with the financial media focusing on the actions taken by the U.S. President Donald Trump in the escalating diplomatic spat between the two countries. Investors should be very clear what it means to ascribe the ongoing selloff to President Trump's aggressive posture with Ankara in particular and trade in general. If President Trump started EM's troubles with his tweets, he can then end them with another late-night missive. This is not our view. Turkey is enveloped in a deep morass of populism and weak fundamentals since at least 2013. What is worse, the ongoing selloff is likely going to ensnare at least the other fragile EM economies and potentially take down EM as an asset class. In this Report, we recount the pernicious macro backdrop - both geopolitical and economic - that EM economies face today. We then focus on Turkey itself and show that President Trump has little to do with the current selloff. The Bloodbath Is Afoot, Again Every financial bubble, and every financial bust, begins with a compelling story grounded in solid fundamentals. The now by-gone EM "Goldilocks Era" (2001-2011) was primarily driven by exogenous factors: a generational debt-fueled consumption binge in DM; an investment-fueled double-digit growth rate in China that kicked off a structural commodity bull market; and the unleashing of pent-up EM consumption/credit demand (Chart 2).1 These EM tailwinds petered out by 2011. Subsequently, China and EM economies entered a major downtrend that culminated in a massive commodity rout that began in 2014. But before the bloodbath could motivate policymakers to initiate painful structural reforms, Chinese policymakers stimulated in earnest. In the second half of 2015, Beijing became unnerved and injected enormous amount of credit and fiscal stimulus into the mainland economy (Chart 3). The intervention, however, did not change the pernicious fundamentals driving EM economies but merely caused "a mid-cycle recovery, or hiatus, in an unfinished downtrend," as our EM strategists have recently pointed out (Chart 4).2 Chart 2Goldilocks Era##BR##Is Over For EM Chart 3Is China About To Cause Another##BR##EM Mid-Cycle Recovery? Take Brazil, for example. Instead of using the 2014-2015 generational downturn to double-down on painful fiscal and pension reforms, the country's politicians declared President Dilma Rousseff to be the root-cause of all evil that befell the nation, impeached her in April 2016, and then proceeded to unceremoniously punt all painful reforms until after this year's election (if ever). They were enabled to do so by the "mid-cycle recovery" spurred by Chinese stimulus. In other words, Brazil's policymakers did nothing to actually deserve the recovery in asset prices but got one anyway. The country now will experience "faceoff time" with the markets, with no public support for painful reforms (Chart 5) and hardly an orthodox candidate in sight ahead of the October general election.3 Chart 4Where Are China/EM In The Cycle? Chart 5Brazil's Population Is Not Open To Fiscal Austerity Could Brazilian and Turkish policymakers be in luck, as Chinese policymakers have blinked again?4 Our assessment is that the coming stimulus will not be as stimulative as in 2015. First, President Xi's monetary and fiscal policy, since coming into office in 2012, has been biased towards tightening (Chart 6). Second, Chinese leverage has plateaued (Chart 7). In fact, "debt servicing" is now the third-fastest category of fiscal spending growth since Xi came to power (Table 1). Third, the July 31 Politburo statement pledged to make fiscal policy "more proactive" and "supportive," but also reaffirmed the commitment to continue the campaign against systemic risk. Chart 6Xi Jinping Caps##BR##Government Spending And Credit Chart 7The Rise And Plateau##BR##Of Macro Leverage Whether China's mid-year stimulus will be globally stimulative is now the question for global investors. The key data to watch out of China will be August credit numbers, to be released September 9th through 15th. Is President Trump not to be blamed at all for the EM selloff? What about the trade war against China? If anything, tariffs against China have caused Beijing to "blink" and implement some stimulative measures this summer. If one must find fault in U.S. policy, it is the double dose of fiscal stimulus that has endangered EM economies. A key theme for BCA's Geopolitical Strategy this year has been the idea that global policy divergence would replace the global growth convergence.5 Populist economic stimulus in the U.S. and structural reforms in China would imperil growth in the latter and accelerate it in the former, forming a bullish environment for the U.S. dollar (Chart 8). Table 1Total Government Spending Preferences (Under Leader's General Control) Chart 8U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD As such, the White House is partly responsible for the EM selloff, but not in any way that can be changed with a tweet or a handshake. Furthermore, we do not see the upcoming U.S. midterm election as somehow capable of altering the global growth dynamics.6 It is highly unlikely that Democrats will seek to spend less, and they cannot raise taxes under Trump. Bottom Line: EM economies have never adjusted to the end of their Goldilocks era. A surge in global liquidity pushed investors further down the risk-curve, propping up EM assets despite poor macro fundamentals. China's massive 2015-2016 stimulus arrested the bear market, giving investors a perception that EM economies had recovered. This mid-cycle hiatus, however, has now been overtaken by the global policy divergence between Washington and Beijing, which is bullish USD. President Trump's trade tariffs and aggressive pressure on Turkey do not help. However, they are merely the catalyst, not the cause, of the selloff. As such, investors should not "buy" EM on a resolution of China-U.S. trade tensions or of the Washington-Ankara diplomatic dispute. Contagion Risk BCA's Emerging Market Strategy is clear: in all episodes of a major EM selloff, the de-coupling between different regions proved to be unsustainable, and the markets that showed initial resilience eventually re-coupled to the downside (Chart 9).7 One reason to expect contagion risk among all EM markets is that the primary export market for China and other East Asian exporters are other EM economies, particularly the commodity producers (Chart 10). As such, it is highly unlikely that East Asian EM economies will be able to avoid a downturn. In fact, leading indicators of exports and manufacturing, such as Korea's manufacturing shipments-to-inventory ratio and Taiwan's semiconductor shipments-to-inventory ratio herald further deceleration in their respective export sectors (Chart 11). Chart 9Asian And Latin American Equities:##BR##Unsustainable Divergences Chart 10EM Trades##BR##With EM Chart 11Asia Export##BR##Slowdown Is Afoot In respect of foreign funding requirements of EM economies, our EM strategists have pointed out that there is a substantive amount of foreign currency debt coming due in 2018 (Table 2), with majority EM economies facing much higher foreign debt burdens than in 1996 (Table 3).8 Investors should not, however, rely merely on debt as percent of GDP ratios for their vulnerability assessment. For example, Malaysia's private sector FX debt load stands at 63.7% of GDP, the second highest level after Turkey. But relative to total exports (a source of revenue for its indebted corporates) and FX reserves (which the central bank can use to plug the gap in the balance of payments), Malaysia actually scores fairly well. Table 2EM: Short-Term (Due In 2018) FX Debt Table 3EM Private Sector FX Debt: 1996 Versus Today Chart 12 shows the most vulnerable EM economies in terms of foreign currency private sector debt exposure relative to FX reserves and total exports. Unsurprisingly, Turkey stands as the most vulnerable economy, along with Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Chile, and Colombia. Chart 12BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy Has Already Pinned Turkey As The Most Vulnerable EM Economy Will the EM selloff eventually ensnare DM economies as well, particularly the U.S.? We think yes. The drawdown in EM will bid up safe-haven assets like the U.S. dollar. The dollar can be thought of as America's second central bank, along with the Fed. If both the greenback and the Fed are tightening monetary conditions, eventually the U.S. economy will feel the burn. As such, it is dangerous to dismiss the ongoing crisis in Turkey as a merely localized problem that could, at its worst, spread to other EM economies. In 1997, Thailand played a similar role to that of Turkey. The Fed tightened rates in early 1997 and largely remained aloof of the developing East Asia crisis that eventually spread to Brazil and Russia, ignoring the tumult abroad until September 1998 when it finally cut rates three times. Fed policy easing at the end of 1998 ushered in the stock market overshoot and dot-com bubble, whose burst caused the end of the economic cycle. The same playbook may be occurring today. The Fed, motivated by the strong U.S. economy and fears of being too close to the zero-bound ahead of the next recession, is proceeding apace with its tightening cycle. It is likely to ignore troubles in the rest of the world until the USD overshoots or U.S. equities are impacted directly. At that point, perhaps later this year or early next year, the Fed will back off from tightening, ushering the one last overshoot phase ahead of the recession in 2020 - or beyond. Bottom Line: Research by BCA's EM strategists shows that EM contagion is almost never contained in just a few vulnerable economies. For investors who have to remain invested in EM economies, we would recommend that they go long Chinese equities relative to EM, given that Beijing policymakers are stimulating the economy to ensure that Chinese growth is stabilized. While this will be positive for China, it is likely to fall short of the 2015 stimulus that also stimulated non-China EM. An alternative play is to go long energy producers vs. the rest of EM - given our fundamentally bullish oil view combined with rising geopolitical risks regarding sanctions against Iran.9 We eventually expect EM risks to spur an appreciation in the USD that the Fed has to lean against by either pausing its tightening cycle, or eventually reversing it as it did in the 1997-1998 scenario. This decision will usher in the final blow-off stage in U.S. equities that investors will not want to miss. What About Turkey? Chart 13Turkey: Volatile Politics, Volatile Stocks In 2013, we called Turkey a "canary in the EM coal mine" arguing that its historically volatile financial markets would mean-revert as domestic politics became turbulent (Chart 13).10 Turkey is a deeply divided society equally split between the secularist cities, which are primarily located on the Mediterranean (Istanbul, Izmir, Bursa, Adana, etc.), and the religiously conservative Anatolian interior. This split dates back to the founding of the modern Turkish Republic in the post-World War I era (and in truth, even before that). The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), a religiously conservative but initially pro-free-market party, managed to appeal to the conservative Anatolia while neutering the most powerful secularist institution in Turkey, its military. Investors hailed AKP's dominance because it reduced political volatility and initially promised both pro-market policies and even accession to the EU. However, the AKP has struggled to win more than 50% of the popular vote in a slew of elections and referendums since coming to power (Chart 14), a fact that belies its supposed iron-grip hold on Turkish politics since it came to power in 2002. The vulnerability behind AKP's hold on office has largely motivated President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's attempt to consolidate political power. While we disagree with the consensus view that Erdogan's constitutional changes have turned Turkey into a dictatorship, some of his actions do suggest a deep fear of losing power.11 Populist leadership is characterized by a strategy of "giving people what they want" so that the policymakers in charge remain in office. Erdogan's perpetually slim hold on power has motivated several populist policy decisions that have stretched Turkey's macro fundamentals. First, Turkey's central bank has essentially been conducting quantitative easing since 2013 via net liquidity injections into the banking system (Chart 15). Notably, these injections began at the same time as the May 2013 Gezi Park protests, which saw a huge outpouring of anti-government sentiment across Turkey's large cities. Essentially, politics has been motivating Ankara's monetary policy over the past five years. Chart 14AKP's Stranglehold On Power Is Overstated Chart 15Turkey's Populist Policies Began##BR##With Gezi Park Protests Second, Turkey's current account balance has suffered under the weight of rising energy costs, with no attempt to improve the fiscal balance (Chart 16). The government has done little in terms of structural reforms or fiscal austerity, instead President Erdogan has continued to challenge central bank independence on interest rates, despite a clear sign that the country is experiencing a genuine inflationary breakout (Chart 17). Chart 16Populism Means No Austerity Is In Sight Chart 17Genuine Inflation Breakout Overall, Turkey is a classic example of how populism in a highly divided and polarized country can get out of control. Foreign investors have long assumed that Erdogan's populism was benign, if not even positive, given the presumably ample political capital at the president's disposal. However, with every election or referendum, the government did not double-down on pro-market structural reforms. Instead, the pressure on the central bank only increased while Turkey's expensive and extravagant geopolitical adventures in neighboring Syria accelerated. In this pernicious macro context, it has not taken much to knock Turkey's assets off balance. President Trump's threats to expand sanctions to Turkish trade are largely irrelevant, given that the vast majority of Turkey's exports and FDI sources are non-American (Chart 18). However, given past behavior - such as after the shadowy Gülen "plot" to take over power or the 2016 coup d'état - markets are by now conditioned to expect that Turkish policymakers will double-down on populist policies in the face of renewed pressure. Chart 18Turkey-U.S. Relationship Is Not Economic What of Turkey's membership in NATO? Should investors fear broader geopolitical instability due to the domestic crisis? No. Ankara has used its membership in NATO, and particularly the U.S. reliance on its Incirlik air base in southern Turkey, as levers in previous negotiations and diplomatic spats with Europe and the U.S. If Ankara were to renege on its commitments to the Western military alliance, it would likely face a united front from Europe and the U.S. As such, we would expect Turkey neither to threaten exit from NATO, which it has not done in the past, nor even to threaten U.S. operations in Incirlik, which Erdogan's government has threatened before. The most likely outcome of the ongoing diplomatic spat, in fact, would be to see Ankara give in to U.S. demands, given the accelerating financial and economic crisis. Such an outcome, however, will not arrest the downturn. Turkey's economy and assets are fundamentally under pressure due to the realization by investors that this year's main macro theme is not the resynchronized global growth recovery, but rather the global policy divergence between the U.S. and China, which has appreciated the U.S. dollar. No amount of kowtowing by Ankara will change this macro trend. Bottom Line: The list of Turkish policy sins is long. Erdogan's reign has been characterized by deep polarization and populism, leading to suboptimal policy choices since at least 2013. The latest U.S.-Turkey spat is therefore merely one of many problems plaguing the country. As such, its resolution will not be a buying opportunity for investors. Investment Implications Our main investment theme in 2018 was that the global policy divergence between the U.S. and China - emblematized by fiscal stimulus in the U.S. and structural reforms in China - would end the global growth resynchronization. As the U.S. economy outperformed the rest of the world, the U.S. greenback would appreciate, imperiling EM economies. The best cognitive roadmap for today is the late 1990s, when the U.S. economy continued to grow apace as the rest of the world suffered from an EM crisis. The problems eventually washed onto American shores in the form of a stronger dollar, forcing the Fed to back off from tightening in mid-1998. Policy easing then led to the overshoot phase in U.S. equities in 1999. Investors should prepare for a similar roadmap by being long DXY relative to EM currencies, long DM equities (particularly U.S.) relative to EM equities, and tactically cautious on all global risk assets. Strategically, however, it makes sense to remain overweight equities as a Fed capitulation would be a boon for risk assets. If the current selloff in EM gets worse, we would expect that the Fed would again back off from tightening as it did in 1998, ushering in a blow-off stage in equities ahead of the next recession. Once the dollar peaks and EM assets bottom, U.S. equities will become the laggard, with global cyclicals outperforming. A secondary conclusion is that President Trump's trade rhetoric in general, and aggressive policies towards Turkey in particular, are merely a catalyst for the selloff. As such, if President Trump changes his mind, we would fade any rally in EM assets. The fundamental policy decisions that have led to the greenback rally have already been taken in 2017 and early 2018. The profligate tax cuts and the two-year stimulative appropriations bill, combined with Chinese policymakers' focus on controlling financial leverage, are the seeds of the current EM imbroglio. Finally, a small bit of housekeeping. We are booking gains on our long Malaysian ringgit / short Turkish lira trade for a gain of 51.2% since May. We are also closing our speculative long Russian equities relative to EM trade for a loss of -0.9% as a result of the persistent headwind from U.S. sanctions. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Coming Bloodbath In Emerging Markets," dated August 12, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Understanding The EM/China Cycles," dated July 19, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Special Report, "Brazil: Faceoff Time," dated July 27, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?" dated August 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, and Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Trump Fail The Midterm?" dated April 18, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Sustained Decoupling, Or Domino Effect?" dated June 14, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "A Primer On EM External Debt," dated June 7, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," dated July 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Turkey: Canary In The EM Coal Mine?" in "The Coming Political Recapitalization Rally," dated June 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Turkey: Deceitful Stability," in "EM: The Beginning Of The End," dated April 19, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The 2018 dollar rally is principally the consequence of the slowdown in global industrial activity and global trade, itself a reverberation of China's efforts to de-lever and reform its economy. For China, reforms and deleveraging are here to stay, suggesting the dollar rally and EM rout are not over. However, in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's trade battling, China is stimulating its economy in order to limit its own downside. The chances of miscalculation on the part of Beijing are high. This raises the risk that investors begin pricing in a much more aggressive reflation campaign. Such a reflation campaign would cause a correction in the dollar and give more lift to the current rebound in EM assets. In order to track this risk and hedge it, investors should monitor and buy a portfolio made up of iron ore, Brazilian equities, AUD/JPY, Swedish industrial equities and EM high-yield bonds. Feature Many assign the strength in the dollar this year to the Federal Reserve increasing interest rates at a faster pace than other advanced economies. While monetary divergences seems like both a historically plausible and intuitive explanation, it rings hallow. The Fed was hiking rates at a much faster pace than the rest of the world last year, yet the dollar had a horrendous 2017, falling 10%. In our view, the trend in global growth has had a much more important role in explaining the dollar's performance. When global trade and global industrial production is strong, this normally leads to a period of weakness in the dollar. The opposite also holds true; soft global growth is associated with a strong dollar (Chart I-1). Behind this relationship lies the low-beta nature of the U.S. economy. Since its economy is not as levered to exports and manufacturing as the rest of the world is, the U.S. benefits less when global growth is improving (Chart I-2). As a result, when global growth is on the up and up, investors can upgrade the economic and inflation outlook for Europe faster than they can for the U.S. In the process, long-term rate expectations rise faster in Europe than the U.S., attracting money into Europe and out of the U.S. The process can be replicated across most economies outside the U.S. This hurts the dollar. Chart I-1The Dollar Likes ##br##Poor Global Growth Chart I-2The U.S. Economy Is Less##br## Sensitive To Global Growth To understand the outlook for the greenback, it is crucial to understand the outlook for global economic activity. Many commentators have pinned the blame of slowing global growth on the back of rising protectionism. The problem with this thesis is that global growth began slowing before investors took protectionist risks seriously. Instead, in our view, the key culprit behind the global growth slowdown has been policy tightening in China. Therein lies the issue. China has slowed, and President Xi Jinping is signaling that his administration will continue to push ahead with deleveraging the Chinese economy. This should imply weaker industrial growth in China and in the rest of the world and therefore a stronger dollar. However, with protectionism on the rise, the Chinese authorities are announcing virtually every day new measures to soften the blow to the Chinese economy. This stimulus could support global growth, and hurt the dollar, at least tactically. Our Geopolitical Strategy team believes the desire to reform and de-lever the Chinese economy will ultimately prevail, and thus so will a stronger dollar. However, the growing list of stimulus measures implemented in China supports our thesis, articulated last month, that a counter-trend correction in the dollar will first materialize before the greenback rally begins anew.1 As such, we continue to recommend investors hedge their long USD bets, and that traders with a short-term horizon take advantage of a portfolio we propose in this report. China Drives Growth And Returns Differentials We have long argued that China has a disproportionate role in determining what happens to growth outside the U.S. To some extent, this argument is almost tautological: at PPP exchange rates, China produces 24% of global GDP outside the U.S. But there is more than meets the eye to this argument. China is the world largest investor, with Chinese capital investment accounting for 26% of global capital formation, or 6.5% of the world's GDP. This means that the growth rate of Chinese investment has a large direct impact on global industrial good exports around the world. There is a second-round effect as well: China is also the largest consumer of industrial commodities globally. This implies that China is the marginal consumer and thus the price-setter of many natural resources. However, commodity producers account for a large share of global capex, 10.5% from 2004 to 2017. Thus, through its impact on commodity prices, China also impacts the demand for global industrial and capital goods via the capex needs of commodity exports. This large footprint can result in some counterintuitive relationships. For example, why is it that Chinese economic variables explain so well the gyrations of French exports to Germany, its largest export market (Chart I-3)? This conundrum is explained by the fact that German economic activity is deeply affected by Chinese growth. Since German growth is the key determinant of German imports, it follows that Chinese activity plays a large role in driving French exports. This pattern gets repeated across Europe, as Germany is the leading trading partner of most European nations. China does not have the same impact on the U.S. economy (Chart I-4) as total U.S. exports only represent 13% of GDP and exports to China, a measly 0.6% of GDP. Manufacturing also only represents 11% of U.S. GDP, again limiting the impact of secondary benefits of Chinese growth on the U.S. economy. Chart I-3What Drives French Exports To Germany: China Chart I-4Chinese Growth Has Little Impact On U.S. Growth Thanks to this difference, we can spot one very useful relationship that we have highlighted to our clients for more than a year: when the Chinese authorities stimulate their economy, European growth picks up sharply vis-a-vis the U.S. (Chart I-5).2 In this optic, the growth outperformance of Europe in 2017 made perfect sense; it was a consequence of China's aggressive push to reflate after 2015. 2018 is the mirror image of 2017; European growth is underperforming as a result of China's efforts to limit growth. This also means that wherever China goes going forward, so will the growth gap between the euro area and the U.S. Chart I-5AIf European Growth Beats That ##br##Of The U.S., Thank China (I) Chart I-5BIf European Growth Beats That ##br##Of The U.S., Thank China (II) Since Chinese growth affects the distribution of economic activity around the world, China affects the distribution of rates of returns around the world as well. Nowhere is the influence of China more evident than in the spread between U.S. and global bond yields. If we accept that Chinese growth exerts a limited influence on the domestically driven U.S. economy but exerts a large impact on the rest of the world, Chinese economic fluctuations should have an implication on the relative interest rate outlook between the U.S. and the rest of the world. This is indeed the case. As Chart I-6 shows, when the growth of China's nominal manufacturing GDP slows relative to the U.S., U.S. bond yields rise relative to yields in other major economies. Since money flows where it is best treated, the impact of China on relative rates of returns and interest rates around the world should be felt in the dollar. This is also the case. When Chinese nominal manufacturing GDP growth accelerates, the dollar tends to suffer as money leaves the U.S. and finds its way into Europe, Australia, Canada, EM and so forth to take advantage of rising marginal rates of returns relative to the U.S. (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Treasurys Vs. The World Equals U.S. Nominal GDP ##br##Vs. Chinese Manufacturing Chart I-7The DXY Moves In Opposition##br## To Chinese Manufacturing Bottom Line: The U.S. economy does not benefit as much from rising Chinese economic activity as the rest of the world does. This means that U.S. relative rates of return fall when China booms and rise when China busts. This also implies that China is just as important as the Fed in determining the trend in the dollar: A strong China is associated with a weak dollar, and vice-versa. Chinese Deleveraging Is Dollar Bullish, But... Despite its large debt load, China does not have a debt problem per se. With a savings rate of 46% of GDP and a limited stock of foreign currency debt, China does not exhibit the necessary conditions to end up like Argentina or Asian economies in the late 1990s. Instead, China's problem remains misallocated capital. China's debt load has increased by USD23.6 trillion since 2008. This is a lot of capital to invest in a short time span. Poor investments have been made, resulting in excess capacity in many industries, and most crucially a collapse in total factor productivity (Chart I-8). This decline in productivity represents a real threat to China's long-term viability, especially as China's labor force is set to begin declining and its leadership wants to avoid the middle-income trap that has plagued so many EM economies in the past. In order to avoid this trap, China's long-term growth is dependent on a sustained effort to de-lever and reform. Our Geopolitical Strategy team is adamant that Xi Jinping remains committed to this agenda. Long-term growth is his priority - a luxury now made possible by his "long-term" mandate.3 The impact of reforms is most evident through the evolution of credit growth. As Chart I-9 illustrates, total social financing has been slowing. The bottom panel of Chart I-9 also illustrates that the collapse in the Chinese credit impulse has followed the implosion of bond issuance by small financial institutions. This essentially tells us that the ongoing administrative and regulatory tightening of the shadow banking system is bearing fruit: Financial institutions are curtailing their issuance of exotic instruments, which is hurting overall credit growth - even if old-school bank loans are proving resilient. Chart I-8China: Labor Force And Total Factor ##br##Productivity The Need For Reforms Chart I-9Deleveraging In ##br##Action Since credit growth is so fundamental to generating investment and supporting the country's manufacturing sector, this implies that Chinese manufacturing activity has ample downside. As a result, we would anticipate that China will continue to be a drag on the rest of the world for many more quarters. This implies that the U.S. dollar has upside, and that EM plays as well as commodity currencies are especially vulnerable. While this view seems clear, and most investors now well understand the investment ramifications of Chinese reforms and deleveraging, sand has been thrown in the wheels of this narrative. As a result, the uptrend in the dollar and the downtrend in EM assets may take a pause. Bottom Line: China needs to de-lever further and reform its economy. Without this growth strategy, the country will be stuck in the dreaded middle-income trap, as its productivity has collapsed. Since deleveraging in China means less investment and slower manufacturing sector growth, this also means that the dollar should benefit, and EM-related assets should suffer, but... ... Stimulus Is A Potent Narrative The sand in the wheels of the dollar-bullish scenario created by Chinese reforms and their retardant effect on Chinese industrial growth is, paradoxically, President Trump's trade war with China. China decided to implement reforms last year because stronger growth out of the euro area and the U.S., its two largest export markets, should have buffeted its economy against some of the deflationary consequences of deleveraging. However, if President Trump tries to limit the growth of Chinese exports to the U.S., this create yet another shock that China does not need. This makes it much more difficult for China to deal with the deflationary consequences of its own reform efforts. As a result, not only have the Chinese authorities let the yuan depreciate by 8% since April, the fastest pace of decline since the 1994 devaluation, they have also begun announcing a slew of stimulus measures over the course of recent weeks: The People's Bank of China has engaged in RMB502 billion of liquidity injections, especially through its medium-term lending facility; Three reserve requirement ratio cuts have been implemented, freeing up RMB2.8 trillion of liquidity; Local governments have been allowed to increase net new bond issuance this year by up to RMB2.2 trillion; The issuance of special purpose bonds by local governments has been accelerated; Banks with high credit quality standards can reduce provisioning for NPLs; Individual income tax cuts have been announced; And modifications to the macro prudential assessment's structural component have been announced, which will free up new lending by commercial banks. These stimulus measures are not designed to cause growth to accelerate. In fact, as Jonathan LaBerge argues in our China Investment Strategy service, they pale in comparison to the total amount of stimulus implemented in 2015, especially as back then, RMB5 trillion in credit had also been injected into the economy.4 However, a problem remains for investors. Even if these measures are far from enough to cause Chinese growth to re-accelerate, they can easily foment the following narrative: Chinese policymakers are trying to calibrate their policy response in order to support growth. However, they are human beings, and do not know a priori how much stimulus will be needed to support growth without causing credit growth to actually surge. As a result, they will push stimulus into the system until the economy responds. But once the economy responds, it will be too late, and the lagged impact of stimulus will cause a sharp rebound in credit and capex. The opacity of Chinese policy and data raises the chance that this simplification will take over the investment community. Such reversion to simplicity in the face of ambiguity and intractable complexity is a well-documented phenomenon in sociology.5 Even if this narrative is mistaken and not based in actual reality, investors who view Chinese fundamentals as bullish to the dollar and bearish to EM and commodity plays need to be ready for this eventuality. We are reluctant to close our long dollar trade based on a narrative alone. Instead, we have purchased protection by selling USD/CAD as a hedge. However, we also offer investors a mean to observe if this narrative does take hold of the market, by tracking a portfolio of assets very sensitive to the outlook for Chinese growth, and thus very sensitive to Chinese reflation. These assets are: Chinese Iron ore prices, expressed in USD; Swedish industrial equities, expressed in USD; Brazilian equities, expressed in USD; AUD/JPY; And EM high-yield bond denominated in USD. Chart I-10 illustrates the performance of a portfolio composed of these assets, weighted in such a way that they contribute equally to the variance of the portfolio. As the chart illustrates, not only is this portfolio massively oversold, suggesting there is plenty of negatives already priced into China-linked assets, it has begun to rebound. Chart I-11 illustrates that the Chinese Li-Keqiang Index of industrial activity leads this index.6 The recent rebound in the LKI already supports the idea that this portfolio could have upside in the coming months. Moreover, if investors do extrapolate that additional stimulus measures are likely to come out of Beijing, this will support even greater upside to this portfolio. Chart I-10An Index To Monitor... Chart I-11...Or A Vehicle To Bet On Impactful Stimulus As a result, we would go one step beyond suggesting this portfolio as a tracker for Chinese reflation. Investors should buy it. If you are bearish on the Chinese growth outlook, buying this portfolio offers protection against countertrend moves that would hurt long-dollar and short-EM bets (our preferred strategy). If, however, you are bullish on Chinese reflation, this portfolio should prove a very rewarding vehicle to implement such views. Bottom Line: Chinese reforms are a tailwind for the dollar. However, they are now confronted with the reality of trade wars, which is causing the Chinese authorities to stimulate their economy to put a floor under growth. Nevertheless, this exercise is fraught with calibration errors - a risk that market participants can easily uncover. This raises the probability that a countertrend correction in the dollar will emerge. To monitor this risk, we recommend investors track a portfolio of assets heavily influenced by Chinese growth: Iron ore, Swedish industrial equities, Brazilian stocks, AUD/JPY, and EM high-yield bonds. Moreover, if one is already long the dollar, this portfolio can also be used as a hedge against the risk created by investors pricing in large-scale Chinese stimulus. If one disagrees with our view that reforms will ultimately take primacy on stimulus, one can also use this portfolio as a high-octane way to play Chinese reflation. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Reports, titled "Time To Pause And Breathe", dated July 6, 2018 and "That Sinking Feeling" dated July 13, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "ECB: All About China?" dated April 7, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, titled "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress" dated July 19, 2017, and "China: Party Congress Ends...So What?" dated November 1, 2017, both available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China Is Easing Up On The Brake, Not Pressing The Accelerator" dated July 26, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5 Smelser, Neil J. "The Rational and the Ambivalent in the Social Sciences: 1997 Presidential Address." American Sociological Review, vol. 63, no. 1, Feb. 1998, pp. 1-16. 6 The Li-Keqiang index is based on railways freight traffic, bank credit, and electricity output. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. has been mixed: Gross Domestic Product growth underperformed expectations slightly, coming in at 4.1%, reflecting a large decline in inventories. In fact, real final sales were strong, growing at a 5.1%. The ISM manufacturing survey also came in slightly below expectations, softening to 58.1 from 60.2 in July. It is still indicative of above-trend growth. However, the Chicago PMI surprised positively, coming in at 65.5. This measure also increased form last month's reading. While the DXY was able to rally this week thanks to growing tensions between the U.S. and China, we expect the dollar to have short-term downside, as the temporary stimulus by the Chinese authorities should give an ephemeral boost to global growth, a development that would hurt the dollar. That being said, impact should ultimately prove to be transient, and the dollar. Report Links: Rhetoric Is Not Always Policy - July 27, 2018 Time To Pause And Breathe - July 6, 2018 What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area has been mixed: The yearly growth of GDP underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.1%. This also represented a decrease relative to the previous quarter. However, both core and headline inflation surprised to the upside, coming in at 2.1% and 1.1% respectively. Moreover, the European Commission's economic sentiment indicator also outperformed to the upside, coming in at 112.1. However, this measure decreased from last month's reading. EUR/USD was relatively flat for most of the week until a wave of risk aversion prompted by worries of a Sino-U.S. trade war took hold of the market, lifting the dollar in the process. In a mirror image to our dollar view, we expect the euro to have upside in the next couple of months, but resume its downward trajectory by the end of the year. Report Links: Time To Pause And Breathe - July 6, 2018 What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Retail sales yearly growth beat expectations, coming in at 1.5%. Moreover, the jobs-to-applicants ratio also surprised to the upside, coming in at 1.62. However, the unemployment rate surprised negatively, coming in at 2.4% and increasing from last month's number. However, this reflected an increase in the participation rate. Finally, the consumer confidence index also underperformed expectations, coming in at 43.5. USD/JPY has risen by roughly 0.5% this week after it became clear that the BoJ only marginally adjusted its policy, in a way that only confirmed its highly dovish bias. Interestingly, while the spike in JGB yields has reverberated across global bond markets, it has not been able to provide a boost for the yen. While we expect the trade-weighted yen to appreciate by the end of this year as Chinese policymakers still want China to de-lever, a period of interim weakness is possible as the PBoC tries to buffet the Chinese economy against the impact of U.S. protectionism. Report Links: Rhetoric Is Not Always Policy - July 27, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: The Nationwide house price index yearly growth rate outperformed expectations, coming in at 2.5%. This measure also increased relatively to last month's number. Moreover, PMI construction also surprised to the upside, coming in at 55.8, and increasing from last month's reading. However, Markit manufacturing PMI underperformed expectations, coming in at 54. GBP/USD was relatively flat this week, but ultimately experienced a large fall following the hike by the BoE as investors began to worry that the "old lady" is making a policy error that will need to be reversed. Overall, we remain negative on cable, as the ability for the BoE to continue on their hiking campaign will be limited given the current political turmoil in Britain. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia has been mixed: Building permit yearly growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 1.6%. Moreover, producer prices also surprised positively, coming in at 1.5%. However this measure decreased compared to last month's reading. Finally, the RBA Commodity Index SDR yearly growth surprised to the downside, coming in at 7.6%. AUD/USD fell this week as market wrestle with the risk to global growth created by the China-U.S. trade war. Overall, we continue to be negative on the Aussie on a cyclical basis, as this currency is the most exposed in the G10 to a slowdown in the Chinese industrial sectors. That said, a bout of stimulus in China could provide some short-term upside to AUD. Report Links: What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been mixed: Employment growth surprised to the upside, coming in at 0.5%. However, this measure slowed from last month's reading. Moreover, the participation rate outperformed expectations, coming in at 10.9% and increasing from last month's number. However, the unemployment rate underperformed expectations, coming in at 4.5% and increasing from last month's reading. NZD/USD experienced a large fall this week. We are negative on the NZD on a cyclical basis, as tightening by both China and the U.S. along with trade tensions will provide for a toxic cocktail for small open economies like New Zealand. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada has been mixed: Industrial production month-mon-month growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 0.5%. Moreover, Monthly GDP growth also surprised positively, coming in at an annualized rate of 0.5%. However, the Markit Manufacturing PMI underperformed expectations, coming in at 56.9. This measure also declined relative to last month's number. The CAD is the only currency that managed to appreciate against the USD this week, despite a rather pitiful performance for crude oil. This dynamics comforts in our tactical bullish stance on the loonie. In fact, this pair is our preferred vehicle to play the countertrend correction in the U.S. dollar. Meanwhile, on a cyclical basis we are positive on the Canadian dollar within the commodity complex. Not only do supply constraint within OPEC will help oil outperform base metals, but also, the BoC is the only central bank within this group that is currently lifting interest rates. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: The KOF leading indicator underperformed expectations, coming in at 101.1, and declining relatively to last month's reading. However, retail sales yearly growth surprised to the upside, coming in at 0.3%. Finally, the SVME Purchasing Manager's Index also surprised positively, coming in at 61.9, and increasing from last month's number. EUR/CHF has been relatively flat this week. On a long term basis, we are bullish on this cross, as inflationary pressures are still very weak in Switzerland. Therefore, the SNB will maintain its ultra-dovish stance, hurting the franc in the process. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK rallied vigorously this week. While the generalized dollar strength has been key culprit behind the depreciation of the NOK, the fall in oil prices only added fuel to the fire. Overall, we expect this cross to go up by the end of the year, as the interaction of Chinese and U.S. policy will likely push up the USD and weigh on commodities. That being said, the NOK will probably outperform within the commodity space, given that it is cheap and that supply cuts by OPEC should help oil prices on a relative basis. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden has been mixed: Retail sales yearly growth surprised to the downside, coming in at 0.2%, and declining substantially, from 3.1% last month. However, the annual growth rate of GDP outperformed expectations, coming in at very strong 3.3%. This measure stayed flat relative to the first quarter. Finally, Manufacturing PMI came in at 57.4, increasing from last month's number. USD/SEK still rallied this week as the SEK is particularly sensitive to the outlook for global growth. We are positive on the Swedish Krona on a long-term basis, as Sweden is the country in the G10 where monetary policy is most misaligned with economic fundamentals. Thus, if the Sweden continues to show strength, the Riksbank will eventually have to respond. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Paradox 1: U.S. growth will slow, and this will force the Fed to raise rates MORE quickly. Paradox 2: China will try to stimulate its economy, and this will HURT commodities and other risk assets. Paradox 3: Global rebalancing will require the euro area and Japan to have LARGER current account surpluses. Feature Faulty Assumptions Investors assume that slower U.S. growth will cause the Fed to turn more dovish; efforts by China to stimulate its economy will boost market sentiment towards risk assets; and global rebalancing requires the euro area and Japan to reduce their bloated current account surpluses. In this week's report, we consider the possibility that all three assumptions are wrong. Let's start with the U.S. growth picture. U.S. Growth About To Slow? The U.S. economy grew by 4.1% in the second quarter, the fastest pace since 2014. The composition of growth was reasonably solid. Net exports boosted real GDP by 1.1 percentage points, but this was largely offset by a 1.0 point drag from a slower pace of inventory accumulation. As a result, domestic final demand increased at a robust rate of 3.9%, led by personal consumption (up 4.0%) and business fixed investment (up 7.3%). Unfortunately, the second quarter is probably as good as it gets for growth. We say this not because we expect aggregate demand growth to falter to any great degree. Quite the contrary. Consumer confidence is high and the labor market is strong, with initial unemployment claims near 49-year lows. The Bureau of Economic Analysis' latest revisions revealed a much higher personal savings rate than had been previously estimated (Chart 1). The savings rate is now well above levels that one would expect based on the ratio of household net worth-to-disposable income (Chart 2). This raises the odds that consumer spending will accelerate. Chart 1Households Are Saving More ##br##Than Previously Thought Chart 2Consumption Could Accelerate ##br##As The Savings Rate Drops Rising consumer demand will prompt businesses to expand capacity (Chart 3). Core capital goods orders surprised on the upside in June, with positive revisions made to past months. Capex intention surveys remain at elevated levels. So far, fears of a trade war have not had a major impact on business investment. Fiscal spending is also set to rise. Federal government expenditures increased by only 3.5% in Q2, far short of the 10%-plus growth rate that some forecasters were projecting. The effect of the tax cuts have also yet to make their way fully through the economy. Supply Matters Considering all these positive drivers of demand, why do we worry that growth could slow meaningfully later this year or in early 2019? The answer is that for the first time in over a decade, demand is no longer the binding constraint to growth - supply is. Today, there are fewer unemployed workers than job vacancies (Chart 4). The number of people outside the labor force who want a job is near all-time lows. Businesses are reporting increasing difficulty in finding qualified labor. Chart 3U.S. Companies Plan To Boost Capex Chart 4Companies Are Struggling To Fill Job Openings New business investment will add to the economy's productive capacity over time, but in the near term, the boost to aggregate demand from new investment spending will easily exceed the contribution to aggregate supply.1 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that potential real GDP growth is running at around 2%. What happens when the output gap is fully eliminated, and aggregate demand growth begins to eclipse supply growth? The answer is that inflation will rise. Instead of more output, we will see higher prices (Chart 5). Chart 5Inflationary Pressures Tend To Increase ##br##When Spare Capacity Is Absorbed Rising inflation will force the Fed to engineer an increase in real interest rates, even in the face of slower GDP growth. Such a stagflationary outcome is not good for equities, which is one reason why we downgraded our cyclical recommendation on risk assets from overweight to neutral in June. Higher-than-expected real interest rates will put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. A stronger dollar will hurt U.S. companies with significant foreign exposure more than it hurts their domestically-oriented peers. If history is any guide, a resurgent greenback will also cause credit spreads to widen (Chart 6). Chinese Stimulus: Be Careful What You Wish For Chinese stimulus helped reignite global growth after the Global Financial Crisis and again during the 2015-2016 manufacturing downturn. With global growth slowing anew, will China once again come to the rescue? Not quite. China does not want to let its economy falter, but high debt levels, and an overvalued property market plagued by excess capacity, limit what the authorities can do (Chart 7). Chart 6A Stronger Dollar Usually Corresponds ##br##To Wider Corporate Borrowing Spreads Chart 7China: High Debt Levels Make ##br##Credit-Fueled Stimulus A Risky Proposition Granted, the government has loosened monetary policy at the margin and plans to increase fiscal spending. However, our China strategists feel these actions are more consistent with easing off the brake than pressing down on the accelerator.2 They note that the authorities continue to squeeze the shadow banking system, as evidenced by the continued deceleration in money and credit growth, as well as rising onshore spreads for the riskiest corporate bonds (Chart 8). The Specter Of Currency Wars If Chinese growth continues to decelerate, what options do the authorities have? One possibility is to double down on what they are already doing: letting the RMB slide. Chart 9 shows that the Chinese currency has weakened substantially more over the past six weeks than its prior relationship with the dollar would have suggested. Chart 8Chinese Credit Growth Has Been Slowing Chart 9The Yuan Has Weakened More Than Expected ##br##Based On the Broad Dollar Trend Letting the currency weaken is a risky strategy. Global financial markets went into a tizzy the last time China devalued the yuan in August 2015. The devaluation triggered significant capital outflows, arguably only compounding China's problems. This has led some commentators to conclude that the authorities would not make the same mistake again. But what if the real mistake was not that China devalued its currency, but that it did not devalue it by enough? Standard economic theory says that a country should always devalue its currency by enough to flush out expectations of a further decline. Perhaps China was simply too timid? Capital controls are tighter in China today than they were in 2015. This gives the authorities more room for maneuver. China is also waging a trade war with the United States. The U.S. exported only $188 billion of goods and services to China in 2017, a small fraction of the $524 billion in goods and services that China exported to the United States. China simply cannot win a tit-for-tat trade war with the United States. In contrast, China is better positioned to wage a currency war with the United States. The Chinese simply need to step up their purchases of U.S. Treasurys, which would drive up the value of the dollar. Efforts by China to devalue its currency would invite retaliation from the United States. However, since the Trump Administration seems keen on pursuing a protectionist trade agenda no matter what happens, the Chinese may see their decision to weaken the yuan as the least bad of all possible outcomes. Unlike traditional stimulus in the form of additional infrastructure spending and faster credit growth, a currency devaluation would roil financial markets, causing risk asset prices to plunge. Metal prices would take it on the chin, since a weaker RMB would make it more expensive for Chinese businesses to import commodities. China now consumes close to half of the world's supply of copper, zinc, nickel, aluminum, and iron ore (Chart 10). Investors should remain underweight emerging market equities relative to developed markets and shun the currencies of commodity-exporting economies. We are currently short AUD/CAD on the grounds that a China shock would hurt metal prices more than energy prices. The Canadian dollar is highly levered to the latter, while the Aussie dollar is more levered to the former. Global Rebalancing: It's Not About Getting To Zero We have argued before that China's high savings rate explains why the country has maintained a structural current account surplus, despite the economy's rapid GDP growth rate.3 Both the euro area and Japan also have an excessive savings problem, minus the mitigating effect of rapid trend growth. The euro area's excessive savings problem was masked during the nine years following the introduction of the euro by a massive credit boom across much of the region (Chart 11). Germany did not partake in that boom, but it was still able to export its excess savings to the rest of the euro area via a rising current account balance. Chart 10China Is A More Dominant Consumer ##br##Of Metals Than Oil Chart 11Germany Did Not Take Part ##br##In The Credit Boom Germany Needs A Spender Of Last Resort Chart 12 shows that Germany's current account surplus with other euro area members mirrored the country's increasing competitiveness vis-à-vis the rest of the region. In essence, the spending boom in southern Europe sucked in German exports, with German savings financing the periphery's swelling current account deficits. This is the main reason why German banks were hit so hard during the Global Financial Crisis: They were the ones who underwrote the periphery's spendthrift ways. That party ended in 2008. With the periphery no longer the spender of last resort in Europe, Germany had to find a way to export its savings to the rest of the world. But that required a cheaper currency, which Mario Draghi ultimately delivered in 2014 when he set in motion the ECB's own quantitative easing program. So where do we go from here? Germany's excess savings problem is not about to go away anytime soon. The working-age population is set to decline over the next few decades, which means that most domestically oriented businesses will have little incentive to expand capacity (Chart 13). The peripheral countries remain in belt-tightening mode. This will limit demand for German imports. Meanwhile, countries such as Spain have made significant progress in reducing unit labor costs in an effort to improve competitiveness and shift their current account balances back into surplus. Chart 12Competitiveness Gains In The 2000s Allowed ##br##Germany To Increase Its Current Account Surplus Chart 13Germans Need To Have More Children The ECB And The BOJ Can't Afford To Raise Rates The private sector financial balance in the euro area - effectively, the difference between what the private sector earns and spends - now stands near a record high (Chart 14). Fiscal policy also remains fairly tight. The IMF estimates that the euro area's cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance will be in a surplus of 0.9% of GDP in 2018-19, compared to a deficit of 3.8% of GDP in the United States (Chart 15). Chart 14Euro Area: Private Sector ##br##Balance Remains Elevated Chart 15The Euro Area's Fiscal Policy Is Tight If the public sector is unwilling to absorb the private sector's excess savings by running large fiscal deficits, those savings need to be exported abroad in the form of a current account surplus. Failure to do so will result in higher unemployment, and ultimately, further political upheaval. This means that the ECB has no choice other than to keep rates near rock-bottom levels in order to ensure that the euro remains cheap. Japan has been more willing than Europe to maintain large budget deficits, but the problem is that this has resulted in a huge debt-to-GDP ratio. The Japanese would like to tighten fiscal policy, starting with the consumption tax hike scheduled for October 2019. However, this may require the economy to have an even larger current account surplus, which can only be achieved if the yen weakens further. This, in turn, suggests that the Bank of Japan will not abandon its yield curve control policy anytime soon. We were not in the least bit surprised this week when Governor Kuroda poured cold water on the idea that the BoJ was contemplating raising either its short or long-term interest rate targets. The bottom line is that thinking about global imbalances solely in terms of current account positions is not enough. One should also think about the distribution of aggregate demand across the world. Countries with demand to spare such as the United States can afford to run current account deficits, while economies with insufficient demand such as the euro area and Japan should run current account surpluses. The key market implication is that interest rates will remain structurally higher in the United States, which will keep the dollar well bid. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 This is partly because it can take a while for additional capital spending to raise aggregate supply. For example, it may take a few years to build an office tower or a new factory. Corporate R&D investment may not generate tangible benefits for a long time, especially in cases where the research is focused on something complicated (i.e., the design of new computer chips or pharmaceuticals). And even if investment spending could be transformed into additional productive capacity instantaneously, aggregate demand would still rise more than aggregate supply, at least temporarily. Here is the reason: The nonresidential private-sector capital stock is about 120% of GDP in the United States. As such, a one percent increase in investment spending would raise the capital stock by four-fifths of a percentage point. Assuming a capital share of income of 40% of national income, a one percent increase in the capital stock would lift output by 0.4%. Thus, a one-dollar increase in business investment would boost aggregate demand by one dollar in the year it is undertaken, while increasing supply by only 4/5*0.4 = roughly 32 cents. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China Is Easing Up On The Brake, Not Pressing The Accelerator," dated July 26, 2018. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame?" dated April 6, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades