Emerging Markets

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

Feature Shrugging Off The Political Noise All the political noise of August (White House resignations, Charlottesville, North Korean missile launches, the looming U.S. debt ceiling) could do no more than trigger a minor market wobble: at the worst point, global equities were off only 2% from their all-time high. The reason is that global cyclical growth remains strong, earnings are accelerating, and central banks have no immediate need to turn hawkish. In such an environment, risk assets should continue to outperform over the next 12 months. The political risks will not disappear (and will no doubt produce further hair-raising moments), but they are unlikely to have a decisive impact on markets. BCA's geopolitical strategists think eventually there will be a diplomatic solution to the North Korean situation - albeit only after a significant further rise in tension forces the two sides to the negotiating table.1 It is hard to imagine the debt ceiling not being raised, since Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House, and they would be blamed for any disruption caused by a failure to raise it. Recent personnel changes in the White House have left - for now - a more pragmatic "Goldman Sachs clique" in charge. We believe there is still a reasonable likelihood of tax cuts, not least since the Republicans are on track to lose a lot of seats in next year's mid-term elections unless they can boost the administration's popularity (Chart 1). Recent growth data has been decent. U.S. Q2 GDP growth was revised up to 3% QoQ annualized, and the regional Fed NowCasts point to 1.9-3.4% growth in Q3. If anything, growth momentum in the euro area (2.4% in Q2) and Japan (4%) is even better. Corporate earnings growth continues to accelerate too, with S&P 500 EPS growth in the second quarter coming in at 10% YoY, compared to a forecast of just 6% before the results season started. BCA's models suggest that, in all regions, earnings growth is likely to continue to accelerate for a couple more quarters (Chart 2). Chart 1Republicans Need A Popularity Boost Chart 2Earnings Continue To Accelerate The outlook for the dollar remains the key to asset allocation. The market currently assumes that the dollar will weaken further, as U.S. inflation stays low and the Fed, therefore, stays on hold. Futures markets currently price only a 38% probability of a Fed hike in December, and only 25 BP of hikes over the next 12 months. If markets are right, this scenario would be positive for emerging market equities and commodity currencies, and would mean that long-term rates would be likely to stay low, around current levels. But we think that assumption is wrong. Diffusion indexes for core inflation have begun to pick up (Chart 3). The tight labor market should start to push up wages, dollar deprecation is already coming through in the form of rising import prices, and some transitory factors (pre-election drugs price rises, for example) will fall out of the data soon. The Fed is clearly nervous that it has fallen behind the curve, especially since financial conditions have recently eased significantly (Chart 4). A moderate stabilization of inflation by December would be enough to push the Fed to hike again - and to reiterate its plan to raise rates three times next year. Chart 3Inflation To Pick Up? Chart 4Financial Condition: Easy In The U.S., Tight In Europe Meanwhile, long-term interest rates in developed economies look too low given growth prospects (Chart 5). As inflation picks up, the Fed talks more hawkishly, and the dollar begins to appreciate again, rates are likely to move up in the U.S. and in the euro zone. Our view, then, is that the Fed will tighten faster than the market expects, long-term rates will rise and the dollar will appreciate. Equities might wobble initially as they price in the tighter monetary policy but, as long as growth continues to be strong, should outperform bonds on a 12-month basis. Our scenario would be positive for euro zone and Japanese equities, but somewhat negative for EM equities. Equities: We prefer DM equities over EM. Emerging equities have been boosted over the past 12 months by the weaker dollar and Chinese reflation. With the dollar likely to appreciate (for the reasons argued above), and a slowdown in Chinese money supply growth pointing to slower growth in that economy (Chart 6), we think EM equities will struggle over coming quarters. Meanwhile, there is little sign that domestic growth momentum is improving in emerging economies (Chart 7). Within DM, our underlying preference is for euro zone and Japanese equities. Our quants model now points to an underweight for the U.S. We haven't implemented this yet because 1) of our view that the USD will strengthen, and 2) we prefer not to make too frequent changes to recommendations. We will review this in our next Quarterly. Chart 5Rates Lag Behind Global Growth Chart 6Slowing Chinese Money Growth Is A Risk For EM Chart 7EM Domestic Growth Anemic Text below Fixed Income: BCA's model of fair value for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield (the model incorporates the Global Manufacturing PMI and USD bullish sentiment) points to 2.6%, almost 50 BP above the current level (Chart 8). We therefore expect G7 government bonds to produce a negative return over the next 12 months, as inflation expectations rise and monetary policy continues to "normalize". We still find some attraction in spread product, especially in the U.S. (Chart 9). While spreads are quite low compared to history, U.S. high-yield spreads remain 119 BP above historic lows, while euro area ones are only 65 BP above. Chart 8U.S. Rate Fair Value Is Around 2.6% Chart 9Credit Spreads Not At Record Lows Currencies: The euro has likely overshot. Long speculative positions are close to record levels (Chart 10) and the currency has returned to its Purchasing Power Parity level against the USD (Chart 11). An announcement of a "dovish" tapering of asset purchases by ECB President Draghi in September could persuade the market that the ECB will continue to be much more cautious about tightening than the Fed. The yen is also likely to weaken against the US dollar as global rates rise, since the BoJ will not change its yield curve control policy despite the better recent growth numbers, given how far inflation is still from its target. Chart 10There Are A Lot Of Euro Bulls Chart 11Euro Is No Longer Undervalued Commodities: Our forecast that a drawdown in crude inventories will push the WTI price back up is slowing coming about. U.S. crude inventories have fallen by 25.3 million barrels since the start of the year. The after-effects of Hurricane Harvey might affect the data for a while but, as long as global demand holds up, the crude oil price should rise further, with WTI moving over $55 a barrel by year-end. Metals prices have moved largely sideways year to date, and future movements depend mostly on the outlook for Chinese growth, which may begin to slow. In particular, the recent run-up in copper prices (which have risen by 20% since early June) seems unsustainable. The bullish sentiment was mostly due to short-term supply/demand imbalances caused by labor disruptions at some major mines. However, Chinese copper demand, especially for construction, is likely to weaken over coming months.2 Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market," dated 16 August 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Copper's Getting Out Ahead Of Fundamentals, Correction Likely," dated 24 August 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation

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

Highlights A broad survey on various valuation ratios suggests that Chinese investable equities' exceptional cheapness in the past several years has essentially vanished. Valuation is no longer a compelling reason for staying positive. Multiples of Chinese equities have been rerated in the past two years. This asset class is currently trading at a slight premium over its historical norms as well as other emerging markets, but it is still at discounts to developed bourses and the all-country-world averages. Remain bullish on Chinese investable equities due to our positive stance on the cyclical outlook of economy and profits. Feature Chinese industrial profits increased by 16.5% in July from a year ago, as released early this week. This is a mild deceleration compared with the 19.1% pace a month earlier, which the authorities attributed to temporary factory shutdowns due to extreme summer heat. Irrespective, the latest profit numbers confirm that the economy is passing its peak growth rate in this mini cycle upturn, but overall business activity remain fairly robust. Looking forward, we see limited downside in China's cyclical growth outlook, as discussed in various recent reports.1 Chinese equities have also experienced a mini melt-up in recent weeks. So far this year, Chinese investable stocks, measured by the MSCI China Free index, have rallied by almost 40% in dollar-terms, significantly outpacing all major global and EM benchmarks. Importantly, the total return index of Chinese investable stocks, price appreciation and dividend income combined has recently broken above a long-term resistance, reaching an all-time high (Chart 1). While the strong performance of Chinese equities has validated our positive stance on China's growth and profit profile, the sharp rally in prices also raises a red flag on potential froth and complacency. A closer look at the valuation picture of Chinese equities is well warranted. Conventional Valuation Indicators At the onset, conventional valuation indicators for the broad Chinese investable equity universe currently do not look demanding compared with historical norms (Chart 1, bottom panel). Our composite valuation indicator, which combines several conventional yardsticks such as trailing and forward price-to-earnings, price-to-book, price-to-cash and dividend yield, has crawled out of the "undervalued" extreme that lasted for several years, but it is not yet overvalued. Most conventional valuation indicators are currently roughly in line with their respective long-term averages (Chart 2). Chart 1Chinese Investable Stocks Are No Longer ##br##Exceptionally Cheap Chart 2Most Valuation Indicators ##br##Are Back To Historical Means Compared with other emerging bourses, Chinese investable equities have also been re-rated. In fact, Chinese equities' outperformance against the EM benchmark since mid-last year has been entirely driven by relative multiples expansion (Chart 3). Our relative composite valuation indicator suggests Chinese investable equities are trading at a moderate premium over the EM benchmark, after a few years of deep discount. Most valuation indicators of Chinese equities are slightly higher than the EM benchmark, but are still significantly lower than their peers in the developed market (Chart 4). Chart 3Chinese Equities Have Been Rerated ##br##Against EM Chart 4Chinese Equities Are Trading At Premium##br## Against EM, But Not DM Weight-Adjusted Valuation Indicators A major issue of conducting historical and cross-country comparisons of valuation indicators is the ever-changing constituents in the indexes. The benchmark to evaluate P/B ratios of tech companies should be categorically different from those of banks, as should the price-to-cash ratios for retailers and utility firms. A simple lump-sum aggregate of a conventional valuation indicator ignores the different sector weights among different markets, which could be misleading. This is particularly important for China, as its juvenile equity universe is constantly evolving and rapidly changing (Chart 5). The largest sector by weight in the Chinese investable market in the past 10 years has shifted from telecom to energy to banks, with the baton more recently being passed to information technology. Currently, IT firms account for over 40% of the MSCI China Free index, up from less than 10% three years ago, while banks have dropped from a peak of 44% to 25% currently. The shifting sector weights within the Chinese equity universe also reflect the rapidly changing structure of the underlying Chinese economy. Chart 5Chinese Investable Equities Sector Breakdown One way to deal with this issue is some sort of "controlled weight" valuation indicator by holding sector weights constant. Chart 6 shows the simple averages of various valuation ratios of the 10 Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) sectors.2 With the exception of dividend yield, the equal-weighted valuation indicators are more expensive than their respective market weight-based versions, according to our calculation. This means that some smaller-weight sectors are more dearly valued compared with the large weights, particularly banks. However, none of the valuation ratios appear extreme in a historical context. How do Chinese equities compare with other markets? Table 1 summarizes equal-sector-weight valuation indicators. Overall, Chinese equities are trading at a slight premium over emerging markets, but are still at 10-20% discounts to developed bourses and the all-country-world averages. Table 1 Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratios The Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings (CAPE) multiple (also known as the Shiller P/E) compares the equity price to the earnings in a full business cycle extended over many years, rather than just one random year. Typically, CAPEs are calculated by dividing the equity price by the 10-year average of real earnings, which smooths out the business cycle and theoretically better captures what equity investors are paying for companies' long term earning streams. Chart 7 shows that CAPEs are well above 20 times for the U.S. and Japanese markets, and around 16 times for U.K. and euro area stocks - all have experienced some multiples expansion since the global financial crisis. In China's case, the CAPE for investable equities has been hovering at around 10 times, near a record low and significantly below the level of the other major indexes. In fact, the CAPE of investable Chinese shares has barely stopped falling amid the rally in prices. Chart 6Average Versus Market-Weight Valuation Ratios Chart 7Cyclically Adjusted P/E: A Global Comparison Investment Conclusions Taken together, the valuation picture of Chinese investable stocks has become mixed, as its total return index has reached an all-time high. This asset class is no longer obviously undervalued compared with both historical norms and its EM peers. Some viewed Chinese equities' exceptional cheapness in the past several years as a "value-trap," which has proven to be a costly mistake and has been discredited. Now the "easy trade" is over, and valuation is no longer a compelling reason for staying positive on Chinese equities. On the other hand, a broad survey on various valuation ratios does yet not conjure up images of an overly extended market, both compared with historical averages and other global benchmarks, particularly DM bourses. Lack of valuation froth means Chinese investable shares are not yet subject to the pull of mean reversion. Cyclically, we remain optimistic on China's growth and earnings outlook, which should continue to push up stock prices. Valuation indicators are never good timing tools, but they should be closely monitored going forward to assess the risk-return tradeoff of holding Chinese equities. We will dig deeper into domestic A shares in an upcoming report. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows And The RMB Internationalization Process", dated August 24, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Includes Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples, Energy, Financials, Health Care, Industrials, Information Technology, Materials, Telecommunication Services and Utilities. Real Estate is included in Financials, due to its limited data availability as a stand-alone GICS sector. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Hurricane Harvey will prove a bigger market-mover than North Korea's latest missile test; The worst flood in Houston's history will improve U.S. policymaking and remove domestic risks; North Korea justifies hedging against violent incidents, but actors are constrained from full-scale war; Insights from our travels in Asia suggest that U.S.-China cooperation is still meaningful. China's reform reboot faces constraints; Abenomics is not done yet. Feature As we go to press, two crises are developing. The one that has rattled the markets - and that we focus on in this Weekly Report - is the North Korean missile launch. However, we think the more investment-relevant one is the slow-moving Hurricane Harvey, which is about to inundate Houston - a metropolitan area with nearly 7 million people - with more rain. We cannot predict the ultimate impact on the economy of the developing natural disaster, but we do know that Houston is experiencing the greatest flood in its history. The scale of human suffering is likely being massively underestimated at present. Comparisons with Hurricane Katrina are not without merit, but Houston has a population about five times that of New Orleans. Investors may rightly ask, so what? The stock market actually rallied at the height of Hurricane Katrina and one would struggle to pick its date on a chart of the S&P 500. The impact on the economy and markets is likely to be tepid in the near term once again. The significance of Hurricane Harvey is its likely impact on politics. First, there is now no chance that the debt ceiling will be breached. We discussed the low odds last week and we reiterate them here. Second, odds are that a government shutdown is unlikely as well. It is unfathomable to shut down the government during an emergency. Imagine if the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had to cease operations. Wall or no wall on the Mexican border, Republicans in Congress and the White House will fund the government. More than that, Americans suffering in a Red State that voted for President Trump could be the catalyst that Republicans need to put their intra-party differences aside and start working with vigor on legislation, including tax reform. We could even contemplate legislative action on a bipartisan infrastructure plan, although the ability of U.S. policymakers to put aside grief and focus back on partisan bickering never ceases to amaze. The bottom line for us is that in six months' time, when investors look back on late August 2017, it will be Hurricane Harvey that is cited as having been market-relevant in the long term, not North Korea's n-th missile launch. That said, North Korea remains relevant. It has launched an avowed ballistic missile over Japan for the first time (as opposed to a space launch vehicle, which it has done in 1998 and 2009). The launch originated near Pyongyang, a warning to the U.S. that any strikes against launch sites would be complex (involving civilians) and tantamount to an attack on the capital and a declaration of war. The United States and its allies will be forced to respond to this brinkmanship by trying harder to establish that the military option is indeed credible despite the well-known constraints (the decimation of Seoul). Therefore more market volatility will ensue in the coming months and year. We do not rule out major violent incidents, though full-scale war still seems highly unlikely due to hard constraints on the various actors. (Please see "Appendix" for our updated checklist on whether the U.S. will attack.) While we do not expect either Pyongyang or Hurricane Harvey to derail the bull market, we recognize that valuations are stretched, volatility is low, and the market may be looking for a reason to sell off significantly. In this report, we discuss insights on North Korea and other key issues gleaned from our recent travels abroad. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy went on the road this summer for five weeks. We visited the American Midwest, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, China, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. There we had the pleasure of speaking with clients across the asset management industry. Each region had its own set of specific questions and concerns, as well as insights. Over the next two weeks, we plan to share these with our entire client base. Going on the road is critical for investment strategists. It is an opportunity to stress-test and sharpen one's view through interaction with sophisticated investors. Meeting clients also ensures that you are asking the right questions. We are happy to report that our three main questions - how stimulative will U.S. tax reform be; is China willing to deleverage; and is Italy a potential source of global risk-off - are indeed on all of our clients' minds. This does not mean that everyone came to the same conclusions that we did, but at least we know that we are looking for the same answers. Sino-American Split Is Overstated Investors are no longer as quick to dismiss one of our central geopolitical theses: that the U.S. and China are on a path likely to end in the "Thucydides Trap."1 However, one of our clients was not so sure that U.S.-China relations are deteriorating as rapidly as they appear to be. He observed a pattern in bilateral trade that suggested to him that the two countries are working together, under the table, to keep relations from collapsing despite the unprecedented challenges posed by the post-2008 global political and economic environment. He began with the simple point that the U.S.'s rising trade protectionism against Chinese steel in recent years actually made it easier for President Xi to take aim at overcapacity problems in the steel sector in China. After U.S. steel imports from China collapsed, from 20% of total in 2008 to 3% in 2016, China was able to embark on a long-delayed purge of excess steel capacity, shutting down a reported 87mmt over the past year and a half (Chart 1). China moved up the steel product value chain partly as a result of U.S. actions.2 China also appears to have responded promptly to U.S. complaints about agricultural imports. In late 2016, amid a heated and protectionist presidential campaign, the U.S. government threatened to impose tariffs on China's grain exports and demanded that subsidies be removed so that U.S. companies could compete on a level playing field in China's domestic market. Corn prices were at a nine-year low; Beijing was giving rebates to domestic corn exporters and had amassed large corn inventories. Within a few months, in March 2017, China launched the agricultural side of its supply-side reforms. It removed the supports for corn, allowing prices to plummet and making way for lower Chinese supply and thus more U.S. imports (Chart 2). Chart 1U.S. And China Attack Chinese Steel Capacity Chart 2China's Supply-Side Agriculture Reforms Most recently, the client emphasized, China launched one of its periodic crackdowns on intellectual property violations.3 Enforcement was observable in China's mainstream online services, which largely lost the ability to stream content for which they lacked the rights.4 As with steel, China has a self-interest in these reforms, especially as it generates its own intellectual property. But it cannot have detracted from China's urgency that the U.S. announced a formal investigation in early August to determine whether China's intellectual property violations deserve punitive actions.5 It is as if China anticipated the U.S.'s moves coming out of the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue in July. In these and many other cases, a pattern seems to emerge: U.S. trade grievances boil up, U.S. authorities threaten punitive actions, China responds to the threat by vowing retaliation and pushing through supply-side reforms that are already in its interest. The process appears to be a win-win, however precarious. The client also suggested that the U.S. may be offering to become more constructive toward certain Chinese initiatives. For instance, China is pressing forward on the long-delayed launch of an oil futures contract on the Shanghai International Energy Exchange in the second half of 2017. This new benchmark would ostensibly rival Brent and West Texas Intermediate contracts and be settled in RMB instead of USD. To our client, China's moving forward with this scheme, immediately after top-level trade negotiations with the U.S., seemed to reveal the U.S.'s tacit support for RMB internationalization. Certainly the U.S. nodded at the IMF including the RMB in its special drawing rights basket.6 Presumably, then, the U.S. and China have not entirely lost the ability to deal with each other on sensitive issues in an atmosphere fraught with distrust. Moreover, both sides can attempt to roll with the punches. China can blame the difficulties of necessary internal reforms on U.S. protectionism, while U.S. protectionist impulses can be mitigated via China's internal reforms. This dynamic could become the silver lining in Sino-American relations in 2018, a year in which Xi will have the best opportunity to push reforms while Trump may be most eager to take protectionist actions ahead of the midterm election. A silver lining to a black cloud, of course. Bottom Line: Risks to Sino-American relations remain serious, but the two sides still retain some ability to manage tensions. The question is how much ability? Our own view has been that 2017 would largely be a year of Trump issuing "a shot across the bow" and then negotiating. Concrete, aggressive action would be more likely to occur in 2018. This remains our baseline case. But silent coordination of the kind described above could perhaps improve trade relations enough to satisfy Trump in 2018 and delay a Sino-U.S. confrontation. China has long dealt with protectionist threats from the U.S. by conceding various reforms and policy adjustments, especially by increasing U.S. imports. The U.S. has long accepted such a response. We doubt that this tactic will be enough in this day and age, but maybe so. North Korea Could Cause A Recession What about U.S.-China cooperation on North Korea? It appears as if coordination has improved in the face of a potential conflict. At the peak of tensions this summer, China has offered to implement sanctions, cutting off some trade and joint ventures, while the U.S. has given reassurances about U.S. military intentions in the event of a conflict.7 However, judging by conversations with clients on the mainland, a large gap still exists between U.S. and Chinese perceptions. In particular, Chinese clients pushed back against any implication that China is responsible for reining in North Korea's bad behavior. They highlighted China's emphasis on national autonomy, the idea that every country should be left alone to address its own problems in its own jurisdiction. Otherwise countries should resolve differences through diplomacy and dialogue, conducted as equals. The threat or use of force always makes things worse. The current North Korean situation is, from this perspective, America's fault. The North Koreans pursue nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles in order to deter a U.S. attack, having seen what happened to other nuclear aspirants like Iraq, Syria, and most recently Libya.8 In short, China sympathizes with its formal ally North Korea. It demands peaceful negotiations and denounces the threat of regime change. And it does not believe U.S. officials when they renounce regime change as an option, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has recently done. "No one will believe that," one of our clients said, and least of all North Korea. (Quite reasonably, we would add.) This argument reinforces our view that China will not impose crippling sanctions on the North, even if it tries to pressure Pyongyang back to the negotiating table. Since the North cannot be expected to give up its nuclear weapons, the negotiations themselves will be limited from the outset. The U.S. essentially has to accept the status quo, possibly even the perpetual threat of a North Korean nuclear strike. This, in turn, increases the probability that the Trump administration will be disappointed with the outcome. Which is precisely why we expect the U.S. not only to bulk up its military alliance in the region but also to impose more "secondary sanctions" and trade tariffs on China. Sino-American tensions will get harder and harder to manage. While we can foresee skirmishes and violent incidents, we think the probability of a full-scale Second Korean War is low. Diplomacy is not exhausted, the U.S. alliance with regional powers remains intact, and, most importantly, North Korea has not committed an act of war (or acted as if it is about to, which would prompt U.S. preemption). Regarding the big picture, some of our clients are not so sanguine. One of them pointed out recent academic research arguing that armed conflict, as a cause of death in the human population, has declined. The number of violent deaths per 100,000 people has fallen from historic levels in the hundreds down to an average of 60 in the twentieth century, which includes two world wars, and down to the single digits in the post-WWII era (Chart 3). The client asks: Is this drop in war deaths sustainable? The implication is that the level of deaths has nowhere to go but up. Chart 3Human Deaths By War Have Collapsed In Post-WWII Era The client coupled this thought with another bearish theory. It is widely known that recessions are normally preceded by large financial or economic imbalances. Today many investors are encouraged by the apparent lack of any such imbalance. They read this as saying, "let the good times roll." Our client viewed it another way, suggesting that the imbalance that will cause the next major recession will be non-financial and non-economic, e.g. ecological, epidemiological, geopolitical, etc. Chart 4Global Conflicts Increasing In Frequency The client was not specifically hinting at a North Korean conflagration, though probably not ruling it out either. He was mostly concerned with the historic drop in deaths by conflict and how it might be reversed in the near future. Unfortunately this bleak suggestion that war might make a secular comeback is not incompatible with our view that geopolitical multipolarity goes hand in hand with a higher incidence of internationalized conflicts (Chart 4), which could be exacerbated by a decline in global trade. On the other hand, the fall in deaths is a product of a range of political, economic, social and scientific advances, and may not be reversed through geopolitical tensions alone. Bottom Line: The U.S. and China remain far apart in their perceptions of who is to blame for North Korea and what is to be done. China will not take responsibility for "solving" the problem as the U.S. demands. This reinforces our view that North Korean tensions have not yet peaked and remain market-relevant. We ultimately believe that a peaceful solution will prevail, but getting from here (tensions) to there (a negotiated settlement) entails further risks. China Will Try To Reform, But Won't Touch The Property Bubble "They've got to do something about the corporate leverage." This was the conclusion of a client who agreed with our view that President Xi Jinping will likely accelerate his reform agenda after the nineteenth National Party Congress this fall, and that deleveraging is the key indicator (Chart 5). Some clients in China - specifically banks - confirmed that they were under pressure from tightening financial regulation and as a result were both slowing the pace of lending and becoming more scrutinizing of borrowers' creditworthiness. Borrowing rates have ticked up (Chart 6). Chart 5High Time For Some Belt-Tightening Chart 6Chinese Cost Of Capital Ticks Up Clients also suggested that Chinese leaders would soon re-emphasize the country's transition away from GDP targets as a measure of successful governance and economic stewardship. When the Xi administration came to power, it sought to de-emphasize GDP targets and introduced new and alternative targets - such as urban and rural income per capita, labor productivity, corruption, air pollution - into its assessments of economic progress. But the administration was forced to return to GDP targets amid growth fears in 2015, prompting Premier Li Keqiang to promise "at least" 6.5% growth for the next five years. Now the attempt to elevate qualitative measures of governance looks set to resume. Xi held two meetings of the Central Leading Group for Deepening Overall Reform this summer, in which he noticeably prioritized "green growth" rather than plain old growth, and pushed for replicating and applying more broadly the pilot reforms that have been implemented since his reform agenda was first laid out in 2013. In mid-July, at the National Financial Work Conference, Xi called for local officials to be held accountable for local government debt - even beyond their term in office. And in late July, Yang Weimin, a key economic policymaker who reports to Xi, said, "we won't allow the leverage ratio to rise for the sake of maintaining growth."9 The implication is that GDP growth will be allowed to fall as the government attempts to make progress on difficult reform initiatives. Chart 7Bonds More Important In China Several clients also expressed confidence that China would resume economic "opening up" before long. It is well known that, over the past year, Beijing has sought to attract FDI by promising to implement a nationwide "negative list" and removing certain sub-sectors from that list, in a bid to counter recent weak FDI inflows and ongoing capital outflow pressure. Beijing has also taken steps to deepen its financial sector, such as by expanding and regularizing its bond markets (Chart 7) in preparation for opening the Hong Kong-Shanghai "bond connect," which will allow foreign investors to buy Chinese bonds and, we think, generate strong demand. To add to this list, clients stressed that China is beginning to think about what happens after it lifts the capital controls put in place last year to halt outflows. A number of institutions are interested in expanding their overseas portfolios when they get the "all clear." We would expect the re-opening to come after the central government completes a round of reforming, recapitalizing, and restructuring banks and SOEs, which could push the timing well into 2018 or 2019. But clients are clearly chomping at the bit - which may suggest that they anticipate capital controls to be lifted sooner rather than later. One important reform item that we were told not to expect is the imposition of a nationwide property tax. Chinese authorities delayed the implementation of the tax in 2016 due to the desire to reflate the property market. Presumably they will return to this initiative now that the economy has recovered: it makes long-term sense to give local governments a more stable source of revenue and to suck some air out of the property bubble gradually so that it does not burst (Chart 8). However, clients are skeptical about any reforms that could harshly suppress real estate prices due to the heavy concentration of household wealth in the property sector (Chart 9). Chart 8Provinces To Be Weaned Off Of Land Sales? Chart 9Chinese Wealth Stored In Housing If the property bubble should be popped, people's life savings would vanish into thin air and there would be chaos in the streets. A client in Hong Kong remarked that the Chinese public will pretty much accept anything as long as property prices continue to rise. Since everyone agrees that social stability is the critical aim of the ruling party, it stands to reason that reforms will not be allowed to threaten the property sector, at least not directly. If the property sector prevents serious attempts at deleveraging, then the environmental agenda will become all the more significant as the focus of the Xi administration in its second five-year term. The administration began by increasing central government spending for environmental regulation more than for any other category of spending (Table 1). And Xi's statements in July, previewing the National Party Congress, emphasized fighting pollution as one of three chief focal points (the others were controlling systemic risks and fighting poverty). Table 1Fiscal Priorities Of Recent Chinese Presidents In recent months, central inspectors have fanned out across the country to conduct local pollution inspections ahead of end-of-year deadlines. These have fueled market speculation about deep curbs coming to industrial overcapacity, causing the prices of certain commodities that China produces, like aluminum, to surge (Chart 10). These commodity prices have likely already seen the biggest moves - given China's sharp slowdown in 2014 and reflation in 2015-16 - but they are still sensitive to the policy mix in China, i.e. the relative amounts of capacity cuts and deleveraging that take place. Chart 10Supply-Side Reform Has Boosted Metals Bottom Line: Clients across the Asia-Pacific region were focused on the question of Chinese structural reforms. We got the sense that there was much skepticism over whether they would indeed be growth-constraining. But when pushed, clients focused on real estate prices as the one threshold policymakers would not dare to cross in China. What About Japan? A Visit With Mr. K One of our most esteemed clients is a seasoned Japanese global investor who shall go by the moniker of "Mr. K" in the following dialogue (and for future reference). Mr. K opened the dialogue with us by asking us for our view of Japan. Mr. K: What is your view on my country, on Japan? GPS: We tend to think that the current reflationary policy will continue. The Tokyo metropolitan elections did not sound the death knell for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (Chart 11). The BoJ has become more, not less, dovish, and is not likely to follow other central banks in tightening policy anytime soon. Abe retains control of both houses of the Diet and can increase government spending to boost the economy. And the LDP will continue reflation even if Abe falls. Mr. K: This may be true, reflation will continue. However, the Japanese economy is reaching a plateau after five years of Abenomics. The recent strong GDP numbers were not well-received because consumers feel the stagnation (Chart 12). Global demand, and Chinese demand, have provided a positive backdrop for Japanese manufacturers, but the domestic outlook is not wildly optimistic. Chart 11Abe No Longer In Free-Fall Chart 12Japanese Feel Stagnant Despite Strong Growth With economic policy, the key phrase is "TINA," There Is No Alternative. There is no alternative to Abe at the moment. If you look back at the Democratic Party of Japan's support in 2011 under Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, it was a real contender. Today, it is far from rivaling the LDP (Chart 13). The voting population is, apparently, comfortable. It is true that if Abe leaves, it will not make much of a difference, as long as the LDP remains in power. The younger generations do not seem troubled by the current state of affairs. They are well-trained to endure economic stagnation. There is a sense that those who stand out feel uncomfortable. College graduates looking for jobs are very conservative. While with Generation X there was always the expectation that tomorrow would be a brighter day, Generation Millennial has come not only to accept stagnation, but even to like the stability of flat growth. GPS: Isn't this kind of stagnation a good thing? Isn't it a case of Japan being in a "Goldilocks" phase? Mr. K: Stability and stagnation can be good for markets. First, the macro environment is decent. Corporations have large cash balances, external demand is strong, wage demand is subdued, and the exchange rate is weak. However, risk-taking is not prized, whether in the education system or the media. Public discourse tends to discourage high-risk investments. And risk-takers have not been properly rewarded over the past two decades in Japan (Chart 14), so confidence and risk-appetite are weak. Also, deflation is hard to defeat. The "100 Yen Shop" (dollar store) retail model is a good example. The goods are all cheap, but as long as you can bring more people in, you can make a profit. This is almost all deflationary. Moreover, the Japanese have nothing to spend on! They no longer need new cars, or big computers; they just need mobile phones, maybe a Nintendo Switch, etc. Second, as to the financial markets, greater deregulation is necessary to attract non-Japanese capital flows. Maybe then valuations will normalize (Chart 15). It is essential to see if leading companies continue to gain global competitiveness, in anything from Internet services to gaming. Watch valuations and watch cash flow. Chart 13Opposition Still Can't Touch Ruling LDP Chart 14Risk-Takers Punished In Japan Chart 15Japanese Valuations Still Low The key firms are not necessarily the keiretsu, but secondary or new manufacturers that are driving growth. Small caps are more leveraged to foreign exchange, whereas neither the Japanese domestic economy nor the value of the yen matter much to large multinationals anymore. To capitalize on the internal economy you want to be long small caps. Or better yet, long semi-large caps: those companies equivalent to the U.S. companies that make the difference between the S&P 500 and the S&P 600. These are some of the best plays in Japan because they are domestic-oriented and sensitive to the weaker yen. This will provide a tailwind for stocks elsewhere. Local property markets also offer a very good return over the risk-free rate. GPS: What do you make of our view that Abe will push reflationary policy ahead of his efforts to revise the constitution? Given that he needs a strong economy to pass the popular referendum? Mr. K: It is harder to increase fiscal spending in Japan than one might think. However, the North Korean threat is not going anywhere. And the media love "tensions." GPS: So it seems like you are positive about the markets in Japan, but are not yet sold on Abenomics? Mr. K: I suppose the lesson is, if it isn't too cold, stay on the ski slopes. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 For this term, please see Graham Allison, "The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?" The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, as well as Allison's new book, Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap? (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017). 2 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China-U.S. Trade Relations: The Big Picture," dated November 17, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China's Geopolitical Pressure Points: Knowns, Unknowns And A Hedge," dated August 17, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "China cracks down on distribution of illegal publications," Xinhua, July 25, 2017, available at news.xinhuanet.com. China also highlighted the BRICS countries' joint efforts at enforcing intellectual property as it prepared to host the BRICS conference in Xiamen, Fujian in September. Please see Ministry of Commerce, "Ministry Of Commerce Holds Press Conference on 2017 BRICS Trade Ministers' Meeting," August 4, 2017, available at english.mofcom.gov.cn. 5 Please see the Office of the United States Trade Representative, "USTR Announces Initiation of Section 301 Investigation of China," August 2017, available at ustr.gov. 6 Other examples of U.S. cooperation with Chinese initiatives include the U.S. sending a small delegation to take part in the One Belt One Road (OBOR) conference in May. 7 In particular, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dunsford visited China, met with the Central Military Commission, and vowed to improve military-to-military relations. 8 Or a country like Ukraine, which agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal as soon as it became independent in 1994, only to see its territory carved up by global powers 20 years later (13 years after it emptied its missile silos). 9 Please see Sidney Leng, "China shifts gear from growth to debt cuts in race against rising tide of red ink," South China Morning Post, July 27, 2017, available at www.scmp.com. Appendix Table 2Will The U.S. Attack North Korea? Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights The global economic recovery has been driven by demand in China, the U.S. and Europe, while domestic demand in EM ex-China has not recovered much. Going forward, the key to EM financial markets performance will be Chinese imports and commodities prices. Our negative outlook for China's capital spending and imports will be wrong if the money velocity or the money multiplier or productivity growth rise materially. If any one of these were to occur, relying on money growth to forecast economic growth will prove futile. That said, assumptions about a substantial rise in either money velocity, the money multiplier or productivity would be highly speculative and unreasonable. With respect to capital flows, EM currencies have been supported by portfolio flows, not FDI inflows. Hence, any reduction or reversal in these portfolio flows is a major risk to EM exchange rates. Feature Chart I-1EM Share Prices Are ##br##Facing A Technical Hurdle In this week's report we elaborate on the following interrelated questions: Where do EM economies stand in terms of their respective business cycles? What are the key drivers and risks to our view? EM share prices in U.S. dollar terms are facing another technical hurdle (Chart I-1). Even though EM risk assets have been trading well, we still find their risk-reward profile unattractive, and below we elaborate why. The EM Business Cycle EM economic data have differed greatly over the course of the current rally, and various economic parameters presently exhibit very different phases of the business cycle in developing economies. For example, Asian export growth has rolled over having expanded at a double-digit pace early this year (Chart I-2). In general, EM exports have posted a broad-based recovery: the recovery in Chinese, U.S. and European imports has helped Asian exports, while higher commodities prices have boosted export revenues of commodities producers. On the flip side, domestic demand in EM ex-China has been rather mediocre. In fact, there has been very little domestic demand recovery, as evidenced by retail sales and auto sales (Chart I-3). Importantly, bank loan growth has not recovered at all (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Based on the above, we can summarize the above divergences as follows: the global economic recovery has been driven by demand in China, the U.S. and Europe, while domestic demand in EM ex-China has not recovered much. Chart I-2Asian Export Growth ##br##Has Rolled Over Chart I-3EM ex-China: Domestic ##br##Demand Has Not Yet Recovered In turn, China's imports surge has been due to the revival in new money/credit origination that has been in play since the middle of 2015. China's commercial banks have originated about RMB 43 trillion of new money/credit in the past two years. This has greatly helped many developing countries selling to China, boosted commodities prices, creating fertile ground for capital flows to EM financial markets. Going forward, the pertinent question for the EM business cycle is which of the following two scenarios will likely play out: (1) China's imports relapse materially soon, weighing on commodities and other EMs and capping the recovery in their domestic demand; or (2) Chinese import growth holds and the recovery in EM ex-China domestic demand gains momentum. The first scenario entails a bearish outcome for EM share prices, while the second would imply a continuation of the EM rally. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team envisages the first scenario. The basis of our argument is that the deceleration that has already occurred in Chinese money growth combined with ongoing monetary tightening are about to cause a considerable slowdown in China's real economy and imports (Chart I-4). What about the other two pillars of global imports - the U.S. and Europe? U.S. imports have in the past year outpaced final sales to domestic purchasers (Chart I-5). As can be seen in this chart, imports are more volatile than domestic demand and this discrepancy is reflective of inventory cycles. After outpacing final domestic demand for the past seven months, odds are U.S. imports growth will moderate in the next 12 months. That said, we do not expect a contraction in U.S. imports. Even if European imports remain robust, a material slowdown in China and some moderation in U.S. imports will be sufficient to produce a slump in EM aggregate exports. The rationale is twofold: First, for many developing countries, China as a destination for shipments is larger than or as large as the U.S. and Europe combined. Chart I-4China: Money Growth And Business Cycle Chart I-5U.S. Import Growth to Moderate Second, mainland demand for raw materials is critical for their prices. In turn, the trend in commodities prices often defines EM financial markets dynamics. This is why we focus so much on China's credit/money cycle, which in turn drives China's capital spending and an overwhelming majority of its imports. Notably, the reason why Chinese imports are much more sensitive to credit compared to other EM and DM economies is because the mainland's imports consist of 42% of commodities and raw materials and 55% of capital goods. Hence, 97% of imports is for investment spending, with the latter financed and driven by money/credit. Bottom Line: The global economic recovery has been driven by demand in China, the U.S. and Europe, while domestic demand in EM ex-China has not recovered much. Going forward, the key to EM financial markets performance will be Chinese imports and commodities prices. The Key Pillar Of Our View The key area where we differ from the bullish consensus on EM/China is our expectation that Chinese growth will slow before year-end due to a combination of ongoing policy tightening and lingering credit excesses. Regardless of which broad money measure we use - official M2, money calculated using commercial banks' liabilities (we refer to it as deposit-money or M3 hereafter) or banks' assets (we refer to this as credit-money) - the current message is the same: broad money growth has fallen to historic lows (Chart I-6). An imperative question is: what does the recent gap between broad money (our calculation of M3) and private (corporate and household) credit growth, as evidenced by the top panel of Chart I-7A, mean for investors? Chart I-6China: Various Versions Of Broad Money Chart I-7Comparing Broad Money And Credit Growth From the perspective of the outlook for growth, it is the aggregate of private and public credit that matters. When we substitute private credit with the aggregate of private and public credit, there does not appear to be much decoupling (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Readers should note that the historical time series for aggregate private and public credit is from BIS and the data for 2017 are our estimates based on general government fiscal deficit and total social financing. If past correlations between money, credit and economic growth and their respective time lags hold, the cyclical parts of the Chinese economy should slow down before year-end (Chart I-8). This differs from the consensus view on the street that a slowdown is not in the cards until well into next year (or later). China's currently flat yield curve also supports our view on imminent growth deceleration (Chart I-9). In fact, Chinese money market rates and onshore corporate bond yields have begun drifting higher following two to three months of consolidation. Chart I-8China: A Slowdown Before Year-End? Chart I-9China: Yield Curve And PMI Finally, we believe the depth of the impending slowdown will be material because ongoing liquidity tightening is occurring amid lingering credit excesses/credit bubble. While policymakers do not plan to push the economy into a vicious downturn, they may be open to the idea of attempting mild short-term deleveraging to contain risks in the long run. Furthermore, the Chinese authorities - like in any other country - may not have perfect foresight about the magnitude of a potential slowdown. Hence, their reversal of tightening policies is likely to be late, resulting in a rough spot in growth. Bottom Line: The key difference between our stance and the bullish view on EM is on China's growth trajectory and commodities prices. Risks To Our View Given that the main pillar of our view is that China's credit and money growth is driving mainland capital spending and imports, our recommended investment strategy will be wrong if the already transpiring slowdown in money growth does not translate into investment spending deceleration. This could happen because of the following: Strong nominal growth can coincide with slower money growth only if the velocity of money accelerates. In short, our view will be wrong if China's nominal output growth holds up or quickens, despite the slowdown in broad money growth that has already occurred. This could happen if the velocity of money suddenly shoots up - i.e., the same amount of money simply turns faster facilitating faster expansion of nominal output. There is no way to forecast changes in money velocity in any country in any period with any precision. As a rule, we (and the vast majority of other market participants) simply assume money velocity will be constant over our forecast horizons. Money velocity is calculated as nominal GDP divided by broad money supply. From a historical perspective, Chart I-10 demonstrates that China's money velocity has actually drifted lower in the past 10 years or so. Therefore, a material rise in China's money velocity would be an exception from the trend of past decade. Consequently, before assuming a rising money velocity, one needs to prove why it will escalate going forward. This does not mean it is impossible or could not happen, but it is reasonable to challenge the nature and timing of it. Our view will be wrong if money growth accelerates sharply from current levels without more liquidity (banks' excess reserves) provisioning by the People's Bank of China (PBoC). In such a scenario, broad money growth acceleration amid low levels of banks' excess reserves would signify a spike in the money multiplier. However, the money multiplier for China - measured as broad money divided by commercial banks' excess reserves at the central bank - is already at the second highest of the past ten years (Chart I-11, top panel). In level terms, there is currently about RMB 212 trillion of broad money - measured by commercial banks' liabilities/deposits (our measure of M3) versus RMB 2 trillion of commercial banks' excess reserves at the end of June. Chart I-10China: Velocity Of Money ##br##Has Been Drifting Lower Chart I-11China: Money Multiplier ##br##Is Already Elevated We assume the money multiplier will be flat to down in China over the next 12-18 months. Banks have already become overextended with respect to the money multiplier, and are operating on thin liquidity/excess reserves (Chart I-11, bottom panel). With interest rates rising and regulatory tightening forcing banks to bring off-balance-sheet assets onto their balance sheets, it is reasonable to assume a flat-to-down money multiplier. Finally, another risk to our view stems from productivity. If productivity growth is set to accelerate considerably in China, it will boost real output growth despite the slump in money/credit. Chart I-12China: Structural Slowdown ##br##In Productivity Growth It is hard to measure productivity ex-post, let alone to forecast it. This is especially true for developing economies. This is why we assume that productivity growth in China will be stable in the medium term but will decelerate in the long run if structural reforms are not implemented and the economy's reliance on abundant money/credit is not reduced. Simply put, when money/credit are plentiful, people and companies make a lot of money without working hard and innovating. This is why money/credit deluges and asset bubbles often lead to a considerable productivity slowdown in any country. Provided that China's economy has been primarily fueled by copious amounts of money and credit since early 2009, it is reasonable to assume that productivity growth has slowed (Chart I-12). Without structural reforms, the quality of capital allocation will not improve. Therefore, productivity growth is bound to slow rather than accelerate. We will discuss the structural outlook for China including productivity and economic rebalancing toward the service sector in a special report to be published in the coming weeks. Bottom Line: Our negative outlook for China's capital spending and imports will be wrong if the money velocity rises considerably or the money multiplier shoots up or productivity growth accelerates materially. If any one of these were to occur, relying on money growth to forecast economic growth will prove futile. That said, assumptions about a substantial rise in either money velocity, the money multiplier or productivity from current levels would be highly speculative and unreasonable. Risk Off And Fund Flows Into EM Last week we downgraded Korean stocks due to expectations that geopolitical tensions are set to rise in the near term. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service does not expect war on the Korean peninsula as long-standing constraints to conflict are still in place, starting with Pyongyang's ability to cause massive civilian casualties north of Seoul via an artillery barrage. As such, the ultimate resolution to the conflict will be a peaceful one. However, getting from here (volatility) to there (negotiated resolution) requires more tensions. The U.S. has to establish a "credible threat" of war in order to move China and North Korea towards a negotiated resolution.1 And that process could take more time, which means more volatility in the markets.2 The risk-off dynamics in EM due to tensions in the Korean Peninsula is a near-term risk and might become a trigger for a rollover in EM risk assets via reversal of portfolio flows. One of the narratives supporting the EM rally has been the changing composition of foreign capital flows into EM. This narrative argues3 that international flows to EM have been dominated by foreign direct investment (FDI) rather than portfolio inflows. This presages that EM risk assets are much less exposed to portfolio outflows than before. However, this is factually wrong. The composition of international capital flows into EM has been dominated by portfolio flows rather than FDI. In fact, FDI inflows have not yet recovered (Chart I-13). For the calculation of this aggregate we exclude not only China, Korea and Taiwan - which have large current account surpluses and do not require FDI inflows - but also Brazil. We exclude Brazil because its FDI and portfolio flows data have been distorted due to disadvantageous tax treatment of portfolio flows relative to FDIs. Chart I-14 illustrates that FDIs inflows have been robust and net portfolio inflows have been negative in the past 18 months. The latter does not pass our smell test because Brazil's financial markets have rallied tremendously since early 2016. This appears simply non-credible and confirms lingering speculation that a lot of foreign capital inflows have been registered in Brazil as FDI inflows to get preferential tax treatment - and were subsequently invested in financial markets, specifically in domestic bonds, not the real economy. Chart I-13EM ex-China, Korea, Taiwan And Brazil: ##br##FDI Inflows Have Not Recovered Chart I-14Brazil: The Puzzle of FDI ##br##Inflows And Portfolio Flows Chart I-15Brazil: Strong FDI Inflows ##br##And Collapsing Capital Spending Consistently, capital spending has not recovered at all, despite the preceding collapse (Chart I-15). All in all, excluding Brazilian data, there has been little recovery in EM FDI inflows (Chart 16A and Chart I-16B). Chart I-16AFDI Inflows Into Various EM Countries Chart I-16BFDI Inflows Into Various EM Countries Bottom Line: With respect to capital flows, EM currencies have been supported by portfolio flows, not FDI inflows. Hence, any reduction or reversal in these portfolio flows is a major risk to EM exchange rates. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?," August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see, "Globalisation in retreat: capital flows decline since crisis", August 21, 2017, available at https://www.ft.com/content/ade8ada8-83f6-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights China's tightened control on capital account transactions has played a key role in slowing down capital outflows, particularly outward FDIs. Meanwhile, investors' panic over the RMB has also abated substantially, likely due to a combination of greater policy transparency and improved growth conditions. The PBoC's capital account control measures will not be permanent. Cross-border capital flows are by nature volatile and highly pro-cyclical, while China's capital account control measures are imposed as a counter-cyclical mechanism. The stabilization in China's official reserves is accompanied by a notable setback in the RMB's internationalization process. The internationalization of the RMB will resume, but it is impossible to challenge the role of the dollar as the world's dominant reserve currency in the foreseeable future. Feature Chart 1The Decline In Chinese Official Reserves##br## Has Halted Amid recent soft growth numbers, an important positive development is that official foreign reserves in China have been increasing for six consecutive months, which is being perceived as a sign of the country's re-gained macro stability (Chart 1). A closer look at China's foreign reserves and balance-of-payment statistics suggests capital outflows have slowed considerably. Confidence in the RMB appears to have improved, but expectations of further RMB depreciation have not completely reversed. This means capital outflows may still accelerate, especially if the dollar bull market resumes.1 The RMB internationalization process has also suffered a notable setback in recent quarters due to investors' weakened confidence in the currency. The RMB will continue to gain broader adoption beyond China's borders over time, but the process will be gradual and hesitant, and it will not challenge the mighty dominance of the U.S. dollar anytime soon. Capital Flows: What Has Changed? Chinese official reserves have stabilized around US$3 trillion since early this year, bottoming from a prolonged decline from a peak of over US$4 trillion in mid-2014. The broad dollar weakness in recent months has boosted the value of Chinese official holdings of non-dollar assets, which has helped stabilize the level of overall reserves. Nonetheless, the country's balance-of-payment data shows major changes in the patterns of cross-border capital flows, yielding some important information. Chart 2Inward Portfolio Investment Has "Normalized" In terms of capital inflows, the messages are mixed (Chart 2). On one hand, portfolio inflows have rebounded sharply since the second quarter of 2016 after a deep decline in the previous three consecutive quarters. Foreign investors aggressively pulled out of Chinese markets, particularly bonds, between the third quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016, spooked by the People's Bank of China's surprise moves to devalue the RMB in August 2015 and in January 2016. It appears that foreign investors have become more comfortable with the RMB's "new normal" in recent quarters. Foreign purchases of Chinese onshore bonds have largely returned to normal, but stock purchases have remained subdued compared with previous years. The dramatic boom-bust in the Chinese domestic stock market in 2015 also dampened foreign investors' appetite towards this volatile asset class. It remains to be seen whether the newly established "bond connect" program and the MSCI's recent decision to include A shares in its indexes will be able attract more foreign portfolio investors. On the other hand, foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows have continued to decline. Inbound FDI dropped to a mere US$21 billion in the last quarter, near the levels at the height of the global financial crisis (Chart 3). FDIs are largely strategic decisions and are less influenced by near-term exchange rate fluctuations. Therefore, the sharp decline in FDI is a worrying sign that foreign investors' confidence in the Chinese business environment has weakened significantly, which is consistent with numerous surveys that show a gradual drop in China's ranking in global company's investment plans (Chart 4). For the Chinese authorities, how to improve the country's business environment and re-gain investors' confidence should be taken much more seriously. Chart 3FDI Has Fallen Sharply Chart 4China Is Losing Lure Among Global Firms On capital outflows, all channels have slowed of late, which is the key reason behind the stabilizing official reserves. Outbound FDI has fallen sharply since the fourth quarter of 2016 (Chart 5). Corporate China's overseas investments averaged almost US$60 billion for six consecutive quarters between the third quarter of 2015 and the fourth quarter of 2016, and has dropped to less than US$20 billion in the past two quarters. Repayment of overseas liabilities by the corporate sector, another major reason for capital outflows in previous years, has also slowed substantially (middle panel, Chart 5). Corporate China's deleveraging of dollar debt quickened sharply in 2015, as the RMB began to fall against the dollar. It has eased considerably of late, either due to re-gained stability of the exchange rate or as the deleveraging process has become advanced. The balance-of-payment statistics shows that total outstanding foreign loans and trade credit currently stand at US$620 billion, down from a peak of over US$1 trillion in the second quarter of 2014. Rampant "hot money" outflows in previous quarters have reversed recently (bottom panel, Chart 5). In fact, inbound "currency and deposits," which we label as "hot money," as it is most liquid and historically has been highly volatile, have reached a new record high. Taken together, the Chinese regulators' tightened rein on capital account transactions have clearly played a key role in slowing down capital outflows, particularly outward FDIs. Meanwhile, investors' panic over the RMB has also abated substantially, likely due to a combination of greater policy transparency and improved growth conditions. In essence, cross-border capital flows are by nature volatile and highly pro-cyclical, while China's capital account control measures are imposed as a counter-cyclical mechanism to regulate capital flows. In this vein, the PBoC's capital account control measures will not be permanent - they will be eased as capital outflows ease. It is important to note that China still runs a current account surplus, which means the country, public and private sectors combined, is still accumulating net foreign assets. Chart 6 shows that China's official reserves have declined substantially from their 2014 peak, but the country's total foreign assets have continued to climb - an indication that the private sector has been taking a greater share in the country's total foreign claims. For years, the PBoC's key challenge was to persuade the private sector to hold more assets in foreign currencies, and the trend has suddenly changed in recent years. It is wrong, however, to assume that the change is permanent. Chart 5Capital Outflows Have Eased Significantly Chart 6Private Sector Is Taking A Greater Share ##br##Of China's Foreign Claims The RMB Internationalization Scorecard Chart 7Setback In The RMB Internationalization Process The stabilization in China's official reserves is accompanied by a notable setback in the RMB's internationalization process. Measured by two key functions of money, the role of the RMB as an international currency has declined. As a medium of exchange, the RMB's role in cross-border settlement has dropped sharply (top panel, Chart 7). Currently the RMB accounts for about 15% of China's foreign trade settlement, down from over 30% at the peak of early 2016. The RMB's share as an international payments currency dropped to 1.98% in July, down from 2.45% in January 2016, according to SWIFT. The share of the RMB as a trade settlement currency has also stabilized in recent months, as the RMB exchange rate has stabilized. As a store of value, the RMB's role has likely also dropped, particularly among private investors, as evidenced by the sharp decline in RMB deposits in Hong Kong (bottom panel, Chart 7). Among official reserve managers, however, the role of the RMB may have begun to increase. The European Central Bank converted the equivalent of €500 million of its foreign reserves into RMBs in the first half of 2017. Since March 2017, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has begun to include holdings of RMB in its currency composition of official foreign exchange reserves (COFER). The IMF identified US$88.5 billion of RMB-denominated official foreign reserve assets held by reserve managers in the first quarter of 2017, about 1% of total allocated reserve holdings (Table 1). From a big-picture perspective, the internationalization of the RMB will continue, even though the process will be hesitant and halting, with temporary setbacks. China is the largest trade partner of a growing number of countries with tightly-linked supply chains. This generates natural demand for RMB settlement in bilateral trade. In fact, the correlation between the RMB and the currencies of some of China's Asian neighbors has increased significantly in recent years, which is effectively creating a "RMB currency bloc" (Chart 8). Meanwhile, the Chinese government's ongoing "one-belt one-road" initiative involves financing for infrastructure in some less-developed countries, which will further boost demand for the RMB in these regions. All of this will inevitably broaden the reach of the RMB beyond China's borders. Table 1Composition Of Global Reserve Assets Chart 8The RMB Currency Bloc Nonetheless, it is impossible for the RMB to challenge the role of the dollar as the world's dominant reserve currency in the foreseeable future. The dollar's dominant status is not only supported by America's strong and open economy, but also by its deep, liquid and highly efficient financial markets, which are simply impossible for China to replicate anytime soon. The dramatic volatility in China's financial markets, regulators' shaky handling of the stock market boom-bust and the RMB's volatility in recent years are all indicative of a primitive financial infrastructure. China's legal and administrative frameworks will likely take even longer to converge to western standards. In short, the role of the RMB as an international currency will likely remain marginal for a long time. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: What Could Go Wrong?" dated August 3, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Copper's impressive rally leaves prices out in front of fundamentals. We are expecting a correction going forward, given our view that reduced mine output results from transitory disruptions, and China's growth appears to be stalling: industrial output, investment, retail sales, and trade all grew less than expected last month. Energy: Overweight. Crude oil prices remain fairly well supported this week on signs U.S. production growth may not be as strong as expected, and continued production discipline by OPEC 2.0 keeps global inventories from building too rapidly. We remain long Brent and WTI $50/bbl vs. $55/bbl call spreads in Dec/17, which are up 99.1% and 18.9%, respectively. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper prices appear to be getting out ahead of fundamentals, particularly as regards Chinese demand, which could stall on the back of slower economic growth. Precious Metals: Neutral. In line with our House view, we expect the Fed to remain dovish on the inflation front, which, over time, will mean the central bank finds itself behind the curve on inflation. This means real rates remain relatively low for the foreseeable future, which will be supportive of gold. Ags/Softs: Underweight. We remain bearish, although we are not aggressively shorting any of the ags. Feature Chart of the WeekCopper 2017H1: Exceptional Performance Copper futures traded on COMEX rallied by almost 10% from the beginning of May, when spot was trading just under $2.50/lb, until late July, then shot up by an additional 9% on news of a potential ban on scrap imports by China; 4% of that increase was recorded on July 25 alone (Chart of the Week). Spot copper settled at $2.9865/lb Tuesday. Part of this rally can be put down to a renewed focus on China's environmental policies, which we expect to continue following the 19th National Congress of China's Communist Party later this year, and the better-than-expected performance of the Chinese economy in 2017H1. This occurred as supply side disruptions at some of the world's largest copper mines caused markets to discount possible near-term shortages, along with rumors of an import ban on so-called Category 7 scrap metals. These stories supercharged the copper market. Supply/Demand Imbalances Are Transitory While labor-related disruptions at major copper mines led to a production cutback in 2017H1, supply has, for the most part, recovered. Furthermore, these are one-off events that we do not foresee persisting or having a lasting impact on markets.1 Production of copper ores and concentrates fell a negligible 0.1% year-on-year (yoy) in H1, following a 6.7% yoy increase in global output in 2016. Year-to-date (ytd) production growth lies significantly below the 5.63% average for the same period 2013-2016 (Chart 2). Similarly, in a marked slowdown from the four-year average growth of ~ 4% yoy in refined copper production, output remained largely unchanged in the first 4 months of 2017 compared to last year. However, there is evidence of relief in May and June, which registered a 6.08% yoy increase in output. The slowdown in production is mainly driven by supply-side shocks at some of the world's largest mines in Chile, Peru, and Indonesia. Contract Renegotiations and Weather Disruptions in Chile: The respective 1% and 6.6% yoy fall in global ores and concentrates output in February and March can be attributed to a corresponding year-on-year 17% and 23% declines in production from Chile - the world's leading copper producer. At BHP Billiton's Escondida mine, the world's largest, 2,500 workers staged a 43-day strike over contract renegotiations, which ended without resolution in late March. Although the end of the strike has brought relief to copper output, talks will resume in 18 months, raising the possibility of another strike - and an accompanying production cut - in a year's time. However, President Marcelo Castillo has somewhat calmed these worries, expressing his intent to revise the mine's operating model so that it will be minimally impacted by such disputes in the future. The decline in Chilean output was compounded by heavy snow and rain in May, which forced the Caserones mine to halt production for three weeks. This was reflected in a ~ 1.7% yoy decline in national output in May. Caserones has since resumed production and is now reported to have reached 90% of capacity. Nationwide Strikes in Peru Not Expected to Show up in July Data: Labor reforms proposed at the end of July led to a three-day walk-out by unionized workers across Peru. The strike impacted operations at major deposits including Antamina, Cerro Verde, Cuajone among others. However, according to the National Society of Mining, Petroleum and Energy, absenteeism was insignificant and the impact on copper output was limited. This followed a five-day strike at Cerro Verde - Peru's second largest mine - in March due to dissatisfaction with labor conditions. Peru ramped up output by almost 25% in 2015, surpassing China as the second largest producer of copper, and accounted for 11.4% of global output in 2016. Dispute Over Export Rights and Worker Dissatisfaction at Grasberg: In an effort to promote its domestic smelting industry, Indonesian authorities imposed a temporary ban on exports of copper concentrates in January. However, in April, Freeport McMoRan was granted an eight-month license to resume exports from its Grasberg mine - the second largest in the world. Furthermore, CEO Richard Adkerson expressed confidence that Freeport will succeed in securing an agreement by October, allowing it to implement a major multi-billion-dollar underground mine development plan. Labor unrest remains a problem for the company, nonetheless. Angered by redundancies and enforced furloughs, a strike by 5,000 workers was extended for a fourth month, until the end of August. Output data until May shows production remained largely unchanged compared to last year and follows a 3.82% yoy increase in Q1. Indonesian output accounted for 3% of global copper production in 2016. This will have to be resolved for the company's development plans to proceed unchallenged. Despite these supply-side shocks and ensuing Q2 inventory draw, copper remains well stocked at the major warehouses (Chart 3). Furthermore, COMEX inventories are at their highest level since 2004. As long as the global market remains well stocked, we expect it will be capable of withstanding volatility induced by labor markets and government policy with minimal impacts on prices. Chart 2Supply Disruptions Subsiding,##BR##Copper Market Back In Balance Chart 3Copper Inventories##BR##Can Withstand Volatility Scrap Imports Kick In Amidst Elevated Prices Chart 4China Copper Demand Weakening A dip in Chinese demand was also partly to blame for the minimal impact of the production cutbacks on inventories. Chinese consumption single-handedly makes up ~ 50% of global copper demand. The 1.46% yoy decline in global refined copper consumption during 2017H1 is, in large part, due to a 4.57% yoy drop in Chinese consumption (Chart 4). In fact, consumption during February and April fell 10% and 11%, respectively. Weak demand is also evident in China's import of copper ores and concentrates data. Although imports grew by 2.72% yoy in 2017H1, this is a marked slowdown from the 33.66% growth rate witnessed during the same period last year, and the average H1 growth of 22.6% since 2012. Similarly, China's imports of refined copper, copper alloy, and products fell 18.32% yoy in 2017H1 before increasing by 8.33% yoy last month. However, it appears that scrap copper may have helped fill the void - China's imports of copper scraps and wastes increased by 18.56% in the first half of this year compared to the same period last year. This marks a turning point in the trend, as copper scrap imports have been on the decline since 2013, and is likely a direct result of speculation over the impact of China's environmental policies on base metals. China's Scrap Import Ban: Overplayed Last week, China confirmed intentions to ban some forms of scrap copper imports beginning as early as the end of the year. This is part of measures taken to support sustainable growth and environmental protection. While rumors swirled in late July suggesting "Category 7" (i.e. old) scrap copper would be included in the import ban, the list of banned waste imports released last week by the Ministry of Environmental protection did not include copper. However, copper scrap from automobiles, ships and electronic devices were included in a "limited import" category, with no further details of the import constraints to be imposed on these products. Scrap impacts the copper market in two main ways: It provides smelter-refineries an alternative input, in addition to ores and concentrates, thus enhancing total refined copper supply. The International Copper Study Group (ICSG) estimates global production of refined copper increased by 2% in January due to increased production from scrap, which rose by 13% yoy. It acts as a substitute for refined copper, providing first-stage manufacturers a lower-cost alternative input. This means that when prices are up, as they have been since late 2016, the impact on refined copper production is somewhat muted because scrap usage kicks in (Chart 5). Furthermore, because of this response, the effect of supply-side shocks on refined copper output are - to some extent - restrained. Chart 5Scrap Imports Kick In When Prices Are Up This explains why the market has been in somewhat of a frenzy since late July after hearing that the Chinese authorities will likely implement an import ban on some types of scrap copper, which caused copper prices to jump to levels last seen in 2015Q2. Copper futures traded on COMEX have rallied by 10% from the beginning of May to late July, then shot up an additional 9% on rumors of an import ban; 4% of that increase was recorded on July 25 alone. Markets are clearly buying into the news, and are optimistic the ban will hike demand for other forms of copper. However, we believe this optimism is unfounded, and that the impact on copper markets is overplayed. Although the ICSG estimates that ~ 30% of annual copper usage comes from 'secondary' or recycled sources, a much smaller ratio originates from 'old' scrap copper. This type of scrap is derived from end-of-life electronics, households, cars, and industrial products. While data on old-scrap copper supply is not readily available, researchers at Antaike estimated that out of the 3.35mm MT of scrap copper imports in 2016, old-scrap copper imports made up ~ 0.3mm MT of copper-equivalent. This accounts for a very small fraction of China's 17.05mm MT of imports of copper ores and concentrates and 4.94mm MT imports of refined copper last year. Thus, even if a ban on all old-scrap copper were to materialize, we do not believe it will create a supply deficit, or even threaten one. In addition, there has been speculation that a ban would reroute old scrap metal to other countries for dismantling and processing before being imported by China, diminishing its impact on the copper market. Given that the market's reaction to news of the ban has been favorable, we expect to see a correction as the market responds to information that the ban is less bullish than expected. Chinese Demand Will Ease As Tailwinds Die Down In 2017H1, China surprised with better-than-expected economic performance, which supported copper prices. China's infrastructure and equipment industries are especially important to the copper market, consuming, respectively, 43% and 19% of the red metal domestically. However, as our colleagues on BCA Research's China desk foresaw, recent data gives some early-warning signs of a slowdown in growth.2 Industrial output, investment and retail sales figures came in below expectations amid a cooling property market. Furthermore, restrictions on riskier types of lending will continue slowing credit growth going forward. The property market - residential and commercial construction - accounts for ~ one-third of copper consumption. After reaching three-year highs late last year, the official manufacturing PMI and the Keqiang index - both used as key measures of the state of China's economy - show evidence that the economy is stabilizing (Chart 6). In fact, the Keqiang index has come down significantly from its peak earlier this year. In particular, signs of cooling in China's property sector are playing into the possibility of weaker industrial metals generally. Steel-making commodities and base metals have been in high demand ever since China relaxed housing policies, reviving the property market. However, in an effort to cool this market, Chinese authorities announced measures to raise down payments and control speculative buying in 20 cities last September. These measures are beginning to show up in property-market construction and sales data (Chart 7). Chart 6Early Warning Signs Of China Slowdown Chart 7China Property Sector: Cooling New floor space started contracted by almost 5% yoy in July, potentially signaling early warning signs of what could come ahead. It marks a reversal of a 10.55% expansion in 2017H1. New floor space completed declined in July, registering a 13.54% fall yoy. This follows 5% growth in 2017H1 - a marked slowdown from the 20.05% pace of growth in 2016H1. Furthermore, floor space under construction has been steadily easing, growing just 3.17% yoy in July. In terms of floor space sold, July's yoy growth of 2% follows a 21.37% yoy growth rate in June, and marks a pronounced slowdown from the 15.82% average yoy growth rate in 2017H1. Chart 8China's Economic Structure##BR##Deviates From Trend While near term growth does not appear to be threatened, earlier this month the IMF warned against China's "reliance on stimulus to meet targets," and a "credit expansion path that may be dangerous," which could cause a medium-term adjustment. When this eventually weighs down on industrial activity - as we expect - it will reverberate throughout the economy, discouraging investment projects, and eventually taking its toll on commodities generally, base metals in particular. Even so, in a small change of pace, China's share of secondary sector (i.e. manufacturing) as a percent of GDP crept up in July (Chart 8). This is a deviation from the trend in the evolving structure of China's economy, where the tertiary sector (services) has been making up an increasing share of GDP. While it is still too early to determine whether this is the beginning of a change in trend, or a one-off case, this development is positive for metals short term, since manufacturing activity is industrial-metal intensive. Bottom Line: We expect a correction in copper prices near term, as markets adjust to revelations that the market impact of China's environmental policies is less than expected. Our longer-term outlook is neutral: The synchronized economic upturn in global demand will partially offset waning economic activity in China, as tailwinds from accelerating export growth and easing monetary conditions die down. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 We discuss some of these developments during 2017Q1 in BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Copper's Price Supports Are Fading," published by March 23, 2017. It is available at ces.bacresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "China Outlook: A Mid-Year Revisit", dated July 13, 2017, It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights Social unrest and populism are on a secular rise in the U.S.; However, the "Breitbart clique" has suffered a critical defeat in the current Administration; This will make headway for upcoming tax legislation and resolution of the debt ceiling imbroglio; We continue to stress that domestic politics will not hurt U.S. equities, but more downside to USD may exist this year; India-China military tensions are not strategic or market relevant, yet. Feature "Most Americans do not find themselves actually alienated from their fellow Americans or truly fearful if the other party wins power. Unlike in Bosnia, Northern Ireland or Rwanda, competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over." - Newt Gingrich, January 2, 2001 This is the second time we have begun a report with this classic Gingrich quote from 2001, which now seems to come from a different era. On November 9, 2016 we used it to open our election post-mortem in which we argued that American party identifications were ossifying into tribal markers that could cause run-of-the-mill polarization to mutate into something scarier.1 Chart 1 shows that party identification (Republicans vs. Democrats) is now responsible for the greatest difference in attitudes towards 48 values, something historically determined by race and education. Over the long term, these trends are concerning and may spur further social unrest in the U.S. As we wrote in June, the gulf between America's patricians and plebeians has never been as wide as it is now. It is being complemented by a gulf in ideology and worldview.2 Part of the problem is that migration from the traditionally liberal-leaning coastal America as well as the Great Lakes region have significantly altered the demographic makeup of the American South (Chart 2). The combination of pro-business regulation, low taxes, sunshine, affordable real estate, southern charm, and excellent higher-education institutions has been difficult to resist.3 Thus, an influx of young and educated migrants has altered the political makeup of many traditionally conservative states. There are many cities - much like Charlottesville, Virginia - where these recent migrants will come into conflict with the values and traditions of the south. Chart 1Rise Of A Tribal America Chart 2Internal Migration Is A Risk... Given America's history of internal population movements, these patterns of migration should not be a problem. However, today's polarization is extreme (Chart 3), and it is deepening thanks to radically different information and media streams made available by cable television and especially the Internet (Chart 4). Chart 3... In A Polarized Context... Chart 4... Where 'Fake News' Proliferates What does all of this mean for investors? America is geopolitically very well endowed. It has benign neighbors, strong demographics, and almost all the natural resources it needs. However, hegemons are not born out of plenty, but rather out of need and want. The U.K. built a global empire largely because its rain-drenched island lacked basic materials for superpower status. Spain and Portugal discovered new worlds because stronger empires barred lucrative trading routes. Geography does not preordain hegemony. Strong domestic institutions, luck, and guts and glory do. The USD remains weak despite the fact that the Fed was the first major central bank to start hiking this cycle and despite strong economic data out of the U.S. relative to the rest of the world (Chart 5). Perhaps investors have caught the whiff of something rotten in the American Empire? If so, we may be seeing the beginning of a major USD bear market. Chart 5USD Should Be Outperforming In The Current Global Macro Context BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy sees the current DXY weakness as temporary. We agree, given that the current trajectory of BCA's ECB months-to-hike measure is discounting way too much hawkishness (Chart 6). The dollar index will likely rally in 2018 as inflation data improves and risks in Europe (Italian election) and Asia (Chinese structural reforms) deepen. Chart 6The ECB Hawkishness Is Overstated The scope and pace of the 2018 USD rally, however, will depend on whether investors have confidence in America's economy and institutions. If the Republican tax reform agenda stalls later this year, and if social unrest continues, sovereign and long-term investors may begin to think about diversifying away from the dollar. The "Trump Put" Continues We do not expect domestic politics to play a role in an equity correction. At least not yet. First, investors seem to be completely discounting any possibility of tax reform judging by the performance of the high tax-rate basket (Chart 7). This is likely a mistake. Tax reform is a major component of both Trump's and congressional Republicans' agenda. If it fails, Republicans will have to go to their home districts empty-handed to campaign for the November 2018 midterm elections. Second, the market fell 1.58% after President Trump's combative press conference on August 15. The move was not a reprimand for Trump's rhetoric, but concern that Gary Cohn, the scion of the "Goldman clique" and likely the next Fed Chair, would resign over the comments.4 These concerns have now been allayed by the firing of Stephen Bannon, the White House Chief Strategist and leader of the "Breitbart clique." Bannon's departure puts Cohn, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross firmly in charge of economic policy. Meanwhile, three generals are now in charge of foreign and national policy: Defense Secretary James Mattis, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and Chief of Staff John F. Kelly. Between the six of them, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, there is not a drop of populism left in the White House. Chart 7What Tax Reform? Although nationalists and populists may be on the retreat, it is still not clear what form tax legislation will take. The only thing that has certainly changed since earlier this year is that the border adjustment tax is officially dead, which would have raised ~$1 trillion in revenue over ten years.5 This requires the GOP either to moderate its tax cuts by the same amount, or to add more to the deficit, which, according to legislative rules, would make the cuts temporary. It is likely at this point that whatever bill the GOP passes, it will expire after a "budget window" of around ten years. The divergence between the White House and Congress remains the same: the White House wants gigantic tax cuts, while Congress wants tax reform, i.e. to broaden the tax base and reduce inefficiencies and distortions. The White House would blow out the budget deficit by more than would the House GOP. There are two key questions that investors want to know from the upcoming tax legislation. First, how significant will the fiscal thrust be? This will determine the impact to the economy and hence will affect the Federal Reserve's response. The GOP Plan: Both the White House and the House GOP claim that they will reduce the budget deficit over the next ten years despite cutting taxes. They project an average budget deficit of 1.3%-1.4% from 2018-2027, down from a 3%-4% baseline. This projection is rationalized via expectations of faster economic growth as well as "dynamic scoring" to capture the macroeconomic feedback of the tax cuts. The White House and GOP claim that economic feedback will reduce the deficit by $1.5-$2 trillion over the ten-year budget window, which is 26%-37% of the total deficit reduction they are proposing (i.e., likely very optimistic).6 The Tax Policy Center Response: Outside analysis of the budget plan argues the opposite. The Tax Policy Center argues that the White House plan, insofar as the details are known, would add a minimum of $3.4 trillion to the deficit over the next ten years, and that the macroeconomic feedback could even be negative (i.e., add to the deficits). The deficit would rise from 3.2% of GDP to 6.4% by 2026, if we factor in the Congressional Budget Office assumptions that a 4% real growth rate leads to a GDP of $26.9 trillion in 2026.7 The GOP Retort: Republicans claim they will reduce the deficit by means of proposed "revenue offsets," or savings measures, over the ten-year period. The Tax Policy Center highlights the following in particular: $1.6 trillion from repealing personal exemptions; $1.5 trillion from abolishing all itemized deductions (other than the politically sensitive mortgage interest deduction and charity deduction); $622 billion from treating some income from pass-through businesses as dividends; $272 billion from repealing corporate tax breaks; $208 billion from repealing the "head of household" status for tax filers; $49 billion from taxing capital gains upon death (above the $5 million threshold). The total is $4.3 trillion in savings, against $7.8 trillion of losses, for a total deficit that is increased by $3.4 trillion over the ten years. This would amount to around $340 billion of "stimulus" each year, with the biggest thrust felt in 2018-19. We very much doubt that the White House will achieve this slate of proposals. It has not shown an inkling of the ability to coordinate such a difficult legislative feat. Therefore, we expect the tax legislation to be watered down. The budget deficit may rise to something closer to 6%, over the next ten years, than to the gigantic 12% of GDP implied by Trump's proposals on the campaign trail (Chart 8). Chart 8Question Of The Year: Will Tax Reform Be Stimulative? The second question asked by investors is about the impact of tax legislation on assets. It is clearly positive for inflation and growth given that even tepid tax cuts will provide economic stimulus when unemployment is already very low. Our colleagues at BCA already believe, without a tax bill, that inflation is likely to surprise to the upside in 2018-19.8 Fiscal stimulus via tax cuts would obviously add to that. The equity market will cheer any promising developments on tax cuts or reform, especially given that so little is currently priced in. However, whether the USD rallies as it did on hopes of tax legislation earlier this year will largely depend on how the Fed reacts to the legislation. There is a lot of uncertainty, particularly if President Trump decides to go with Gary Cohn as the next Fed chair. Bottom Line: Congressional Republicans cannot gamble with tax legislation. The failure to cut taxes, or reform the tax code, would be a major policy misstep ahead of the midterm elections. If legislation passes, we expect that Congress will have had greater control over the plan than the White House, reducing the eventual magnitude of the tax cut and the fiscal stimulus. Congress controls the purse strings and will reassert that authority in the context of an ineffective executive. Should You Care About The Debt Ceiling? Clients are beginning to fret about the upcoming debt ceiling fight. There is good reason to be nervous. The Republican-held Congress has failed to pass legislation, notably on this year's priority item, Obamacare. The last thing Republicans want is to shut down the government or cause a technical default entirely of their own doing! Clients should note that while government shutdowns have occurred in the past, the debt ceiling has never been breached. This is because the debt ceiling is an anachronism. In other countries, when a budget is passed it automatically contains the implicit authority to issue whatever debt is required to finance the resulting deficit.9 To require separate legislation for a budget and an authorized level of debt is a product of politics and has little bearing on the actual financing needs of the U.S. government. At the end of the day, the debt ceiling will almost inevitably be raised in the U.S. because no government could stand the popular pressure that would result from social security checks not being mailed out to seniors (who vote!) or a halt to other entitlement programs. Only a disastrous chain of events resulting from polarization and brinkmanship, even worse than in the Obama years, would lead to such an outcome. Today, given that Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House, there is no way for the Republicans to share the blame with the Democrats, as they did under Obama. Investors are therefore mistaking the game-theoretical paradigm: It is not a "game of chicken," but rather a cooperative game given that Republicans in Congress are largely on the same side. Members of the GOP are starting to "get it," including the fiscally conservative House Freedom Caucus. David Schweikert, influential member of the Freedom Caucus who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, said last week that he is in favor of a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling. Mark Meadows, North Carolina representative who chairs the group, has also said that he is "bullish" on raising the debt limit, although he added that he preferred to attach some reforms to the bill. On August 2, he said "Either that will get done [some spending cuts attached to the debt ceiling bill] or a clean debt ceiling will get done. We will raise the debt ceiling and there shouldn't be any fear of that." Other members of the Caucus, including its founder Jim Jordan of Ohio, have retorted that no debt limit hike without spending cuts should be contemplated, prompting the media to focus on the brinkmanship. But we note that the Freedom Caucus, the most fiscally conservative grouping in the House, is itself considerably divided on the issue. This augurs well for a clean bill since the Republican majority in the House is 22 and the Freedom Caucus has 31 members. If Schweikert and Meadows are indicative of how the group will vote, the fiscal conservatives may not have enough votes to deprive the GOP of a majority. (The latter would force GOP moderates to go to the Democrats for votes, complicating the negotiations and increasing the risk of mistakes.) What about the Democrats in the Senate? To pass a clean bill on the debt ceiling, Republicans would need at least eight Democrat Senators to get to 60 votes, and probably more given that Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) would likely vote against a clean bill. We doubt that Democrats would remain united in voting against a clean bill. It would allow President Trump and Republicans in Congress to accuse them of hypocrisy and holding U.S. credit hostage, much as Democrats did to Republicans between 2011-2016. As such, the market's fear that Democrats could play the spoiler is a red herring. While some grassroots activists in the Democratic Party are sure to want a confrontation, its median voters tend to be educated and well-informed. The worst-case scenario for the market would be a two-week shutdown, between October 1, when the current funding for the government expires, and sometime in mid-October when the debt ceiling is hit, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Odds of such a scenario are probably around 25%. But the contingent probability of a debt ceiling failure following a government shutdown would be reduced, not increased, given that it would focus public attention on Republican incompetence. In other words, if a shutdown occurs on October 1, we would expect the odds of a debt ceiling crisis to be reduced. Finally, our assessment that the "Goldman Sachs clique" has reasserted control over White House economic policy should also be positive for the likelihood of a clean debt ceiling bill. While we have no evidence that Stephen Bannon was in favor of using the debt ceiling for fiscal cuts (given his opposition to government spending cuts in toto), he did say following his resignation that Trump would be "moderated" by remaining White House staffers. He went on to say "I think he'll sign a clean debt ceiling; I think you'll see all this stuff." The only remaining holdover in the White House on the debt ceiling issue is the Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney. Mulvaney has suggested earlier in the year that Republicans should try to tie spending restraint to a debt ceiling bill. However, at a meeting between President Trump and GOP leaders in early June, President Trump said that congressional leaders should take Steven Mnuchin's position as the White House position. "Mnuching is that guy," Trump told party leaders at the meeting, according to GOP sources who spoke to Politico in the summer. Mulvaney's office has also confirmed that the Treasury Department "has point on the debt ceiling," i.e., that Mnuchin is in charge. Bottom Line: Concern over the debt ceiling is natural, given the failure of Republican-held Congress to pass any legislation of note this year. However, it is also overstated. The U.S. government would default on its obligations to its voters, first and foremost. Such a scenario - given Republican control of all branches of government - would put the final nail in the coffin of the Republican-held Congress ahead of the midterm elections. Fade any fear of a U.S. default. Will India And China Fight A War? Clients, particularly in China, have shown considerable concern about geopolitical conflict between China and India. Since early June, a border dispute between China and India has flared up in the Doklam region. Doklam, or rather the India-China-Bhutan border region, is one of three main border disputes in the Himalayas that flare-up from time to time - along with Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh. The 1962 border war between the two Asian behemoths over the latter two areas marked the biggest flare in recent memory. Today, India is fearful of China's growing military and logistical capabilities and concerned about the long-term security of the Siliguri Corridor, the narrow stretch of land connecting the subcontinent to the Northeast (Map 1). Control of the Doklam Plateau and Chumbi Valley would give China access to Siliguri; they are therefore important areas to monitor.10 India is also threatened by China's improving bilateral relations with neighbors like Pakistan,Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and potentially Bhutan. The latter does not have formal relations with China, has always been under India's sphere of influence, and is at the center of the current dispute. And ultimately, India fears that China seeks to create an economic corridor through Bangladesh to the Indian Ocean, which would, in combination with the Pakistan corridor, surround India. Map 1Too Close For Comfort: Tensions Threaten India's Control Over Vital Siliguri Corridor The current dispute ostensibly began - as many do - with contested infrastructure construction. India built some bunkers at a forward outpost in Lalten in 2012; China allegedly bulldozed them on June 6-8 of this year. The same month, Indian troops confronted Chinese troops building a road along the border with Bhutan that would have connected an existing road to a People's Liberation Army outpost and to the border crossing of Doka La. While the territorial dispute is old, China is expanding its pressure tactics on Bhutan, while India has sent troops into disputed Sino-Bhutanese territory in a more assertive defense of Bhutan. Broadly, China is making inroads with infrastructure as it develops its far-flung western regions and seeks to improve connectivity with neighbors via the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative. China is capital-rich and can afford to improve its access to regions of strategic value that yield access to key Indian territories or supply water and hydropower to India. India is capital-poor and downstream, so its ability to respond is often limited to military gestures. India also wants to retain its dominance over Bhutanese foreign policy, in place since 1949 and especially 1960, and this dispute is marked by India taking an active military role on Bhutanese territory on Bhutan's behalf. There are several reasons we do not expect this conflict to be market-relevant. First, the Himalayas are isolated and poor, so that China or India would have to make a very dramatic move that poses a genuine strategic threat (e.g., to the Siliguri Corridor, or Chinese control of Tibet, or Indian relations with Pakistan, or Indian water sources) to trigger a larger conflict. Second, while it is true that nationalism is flaring up on both sides, China has a clear interest in pursuing some "rallying around the flag" strategy amid the standoff over North Korea, and ahead of the Communist Party's nineteenth National Party Congress. That it chose to do so in Doklam, where conflict is more easily contained than in the Koreas or the East or South China Seas, suggests that political opportunism and China's desire to make incremental gains, rather than a sweeping Chinese plan to seize strategic territory, is driving the current episode. Meanwhile, India needs to attract capital to build its manufacturing base, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi has reached out to China for this reason. India will undoubtedly defend its strategic interests if attacked, but otherwise it is not eager to clash with China, which has bulked up its military far more than India has done in recent decades. Chart 9India Would Bolster Containment Of China However, we do see India-China relations as fitting into the larger, negative geopolitical dynamic where the U.S. and its allies encourage India as a balance to China, while China suspects the U.S. alliance of using India and others to encircle and entrap China (Chart 9). Not that the U.S. stirred up the current dispute, but that the U.S. (and Japan) will generally seek to improve relations with India and to strengthen its military and economy, and China will use its regional influence to try to keep India off balance.11 This structural dynamic, in addition to China's territorial assertiveness, is likely to keep generating frictions. Bottom Line: A conflict between India and China is only market-relevant if it extends beyond disputed territories in the Himalayas to affect core strategic interests like the Siliguri Corridor, Tibetan stability, the Indo-Pakistani balance of power, or water supply and hydropower. It could also become market-relevant by worsening U.S.-China relations - and delaying Chinese economic reforms - if China should come to feel embattled on all geopolitical fronts. For instance, should an adventurous, "lame duck" Donald Trump attempt to combine with India and other neighbors in ways that threaten to cause problems in China's western regions as well as in its East Asian periphery. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Hook 'em Horns! 4 We recently argued that the White House is torn between two groups, the "Goldman" and the "Breitbart" cliques. The Goldman clique is led by Gary Cohn, Director of the National Economic Council and is pragmatic, un-ideological, and focused on passing tax reform and pro-business regulation. The Breitbart clique is populist, nationalist, and leans to the left on economic matters. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax?" dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Congressional Budget Office, "An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2017 to 2027," June 2017, available at www.cbo.gov and U.S. Office of Management and Budget, "Budget of the U.S. Government: A New Foundation For American Greatness, Fiscal Year 2018," available at www.whitehouse.gov. 7 Please see the Tax Policy Center, "The Implications Of What We Know And Don't Know About President Trump's Tax Plan," July 12, 2017, and Benjamin R. Page, "Dynamic Analysis of the House GOP Tax Plan: An Update," June 30, 2017, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. Using White House growth assumptions of 4.7% would lead to a deficit of 5.7% in 2026. 8 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "On Hold, But Not For Long," dated August 8, 2017, and U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers," dated May 23, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 9 Denmark also has a debt ceiling, but it has set it so high that it does not need to be addressed. 10 Please see Sudha Ramachandran, "Bhutan's Relations With China And India," Jamestown Foundation, China Brief (17:6), April 20, 2017, available at Jamestown.org. 11 In fact, Japan already waded into the India-China dispute. The Japanese ambassador to India issued a statement critical of China, which the Chinese Foreign Ministry immediately rebuked.

Highlights Beware of asset managers' and leveraged funds' large net long positions in EM currencies. Overextended net long positions in EM and commodities currencies signify overbought conditions in EM risk assets in general. This in tandem with the poor outlook for EM/China growth makes the risk-reward of EM financial markets unattractive. Downgrade Korean equities from overweight to neutral, but continue to overweight Korean technology stocks relative to the EM benchmark. Also, maintain the short KRW / long THB trade. Take profits on the long Indian / short Indonesian stocks position. Consistently, downgrade Indian stocks to neutral and upgrade Indonesian bourses to neutral within an EM equity portfolio. Feature Investor positioning in EM currencies is elevated. From a contrarian perspective, this at minimum warrants a correction. Chart I-1 illustrates that asset managers' and leveraged funds' combined net long positions in the Mexican peso, the Brazilian real, the Russian ruble and South African rand are very elevated.1 This aggregate is weighted by notional value of outstanding open interest of each currency, and is shown as a percentage of open interest. Importantly, we have refined positioning data to separate asset managers and leveraged funds from other non-commercial and commercial institutions. Asset managers and leveraged funds reflect investment community sentiment the best. Besides, they are the most inclined to scale back their net long positions if and when these currencies begin to depreciate, i.e., they are more momentum driven. By doing so, they will reinforce the selloff. Currently bullish sentiment on EM and commodities is corroborated by the fact that asset managers' and leveraged funds' aggregate net long positions in non-EM commodities currencies such as the CAD, the AUD and the NZD are at the highest level since 2011 (Chart I-2). Typically, these currencies are at risk of a correction when positioning reaches such excessive levels. Chart I-1Asset Manager's And Leveraged Funds' Net Long Positions In EM Currencies Are Large Chart I-2Asset Manager's And Leveraged Funds' Net ##br##Long Positions In Commodities Currencies Chart I-3A and Chart I-3B show the same for individual currencies such as the MXN, the BRL, the RUB, the ZAR, the CAD, the AUD and the NZD. The overarching message is that investors' net long exposure to both EM and commodities currencies is large and depreciation risk for these exchange rates is substantial, at least in the near term. Chart I-3AAsset Managers And Leveraged Funds' Net ##br##Long Positions In Select Currencies Chart I-3BAsset Managers And Leveraged Funds' Net ##br##Long Positions In Select Currencies Yet, these positioning data do not reveal whether potential weakness will be a bull market correction or the beginning of bear market. Our bias remains that the potential selloff will evolve into a new phase of the bear market in EM currencies that began in 2011. In turn, as EM currencies depreciate, they will erode foreign investors' returns and trigger a selloff in other EM risk assets such as stocks, domestic bonds and credit markets. In short, investor sentiment on EM risk assets correlates with sentiment toward both EM and commodities currencies. Hence, bullish sentiment and overextended net long positions in EM and commodities currencies signify overbought conditions in EM risk assets in general. The Cyclical Outlook Chart I-4EM Currency Valuations Are Close To Neutral We are negative on the cyclical outlook for EM currencies for the following reasons: With a few minor exceptions, EM currencies are not cheap; their valuations are close to neutral Chart I-4 demonstrates the real effective exchange rate for aggregate EM excluding China, Korea and Taiwan. This is an equity market cap-weighted aggregate. It shows that EM exchange rate valuations are not depressed. The reason why we remove China, Korea and Taiwan from the calculation is because their respective bourses have large equity market-cap weights in the MSCI EM stock index, and thereby dominate the EM aggregate. Excluding these three markets, we get a less skewed perspective on EM currency valuations and assign higher weight to the high-yielding ones. Importantly, the best measure of currency valuation is, in our opinion, the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs (ULC). The rationale is that this measure captures changes in wages and productivity. The latter two are critical to competitiveness and, hence, reveal the true valuation of currencies. Unfortunately, there is no available ULC-based real effective exchange rate data for all individual EM currencies. Chart I-5A and Chart I-5B presents the measure for countries where data from reputable sources are available. By and large, the message is that, with the exception of the Mexican peso, EM currencies are not particularly cheap. Chart I-5AReal Effective Exchange Rates ##br##Based On Unit Labor Costs Chart I-5BReal Effective Exchange Rates ##br##Based On Unit Labor Costs The outlook for EM exchange rates has historically been contingent on growth and corporate profitability in developing economies. That said, EM exchange rate fluctuations have in recent years become dependent on U.S. real interest rates as the importance of portfolio fixed-income flows into EM has dramatically surged. Both drivers - EM growth and U.S. real yields - are likely to become headwinds for EM exchange rates going forward. EM growth will relapse anew as Chinese growth slows and EM shipments to China decline. Our new money impulse for China2 has historically been a good leading indicator for EM exchange rates, and it points to potentially considerable EM currency depreciation in the next six to nine months (Chart I-6). Meanwhile, U.S. interest rate expectations are very depressed. It will take only slightly stronger U.S. growth and inflation readings or some non-dovish guidance from the Federal Reserve for U.S. interest rate expectations to move higher. The latter will support the U.S. dollar and hurt EM currencies. Although industrial metals prices have recently spiked to new cyclical highs, we believe commodities prices - both for energy and industrial materials - will be lower in the medium term. Global oil stocks are breaking to new cyclical lows, heralding weakness in crude prices (Chart I-7). The fact that oil has failed to post gains amid a notable rally in the euro could be a sign of fundamental vulnerability. Chart I-6China's Money Impulse And EM Currencies Chart I-7Oil Prices Are Vulnerable As for industrial metals prices, our analysis has not changed: the considerable slowdown in China's broad money heralds a major top in industrial metals prices, as per Chart I-8. The mainland accounts for 50% of global industrial metals consumption, and its capex cycle is of critical importance. What explains the latest spike in base metals prices? Chart I-9 reveals that since early this year, iron ore prices have been negatively correlated with Chinese money market rates (interest rates are shown inverted and are advanced by 30 days Chart I-9). This year's correction and subsequent rebound in iron ore prices might be attributed to changes in mainland traders' positioning due to swings in domestic interest rates. Chart I-8China-Plays Are At Risk Chart I-9Chinese Interest Rates And Iron Ore Prices Going forward, either China's growth will decelerate sufficiently enough to weigh on industrial metals prices, or the authorities will resume policy tightening to rein in financial excesses. All in all, the risk-reward for iron ore and other industrial metals is negative. On the whole, lower energy and industrial metals prices will weigh on EM commodities currencies. As for Asian currencies, they are sensitive to global trade. We expect global trade and tradable goods prices to relapse due to the resumption of a slowdown in China/EM demand. Manufacturing-based Asian currencies will depreciate amid budding weakness in their manufacturing sector (Chart I-10). In addition, Chart I-11 shows global auto sales lead global semiconductor sales by several months. The basis for this correlation is that autos nowadays use a lot of semiconductors, and therefore auto cycles affect semiconductor demand. The boom in semi-cycle has been one of the pillars of Asian exports recovery. As the former moderates, the latter will relapse weighing on Asian non-commodities currencies. Chart I-10Asian Manufacturing ##br##And Exchange Rates Chart I-11Global Auto Sales Lead ##br##Global Semiconductor Sales Bottom Line: Our bet remains that EM currencies will depreciate versus both the U.S. dollar and the euro - and regardless of euro/U.S. dollar exchange rate fluctuations. We recommend a short position in a basket of the following EM currencies: ZAR, TRY, COP, CLP, BRL, IDR, MYR and KRW. For market-neutral portfolios, our currency overweights are MXN, RUB, PLN, CZK, TWD, INR and THB. Korean Equities: Downgrading To Neutral We recommend downgrading Korea to neutral from overweight within EM equity portfolios. North Korea will likely remain a source of uncertainty and volatility. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service does not expect war on the Korean peninsula as long-standing constraints to conflict are still in place, starting with Pyongyang's ability to cause massive civilian casualties north of Seoul via an artillery barrage. As such, the ultimate resolution to the conflict will be a peaceful one. However, getting from here (volatility) to there (negotiated resolution) requires more tensions. The U.S. has to establish a "credible threat" of war in order to move China and North Korea towards a negotiated resolution.3 And that process could take more time, which means more volatility in the markets.4 The overwhelming portion of Korea's equity rally has been driven by a phenomenal surge in one company's share price: Samsung. Excluding technology companies, the performance of MSCI Korea stock prices and their EPS has been mediocre. Samsung's explosive rally has been partially due to the exponential surge in DRAM prices (Chart I-12). On a macro level, we cannot forecast prices of individual semiconductors (such as DRAM). Nevertheless, our assessment is that the global semi cycle is entering a soft patch as per Chart I-11 above. Furthermore, Korea's cyclical growth has already peaked, and will slow going forward (Chart I-13). Broad money growth is still decelerating, entailing that no turnaround is in the cards (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Chart I-12Samsung Share Prices And DRAM Chart I-13Korea: Cyclical Profile Importantly, the new government has enacted a law to boost minimum wages by 16% in January 2018 and would need to increase by a similar rate annually to reach its 2020 target. Even though there are fiscal subsidies for businesses and minimum wages affect smaller businesses much more than larger ones, odds are that this will still boost overall wage growth, and hence weigh on companies' profit margins. Chart I-14Korean Won Is Expensive Versus The Yen Finally, the Korean won is modestly expensive, based on the unit labor costs-based real effective exchange rate (Chart I-14, top panel). The won is especially expensive versus the yen (Chart I-14, bottom panel). This is negative for Korean manufacturers and the currency. Investment Recommendations Downgrade Korean stocks from overweight to neutral, but continue to overweight Korean technology stocks relative to the EM benchmark. Close long Korea / short EM equities and long Korean banks / short Indonesian banks positions. These positions have produced small gains since their initiation (details on all our open positions are available at the end of each week's report on page 17). Maintain a short KOSPI / long Nikkei in common currency terms trade: Either the won will depreciate substantially versus the yen or the KOSPI will underperform the Nikkei in local currency terms. In both cases, this trade will be profitable. Continue to bet on lower bond yields in Korea via receiving 10-year swap rates. Deflationary pressures from weaker exports - that make up 35% of GDP - will weigh on economic growth, and the central bank will be forced to cut rates. Maintain a short Korean won / long Thai baht position. The won is a high-beta currency and will underperform the Thai baht in a selloff / Asian exports slowdown. The Thai currency will likely trade in a low beta fashion due to the country's large current account surplus and low exposure to both China and commodities. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Take Profits On Long Indian / Short Indonesian Equities Position This recommendation has generated 8.4% gain since its initiation on July 30, 2014, and we recommend booking profits. Indian share prices have outperformed their Indonesian peers over the past year (Chart II-1) but the outlook for top line growth appears to be slightly better in Indonesia than in India. Specifically: We have combined bank credit to businesses and households with government expenditures to calculate a credit and fiscal spending impulse for both countries. Chart II-2 illustrates that this impulse heralds a more positive outlook for listed companies' revenues in the case of Indonesia than India. Chart II-1Book Profits On Long Indian / ##br##Short Indonesian Stocks Position Chart II-2Credit And Fiscal Spending ##br##Impulse Favor Indonesia Over India Other cyclical variables are mixed in both economies: vehicle and two-wheeler sales are sluggish, manufacturing PMIs have rolled over, but imports of capital goods are improving (Chart II-3). In regard to valuation and profitability, both bourses are expensive in absolute terms (Chart II-4, top panel) but India's return on equity (RoE) is well below Indonesia's (Chart II-4, bottom panel). Such a 14% premium of Indian stocks over Indonesian ones along with a poor revenue outlook and lower RoE might prevent further share price outperformance by India. Chart II-3Mixed Cyclical Growth Dynamics Chart II-4India And Indonesian Equities: P/E Ratios And RoEs Although our negative outlook for commodities prices and expensive equity valuations entail a negative stance on Indonesian risk assets in absolute terms, we believe this bourse's underperformance versus the EM overall equity index and Indian stocks is late. It makes sense to reduce/eliminate an underweight allocation to Indonesian equities. Bottom Line: We recommend booking gains on the long Indian / short Indonesia equity position initiated on July 30, 2014. Consistently, we downgrade Indian stocks from overweight to neutral and upgrade Indonesian ones from underweight to neutral within an EM equity portfolio. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com 1 CFTC is the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The data on South African rand is available from May 2015. 2 Presented and discussed in detail in July 26, 2017 and August 16, 2017 reports; the links are available on page 18. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?," August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations