Fiscal

Feature The Brazilian economy is finally improving following a devastating depression of about 3 years, where real GDP dropped by a whopping 7.4%. Does the current economic revival warrant a bullish stance on its financial markets? If the global risk-on trade persists among EM risk assets and commodities and there are no domestic political blunders in Brazil, the country's financial markets will continue to rally as economic growth improves. If the EM and commodities rallies wane and an EM risk-off cycle develops, Brazilian risk assets will sell off, regardless of domestic economic recovery. Provided economies around the world have become interconnected, it is often difficult to separate global economic and financial market impact from domestic economic dynamics. Yet, it is possible to do so in Brazil in the latest cycle. Chart I-1 demonstrates that the Brazilian real bottomed with iron ore prices on December 21, 2015 - not with the bottom in the Brazilian economy in early Q1 2017 (Chart I-1, bottom panel). In turn, the currency's rally amid the collapse in domestic demand has led to a material drop in inflation and allowed the central bank to cut interest rates aggressively. The exchange rate is the main variable driving financial markets in many developing countries, including Brazil. In these countries, it is the exchange rate that causes swings in interest rate expectations, not the other way around. Furthermore, other important variables that led to the bottom in iron ore prices and the BRL were the Chinese manufacturing PMI and money growth, both of which bottomed in the second half of 2015 (Chart I-2). Chart 1BRL Correlates With Commodities ##br##Not Domestic Demand Chart 2Chinese Data Led##br## The Bottom In BRL In short, economic recovery arrived much later in Brazil, and so far it has been exceptionally tame and tentative (Chart I-3). Brazil's domestic demand performance has in no way justified the rally in its financial markets since January 2016. If anything, it is the opposite: the domestic economic recovery emerged too late, and has been extremely subdued compared with the sizable gains in share prices. For example, banks' EPS bottomed only in May 2017, while their share prices troughed in January 2016 (Chart I-4). Similarly, Brazil's fiscal outlook and debt profile has continued to deteriorate, even though the country's sovereign spreads have tightened substantially (Chart I-5). Chart 3Brazil: Economic Recovery Is Exceptionally Tame Chart 4Brazil: Bank Share Prices And EPS Chart 5Brazil's Fiscal And Debt Profiles Have Deteriorated Hence, one can safely argue that economic growth and domestic fundamentals were not the basis behind why Brazilian financial markets found a bottom and rallied starting January 2016. Rather, the critical driving force has been commodities prices, China, the U.S. dollar and global risk appetite. This is consistent with the defining features of bull and bear markets: In a bull market, liquidity lifts all boats, and all flaws are overlooked or discharged while minor positives are magnified by the market. In a bear market, even marginal negatives are overblown, and the market punishes severely for minor missteps. In short, global risk assets have been in a genuine bull market since early 2016, and that has overridden Brazil's poor domestic fundamentals. Going forward, we recommend avoiding Brazilian risk assets - not because we do not expect an economic recovery in Brazil to progress, but because our view on China's impact on commodities and the potential U.S. dollar rebound will curb overall risk appetite toward EM. We discussed this EM/China/commodities outlook at length in last week's report.1 Timing a shift in financial market regimes is always a difficult task, but our sense is that a top in EM risk assets will likely occur between now and the end of October, as China's Communist party Congress reiterates its focus on containing financial risk and leverage, as well as the authorities' marginal tolerance for slightly slower growth. Furthermore, our broad money (M3) impulse for China suggests an imminent relapse in Goldman Sach's current economic activity indicator for the mainland economy (Chart I-6). Our assumption is that commodities prices will drop due to potential weakness in China, and that the U.S. dollar and U.S. bond yields are oversold and will recover, respectively. Altogether, these views warrant a cautious stance on EM currencies. The real has historically been correlated with commodities prices, and this positive correlation will likely continue. As and when the Brazilian currency resumes its depreciation, the risk-on trade in Brazilian equities and credit markets will end. As for Brazilian financial markets, a few relationships are worth highlighting: Since early this year, iron ore prices have been inversely correlated with Chinese money market rates (Chart I-7). A possible explanation is that iron ore and other commodities prices trading on Chinese exchanges have been driven by meaningful speculative buying that negatively correlates with borrowing costs on the mainland. Chart 6China's Growth Is Set To Slow Chart 7Iron Ore Prices Are Vulnerable Given the latest relapse in Brazil's nominal GDP growth, the pace of amelioration in private banks' NPL and NPL provisions could stall (Chart I-8). In turn, Brazilian banks' share prices seem to move inversely with the rate of change in private banks' NPL and NPL provisions (Chart I-9A & Chart I-9B). If these relationships hold, we might be close to a peak in Brazilian bank share prices. Chart 8Brazil: Is The Improvement In NPL Cycle Over? Chart 9ABrazil: NPL Cycles and Bank Stocks Chart 9BBrazil: Provisions Cycles And Bank Stocks Finally, the pace of economic recovery will likely disappoint because the Brazilian economy is facing numerous headwinds: High borrowing costs - the real prime lending rate is 12.5% and the policy rate in the real terms is 6.8%, while public banks' lending rates are set to rise due to the TJLP reform that will remove the government budget's subsidy for borrowers. With 50% of outstanding credit being earmarked credit (previously subsidized by the government and provided by public banks), the impact on economic activity will be non-trivial; Lower government spending, as 2018 government expenditure growth cannot exceed the 2017 June headline inflation rate of 3%. Besides, the fiscal balance is so disastrous that risks to taxes are to the upside, not downside. Furthermore, the recently augmented 2017 year-end fiscal primary deficit target of BRL 159 billion is smaller than the deficit of BRL 182 billion for the past 12 months. This entails government spending cuts are likely this year, which will weigh on growth. The Brazilian exchange rate is not cheap. The nation needs a cheaper currency to reflate its economy. Lingering political uncertainty amid the corruption scandals and upcoming presidential elections in fall 2018 will continue to weigh on capital spending and employment, which have not yet recovered. Bottom Line: Our overarching negative view on EM, China and commodities heralds staying cautious on Brazil's financial markets despite the early signs of domestic economic recovery. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Copper Versus Money/Credit In China - Which One Is Right?", dated September 6,. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Even isolated North Korean attacks are unlikely to lead to a full-scale war; The USD sell-off will start to reverse once Trump makes Gary Cohn his official pick for Fed chairman; Europe is not a risk for investors ... even Italy is only a longer-term risk; France is reforming; stay long French industrials versus German. Feature Last week, in London, we were scheduled to give a talk on Sino-American tensions, East Asian geopolitical risks, and North Korea specifically. We submitted our topic of choice about a month ahead of the event, when tensions between Pyongyang and Washington were at their height. As tensions temporarily subsided following Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un's decision to delay the planned missile launch towards Guam, several colleagues wondered if the topic was still a pertinent one. We stressed in our research that tensions would not dissipate and would continue to be market-relevant, if not critical for S&P 500.1 Unfortunately, we have been proven right. Forecasting geopolitics requires insight, multi-disciplinary methodology, and a treasure trove of empirical knowledge. But sometimes it also just comes down to using Google and looking at a calendar. For example, given the present context of heightened tensions, the annual U.S.-South Korean military exercises - Key Resolve, which occurs normally in the spring, and Ulchi-Freedom Guardian, which occurs in August - are obvious dates to monitor. They are provocations that North Korea has to respond to for both foreign and domestic audiences. Pyongyang has chosen to do so by firing an ICBM across Japan and testing a sixth nuclear device, allegedly a miniaturized hydrogen bomb. While both these actions qualitatively expand on previous acts (missile and nuclear tests), neither cross a threshold. We are still in the realm of "territorial threat display." President Trump and Supreme Leader Kim are angling their "swords," but have not dared to cross them yet. Nonetheless, our clients have pointed out that our "arch of diplomacy" approach leaves a lot to imagination. Therefore, the first insight from the road of this week is that we need to put our thinking cap on and imagine a scenario where tensions do blow over into open conflict. How do we imagine such a scenario occurring and why would it not devolve into full out war that forces the U.S. to attack the North Korean mainland? Is North Korea About To Become A Praying Mantis? We can imagine a scenario where North Korea commits an act that takes us beyond the nuanced thresholds set by recent history (Chart 1). For example, we have cited to clients that an attack against international shipping in the Yellow Sea or Sea of Japan by North Korean submarines would be an unprecedented act that the U.S. and Japan would likely retaliate against.2 We could see the U.S. following the script from 1988 Operation Praying Mantis in the Persian Gulf - the largest surface engagement by the U.S. Navy since the Second World War - when the U.S. sunk half of Iran's navy in retaliation for the mining of the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts. In the case of North Korea, this would primarily mean taking out its approximately 20 Romeo-class submarines and an unknown number of domestically-produced - Yugoslav-designed - newly built submarines.3 Chart 1North Korean Provocations Rarely Affect Markets For Long Such an increase in tensions is not our baseline case, but we assign much higher probability to it than to an all-out war on the Korean Peninsula (which we still see as highly unlikely). How would the markets react to the sinking of North Korean submarines? How would Pyongyang react? The answer to the former (market's reaction) depends on the answer to the latter (what does Pyongyang do?). Our best guess is that Pyongyang would do nothing. In fact, we may never know that North Korean submarines were sunk. We would suspect that North Korean military strategists would chalk the subs as a loss and quietly move on to more missile tests. Leadership in Pyongyang is massively constrained by its quantifiable military inferiority. This part requires a bit of "order-of-battle" analysis, so bear with us for a few paragraphs. North Korea has around 6 million military personnel, about 25% of the total North Korean population, ready to fight. Which would be great if it were preparing to charge Verdun in WWI. Unfortunately for Pyongyang, it is arrayed against one of the most sophisticated defenses ever constructed by man. To burst through the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), its mammoth ground forces would have at their disposal about 2000 T-55s (designed in the 1950s) and an unknown number of T-72s (designed in the 1970s). The former are obsolete, but the latter are solid main battle tanks that could do damage ... that is, in a world where war was not airborne. The problem is that North Korea would lose air superiority within hours of any serious engagement leaving its tanks and ground troops vulnerable to death-from-above. Since North Korean troops would have to enter about 20 miles into South Korea to threaten Seoul with occupation, they would have to exit the range of most of their air defenses. Choosing to turn on the most powerful of their systems - such as the KN-06 with a 150km range - would leave them vulnerable to the U.S. AGM-88 HARM missiles that sniff out active radar antenna or transmitters. To protect its invading forces, North Korea would have at its disposal only about 20-30 Mig-29s. Countering two dozen jets would be South Korea's combined 177 F-15 and F-16s, plus American forces that would vary in size depending how many aircraft carriers were deployed in the vicinity and whether U.S. forces in Japan were deployed to counter the attack. Given that a single American aircraft carrier holds up to 48 fighter jets, North Koreans would likely quickly find themselves fighting a losing battle. Once the North Korean fighter jets were destroyed, the South Korean air force would turn the invasion into a massacre. The reality is that North Korea's ground forces are just for show. Its tanks and fighter jets will never see battle. North Korea really only has two gears: P & N. The first is for "Provocation" and the second is for "Nuclear Armageddon." This is why we highly doubt that we will see our Praying Mantis scenario play out, or lead to full-scale war if it does. North Korea is constrained by its technological inferiority. It does not have the ability to conduct war across a full spectrum of engagement. Neither did Iran in 1988, which is why it never retaliated for the loss of its navy, put all its revolutionary zeal and chest-thumping aside, and sued the U.S. at the International Court of Justice instead.4 The U.S. has a range of limited military engagements, particularly at sea, that could hurt Pyongyang's ability to project what little power it has. Given our constraint-based methodology, which requires one to have some understanding of military affairs, we have a fairly high conviction view that North Korea will continue to toe-the-line of the expected and thus accepted provocations along the lines of the history surveyed in Chart 1. Going beyond that list would threaten to expose the paucity of North Korea's military capabilities. Bottom Line: We are still in for a wild ride with North Korea. As we expected, regional safe haven assets continue to perform well. We will hold on to our safe haven basket of Swiss bonds and gold, up 2.6% since August 16. Nonetheless, we expect North Korea to steer clear of provoking a war. Gary Cohn Will Collapse The USD! (But What If He Already Did?) Several fast-money clients - both in the U.S. and Asia - have a theory for why the greenback continues to suffer: Gary Cohn. The theory goes that Cohn is an ultra-dove whose job as the next Fed Chair will be to stay "behind the curve" and drive down the USD. This would accomplish President Trump's lofty nominal GDP growth goals despite legislative hurdles to his fiscal policy. It would also keep risk assets well bid and help begin rebalancing the U.S. trade deficit. What do we know of Mr. Cohn's views on monetary policy? Not much: He defended the Trump administration goal of a 3% GDP growth target, suggesting that he has a far more optimistic view of U.S. growth than the current Fed projection;5 He believes that monetary policy is "globalized," intoning at a conference in Florida quickly after the election that the Fed policy of raising rates before the rest of the world is ready to do the same would be a mistake;6 In a January 2016 Bloomberg TV interview, he said that both the U.S. and Chinese currencies were overvalued and would both have to devalue.7 People who know and have worked with Gary Cohn (including one colleague at BCA!) speak highly of his pragmatism, work ethic, and focus. Most agree that he would likely be dove-ish, but there is not a single person we have spoken to who thinks that he will be Trump's puppet. As such, his disconnected statements largely say nothing about his potential style of leadership. His most ultra-dovish, USD-slaying comment comes from January 2016, with DXY 6.9% down since then (Chart 2). Mission Accomplished Mr. Cohn? The real reason for the USD slide, aside from a persistently disappointing inflation print, has been a realization by the market that President Trump's bark has no bite. On a slew of measures, President Trump's initial bravado has dissipated into flabby rhetoric. Chart 3 shows the initial surge in optimism regarding growth, tax reform, infrastructure spending, Mexico's comeuppance, and bi-partisanship (measured as support among independents). Each data point has not only fallen back to pre-election levels, but appears to have now been desensitized to any news that would have excited it in the past. For example, NAFTA negotiations are off to a poor start, President Trump continues to bash the trade deal, and yet the peso has rallied since Trump's inauguration! Chart 2Mission Accomplished, Mr. Cohn? Chart 3Trump's Bark Has No Bite? The Fed itself has lost faith in the president. The number of FOMC members who see upside risks to inflation and GDP growth, not unrelated to fiscal policy, has fallen after a brief surge after the election (Chart 4). Chart 4The Fed Also Doubts Trump What chances are there for the White House and Congress to re-write the fiscal narrative over the final quarter of 2017? As we wrote last week, Hurricane Harvey will ensure that a debt ceiling breach and government shutdown are avoided. However, Congress is likely to spend September making one last attempt at Obamacare repeal and replace, thus largely wasting the month before returning to tax reform in earnest in the new fiscal year. We expect some form of tax legislation to take shape by the end of December. Will it be comprehensive tax reform? Unlikely. It will now almost certainly be merely a tax-cutting exercise, with some revenue offsets attached to it. With the Republicans in Congress now leading the tax reform effort, it is unlikely that the budget deficit hole will be as wide as President Trump would have wanted. The problem is that both Trump's July tax reform proposal and the House GOP August plan come short of revenue-neutrality by around $3-3.5 trillion (over the decade-long period) (Table 1). Given that such a massive increase in the deficit would be unacceptable to fiscal hawks (or Democrats) in the House, we would expect tax rates to be cut by a much more modest degree. Table 1By How Much Will Republican Tax Cuts Widen The Deficit? Table 1 gives a detailed survey of the preferences (Tax Cuts) and constraints (Revenue Offsets). It is difficult to see how all the constraints are overcome through the legislative process. This will force Republicans to modify their preferences on the scale of tax cuts. We would expect that a corporate tax cut from 35% to around 27-28% could be possible, along with a minimal middle-class tax cut. Anything beyond that would be overly complicated. Therein lies the paradox for Chair Cohn. The only way that he can be "behind the curve" is if the curve gets "in front of him." But why would it if any coming tax legislation has very little stimulative effect on the economy? Currently, the expected change in the Fed Funds Rate over the next two years stands at a measly 40 bps (Chart 5). That is just barely two rate hikes until September 2019. How can Mr. Cohn get the expectations any lower at this point? Bottom Line: The appointment of Gary Cohn will be a classic "sell the (USD on the) rumor, buy (the USD) on the news." We expect his appointment in late November or early December, if President Trump goes by the lead time from the past two nominations (Chart 6). That may be the time to pare back USD shorts for those investors who have been bearish on the greenback. Chart 5Hard To Drive Expectations##BR##Lower For Rate Hikes Chart 6How Long Does It Take To##BR##Confirm The Fed Chair? Europe Is Not A Risk Chart 7Europe's Economy Zooming Along One clear insight from our five weeks on the road this summer is that Europe is no longer on anyone's radar. We had hardly any questions regarding the upcoming German or Italian elections. And while most investors were somewhat pessimistic regarding French structural reforms, none expressed any interest in betting against them either. The obvious reason is that Europe's economy has genuinely recovered (Chart 7). Consumer and business confidence are holding up while the manufacturing PMI and industrial production remain strong. That said, uniformity of view among clients across several geographies makes us nervous. On the future of the Euro Area, investors have swung wildly from morose to resigned that it is here to stay. Nonetheless, we generally agree with the consensus. Unlike at the beginning of this year, when we boldly claimed that European risks would turn out to be a "trophy red herring," we have no alpha to generate by disagreeing with the market.8 Here is why: German Election: We have a policy of not wasting our client's time by covering major geopolitical events that have no market-relevance. Germany is the world's fourth-largest economy and it will hold an election on September 24. However, we see no investment relevance in the election and therefore no reason to spend time covering it. Polls show that the center-left opposition Social Democratic Party (SPD) has arrested its decline and may force another Grand Coalition (Chart 8). The only moderately interesting question is whether Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) will be able to get its favored coalition ally, the Free Democratic Party (FDP), into government instead. The FDP has turned towards soft Euroskepticism since 2009. Its parliamentarians voted against several bills dealing with the Euro Area crisis during their 2009-2013 coalition with the CDU. That said, Chancellor Merkel has turned much more forcefully pro-Europe since the dark days of Greek bailouts and bond market rioting. The Chancellor can read the polls: Germans support the common currency at 81%, compared to 66% average between 2009-2013 (Chart 9). We expect the FDP to play along with the Europhile conversion by the CDU. Chart 8Another Grand Coalition? Chart 9Merkel Knows Germans Support The Euro If there is any significance to the calm ahead of the German election, it is that the country is at "peak normal." Its policymakers have dealt with a massive migration crisis, geopolitical crises to the East, terrorist attacks, and severe political and economic stresses in its sphere of influence, all with a near-complete absence of internal drama. This looks like either "as good as it gets," or the start of a new Golden Age in Europe, with Berlin in the lead. It is probably neither, but given European asset prices, and gearing to the growing global economy, we would remain overweight Euro Area equities going forward. Italian Election: Polls remain too-close-to-call in the upcoming Italian election, with Euroskeptic parties continuing to poll well (Chart 10). However, we are not sure one can truly call these parties Euroskeptic anymore. Despite a high level of Euroskeptic sentiment in the country (Chart 11), its Euroskeptic parties have been scared off by the failures of peers in Austria, the Netherlands, and France. Chart 10Italy: Euroskeptic Parties Poll Well... Chart 11...Reflecting Broader Euroskepticism Luigi Di Maio, leader of the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, and Matteo Salvini, head of the right-wing, populist Lega Nord, both reversed positions on the euro this month. Di Maio will be 5SM candidate for prime minister in the upcoming elections - which must be held by May and will likely take place in February or March. He reiterated a position, which 5SM hinted at in the past, that leaving the Euro Area would only be the "last resort" if Brussels refused to relax strict budget rules. Meanwhile, the firebrand, populist, Salvini hid behind Italy's constitution, claiming that a referendum on the euro would be illegal. In the short term, this means that the election in 2018 is no longer a risk. In the long term, it does not change the fact that Italy is ripe for a bout of Euroskeptic crisis at some later stage. Migration Crisis: Bad news for right-wing populists everywhere: the migration crisis is over and in quite a dramatic fashion. This is an empirical fact (Chart 12). Europe's enforcement efforts and collaboration with Libyan authorities (such as they are) have now forced even the humanitarian agencies to abandon the Mediterranean route. One of the largest such agencies - the Migrant Offshore Aid Station (MOAS) - recently announced that it was packing its mothership, the Phoenix, for Myanmar. The group is the fourth to stop patrols for migrants. Medecins sans Frontieres, Save the Children, and Germany's Sea Eye all cited hostile actions taken by Libyan authorities towards their vessels as the main reason to stop rescuing migrants in Libyan waters. Chart 12The 'Migration Crisis' Is Definitively Over To be clear, what is happening in the Mediterranean is a result of European enforcement efforts, not any sudden awakening of Libyan capacity or sovereignty. The European Union and Italy are training and funding the Libyan Coast Guard, which has started to intercept humanitarian vessels, threaten them with force (often right in front of the Italian Navy!), and force them to return migrants to Libya, where they are subjected to extremely cruel internment. Prior to this development, human smugglers would launch barely seaworthy "crafts" towards humanitarian ships waiting literally yards away in Libyan waters to "rescue" the "migrants" to Europe. As such, humanitarian agencies were aiding and abetting human smuggling, by making it a lucrative enterprise with no downside risk for the smugglers. We expect the step-up in enforcement in Libyan waters to severely impair the cost-benefit calculus of attempting a Mediterranean crossing for a would-be migrant. Instead of a welcoming NGO vessel many will find themselves in Libyan Internment camps. Word will spread fast and the migration crisis will abate further. We have now come full circle on the migration crisis, which we predicted back in September 2015 would end precisely in such an illiberal fashion.9 Europe has a vicious streak ... who knew? Structural Reforms In France: In February, we penned a bullish report on France, arguing with high conviction that Marine Le Pen would lose and that structural reforms would follow.10 What is the status of the latter forecast? Despite a decline in President Emmanuel Macron's popularity (Chart 13), he is expending his political capital early in his term. He understands our "J-curve of Structural Reform" (Diagram 1). Policymakers who understand how the reform J-curve works know that they have to spend their political capital while they have it, at the beginning of their term, in order to reap the benefits, if there are any, while they are still in power. Chart 13Macron's Popularity Slips Diagram 1The J-Curve Of Structural Reform How do Macron's reforms compare with previous efforts? Generally speaking, Macron's reforms (Table 2) compare favorably with both the 2012 Mariano Rajoy reforms in Spain and the 2003 Hartz reforms in Germany. The Hartz reforms were instrumental in expanding temporary work contracts and restructured generous unemployment benefits. Similarly, the Rajoy reforms in Spain clarified economic grounds for dismissal and created more flexible "entrepreneur contracts." Macron's reforms fit these efforts, especially the proposals to put in place "project contracts" - an open-ended contract lasting for the duration of a project - and to establish a floor and a ceiling for allowances in cases of unfair terminations, and make termination for economic reasons easier. Table 2French Labor Reforms: The Key Bits The two criticisms of the reform efforts we most often hear are that France has not had a crisis to spur reforms and that unions will launch vicious protests. The first criticism is dubious, given that France is itself emerging from the low-growth doldrums of the post-Great Financial Crisis. It is simply false to say that France has had no crisis. The French public is acutely aware that its real per-capita GDP growth has been closer to Greek levels than German ones over the last two decades (Chart 14) and that it has lost competitiveness in the global marketplace (Chart 15). One cannot have a conversation with a French friend, colleague, or client without wanting to order a strong drink!11 Chart 14France's Lost Millennium Chart 15France's Lost Competitiveness Besides, what monumental crisis was it that propelled Germany into reforms in the early 2000s? A vicious recession? A massive bank crisis? It was neither. Germany was simply weighed down for a decade by fiscal transfers to East Germany and sensing that its export-oriented industry was facing a massive challenge from the Asian move up the value chain. It was this acute sense of competitive pressure, of falling behind, that spurred Germany to reform. With France, the acute sense of falling behind Germany (Chart 16) is at the heart of today's effort. Chart 16German Competition Puts A Fire Under France The second criticism, that the unions will hold protests, misjudges the political capital arrayed behind Macron. Despite his sagging popularity, 85.9% of the seats in the National Assembly are of pro-reform orientation (Diagram 2). The second-largest party in the parliament is Les Republicains, an even more zealously pro-reform group. This is a unique situation in French history and will allow the government to ignore protests on the street. Diagram 2The Balance Of Power In France's National Assembly In fact, two of the largest unions in France - Force Ouvrière and CFDT - have both said they would not protest the labor reforms. This leaves only the more militant CGT to protest, along with the left-wing presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon. The reason investors will still fret about protests this month is because CGT retains a strong representation in heavy industry and infrastructure sectors like energy and railways. As such, their industrial action could grind the country to a halt. We suspect that a repeat of the 1995 general strike or the 2010 French pension reform unrest - both of which CGT spearheaded - will be the final nail in the coffin of "Old France." Unlike those previous reform efforts, President Macron's effort has been clearly signaled ahead of the election and thus retains considerable democratic legitimacy. As such, any repeat of the 1995 or especially 2010 unrest would delegitimize the unions and give President Macron even more political capital. Bottom Line: We agree with the now conventional view that all is well in Europe. Stability ahead of the German election reminds investors of what a healthy country is supposed to look like. Italian election risks have dissipated. And our French structural reforms call remains on track. This gives us an opportunity to do some house-cleaning regarding our calls. First, we are closing our long French 10-year bond / short Italian 10-year bond trade for a gain of only 1 bps. Second, we are closing our overweight Euro Area equities relative to U.S. equities call for a gain of 7.88%. Given our euro-bullishness, we never recommended that this call be currency hedged. We are now reinstating it with a currency hedge. We are also closing our long German 10-Year CPI Swap for a gain of 45.5 bps. We will stick with our long French industrial equities / short German industrials, which is currently up 9.25%. This is a way we have chosen to articulate our bullish view on the reforms, although clients with greater sophistication in European sectors could come up with a more direct way to articulate the view. Separately, we are also booking profits on our long China volatility trade (CBOE China ETF Volatility Index) for a gain of 16.82%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 A North Korean submarine sank the South Korean corvette Cheonan in 2010, but that was still within the norm of behavior for the two countries that are still effectively at war and have contested maritime borders. 3 Romeo-class submarines are nearly 70 years old. As much as we harken back to Yugoslav engineering with pride at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy, Belgrade was never much of a naval power. Nonetheless, diesel-powered submarines are quite proficient in staying undetected and could present a problem for the U.S. Navy. At least until they had to resurface or get back to base, where nuclear-powered U.S. Virginia-class attack-subs would lie in wait for them. 4 Tehran won the court case in 2003! And the ICJ forced the U.S. to compensate Iran for its lost ships or else face invasion by the United Nations army. (We are just kidding obviously. Iran did win, but it got nothing.) Please see Pieter H.F. Bekker, "The World Court Finds that U.S. Attacks on Iranian Oil Platforms in 1987-1988 Were Not Justifiable as Self-Defense, but the United States Did Not Violate the Applicable Treaty with Iran," American Society of International Law Volume 8, Issue 25, dated November 11, 2003, available at: asil.org. 5 Please see CNBC, "Tax reform is coming in September, Trump economic advisor Gary Cohn says," dated June 29, 2017, available at cnbc.com. 6 Please see Wall Street Journal, "How Donald Trump's New Top Economic Adviser Views the World," dated December 14, 2016, available at wjs.com. 7 Please see Business Insider, "Trump and his top economic adviser have had completely different views on China," dated January 3, 2017, available at businessinsider.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refugees, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Thankfully for France, the choice would still be French wine!

Feature Dear Client, In addition to this abbreviated Weekly Report, I am sending you a Special Report written by Mark McClellan, Managing Editor of the monthly Bank Credit Analyst. Mark makes a compelling case that the deflationary effects of the "Amazon economy" are overstated. I trust you will find his report very informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy Chart 1September Is Generally ##br##Not A Good Time Of Year For Stocks My colleagues and I convened a meeting earlier this week to discuss whether to abandon our long-standing cyclically bullish view towards risk assets. Several of them felt it was time to turn more cautious. I am sympathetic to their concerns: Valuations are stretched, volatility is low, and geopolitical risks (most notably North Korea) are on the rise. Profit growth is likely to decelerate later this year, as the easy comps stemming from the depressed level of earnings in the first half of 2016 vanish. Meanwhile, stocks are entering the volatile early autumn months, a period which has historically seen poor returns (Chart 1). Nevertheless, at times like these, it is useful to fall back on our time-tested indicators. Bear markets have almost always coincided with economic recessions, with the latter usually causing the former (Chart 2). None of our recession-timing signals are flashing red: To cite just a few examples, ISM manufacturing new orders are strong, initial unemployment claims are low, core capital goods orders are accelerating, and the yield curve is not in any immediate risk of inverting (Chart 3). Chart 2Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Chart 3No Warnings Of Recession Here U.S. financial conditions have eased sharply this year, which should support growth over the next few quarters (Chart 4). A recent IMF report highlighted that easier U.S. financial conditions tend to generate positive spillovers onto other countries.1 The fact that all 45 countries monitored by the OECD are on track to grow this year - the first time this has happened since 2007 - is a testament to the strong fundamentals underpinning the global economy. Chart 4Easing Financial Conditions Bode Well For Growth The Fed's Dot Problem In this light, the Fed's projection that the unemployment rate will end this year at 4.3% and only fall to 4.2% by end-2018 no longer looks credible. If U.S. GDP growth remains above trend, as we expect, the unemployment rate could fall below its 2000 low of 3.8% by next summer. That will be enough to prompt investors to price in a few more rate hikes. Considering that the market expects just 22 basis points in hikes through to end-2018, this is not a high bar to clear. A bit more fiscal stimulus would add to the pressure to tighten monetary policy. While any meaningful progress on tax reform will be difficult to achieve, the odds are good that Congress will agree to cut statutory corporate and personal tax rates, with the latter focusing mainly on middle-income earners. Failure to raise the debt ceiling or extend federal spending authority beyond the current budget window could scuttle the benefits from lower tax rates. Fortunately, the risks of such an outcome have receded. If there is a silver lining from Hurricane Harvey, it is that the disaster could at least temporarily overcome the political impasse in Washington. Congress will need to appropriate additional disaster relief funds over the coming weeks. Politicians who are seen as creating roadblocks to such funding will face the electorate's wrath. The odds of an infrastructure bill passing through Congress have also risen. All recoveries eventually run out of steam, but this one can last at least until the second half of 2019, which will make it the longest U.S. expansion on record. As we discussed several weeks ago, the next recession is likely to be triggered by the Fed scrambling to hike rates in response to rising inflation.2 This is not an immediate concern, given that it usually takes a while for an overheated economy to generate inflation - especially since the U.S. currently can satisfy rising domestic demand with higher imports. However, the risks of overheating will increase as unemployment falls further and excess capacity elsewhere in the world is absorbed. Draghi After Jackson Hole Chart 5A Stronger Euro Is Deflationary Textbook economic theory states that a shift in consumption towards imported goods requires a real appreciation of the currency. The dollar, of course, has done exactly the opposite of that, depreciating by 6.6% in trade-weighted terms since the start of the year. The euro, in particular, has gained significant ground against the greenback, rising above $1.20 at one point this week. Mario Draghi's failure to express concerns about the resurgent euro during his Jackson Hole address was construed by many market participants as a green light for further currency strength. We are skeptical of this "saying nothing means you are saying something" interpretation. Draghi wanted to acknowledge (and partly take credit for) the recovery across the euro area, but he is cognizant of the problems posed by a stronger euro. The ECB's June forecast showed inflation rising to only 1.6% in 2019. In the period since those forecasts were compiled, the trade-weighted euro has appreciated by 3.9%, bringing the year-to-date gain to 6.2% (Chart 5). ECB staff calculations, which Draghi has approvingly quoted, show that a 10% appreciation in the euro would reduce inflation by 0.2 percentage points in the first year and 0.6-to-0.8 points in the subsequent two years.3 Better-than-expected growth since the June forecasts will offset some of the deflationary impact from the stronger euro, but probably not by much, given that the Phillips curve is quite flat at high-to-moderate levels of spare capacity. With labor market slack across the euro area still 3.2 percentage points higher today than in 2008 (and 6.7 points higher outside of Germany), it will be a while before stronger growth generates markedly higher inflation. We expect the ECB to reduce its 2018/2019 inflation forecast by 0.1-to-0.2 percentage points next week. It would be awkward for the central bank to play up the prospect of monetary policy normalization while it is simultaneously trimming its inflation projections. This suggests that the ECB's communications could turn more dovish, thereby limiting further upside for the euro. EUR/USD is currently trading near the top of the $1.10-to-$1.20 range that we foresee lasting for the next 10 months. Thus, our expectation is that the euro will weaken over the next few months, ending the year near $1.15, and potentially moving back towards its 2017 lows in the second half of next year, as an overheated U.S. economy forces the Fed to pick up the pace of rate hikes. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Getting The Policy Mix Right," IMF Global Financial Stability Report, (Chapter 3), (April 2017). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "From Slow Burn Recovery to Retro-Recession?" dated August 18, 2017. 3 Please see European Central Bank, "March 2017 ECB Staff Macroeconomic Projections For The Euro Area." APPENDIX 1 Tactical Global Asset Allocation Monthly Update To complement our analysis, we use a variety of time-tested models to assess the global investment outlook. At present, these models favor global equities over bonds over a three-month horizon (Appendix Table 1). Appendix Table 1BCA's Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations* Our business cycle equity indicators remain in bullish territory, as reflected in strong global growth and rising corporate earnings. Our monetary and financial indicators are also generally supportive. In contrast, our sentiment readings are sending mixed signals. On the one hand, implied equity volatility remains low and institutional exposure to stocks is quite high. On the other hand, surveys of retail investors show a healthy skepticism towards the bull market, which is a positive contrarian indicator. As has been the case for some time, our valuation measures are signaling that stocks are expensive, but these are typically useful only over horizons beyond one or two years. As we flagged last month, stocks tend to do poorly in August and September, which may hurt returns over the next few weeks. The stronger euro will negatively impact earnings in the euro area. This has caused our models to suggest a slight downgrade to European equities. However, we are inclined to fade this signal, given our expectation that the euro will give up some of its recent gains. Japanese stocks continue to score well on our metrics, buoyed by strengthening corporate profits and attractive valuations. Emerging market equities are fairly valued, although China still appears cheap. The rally in U.S. Treasurys has caused the gap between the 10-year yield and our model's fair value estimate to widen to around 50 basis points, the highest since last September. European and Japanese bonds also look somewhat overvalued, although the latter will continue to receive support from the BoJ's yield curve targeting operations. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

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 Monetary Policy: The Fed's inflation forecast will continue to guide interest rate policy. This means that while an announcement about winding down the balance sheet will occur in September, a December rate hike is only in the cards if inflation shows some strength in the coming months. Fiscal Policy: The market is likely too pessimistic on the potential for fiscal stimulus from tax cuts, especially given the recent shift in power within the White House. Corporate Spread Valuation: With the exception of Aaa-rated credits (which appear expensive), investment grade corporate spreads are fairly valued after adjusting for changes in credit rating, duration and the stage of the cycle. Investors should expect to earn excess returns from corporate bonds consistent with carry on a 6-12 month horizon. Feature Several developments during the past two weeks provided a lot of information about the near-term outlooks for both monetary and fiscal policy. On the monetary front, the minutes from the July FOMC meeting elucidated the trade-off faced by the Fed between low inflation on one hand and easing financial conditions on the other. Then, at last week's Jackson Hole symposium, both Janet Yellen and Mario Draghi expounded on the topic of financial stability and how central bankers incorporate it into their frameworks. On the fiscal front, the dismissal of White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon has the potential to alter the Trump administration's legislative agenda for the remainder of the year, making fiscal stimulus more likely. In this week's report we reflect on how all of these developments impact our 6-12 month policy and market views. Monetary Policy From The Minutes: Low Inflation Vs. Easy Financial Conditions The minutes from the July FOMC meeting showed that "some participants [...] argued against additional adjustments until incoming information confirmed that the recent low readings on inflation were not likely to persist." Meanwhile, "some other participants were more worried about the risks arising from [...] the easing in financial conditions that had developed since the Committee's policy normalization process was initiated in December 2015." In other words, the Committee is roughly evenly split into two groups. Those that would rather delay rate hikes until inflation moves higher, and those that think easier financial conditions are reason enough to continue tightening. Those in the dovish group could point to Chart 1 for support. That chart shows that the real fed funds rate is approaching at least one popular estimate of its neutral level. In the Fed's mental framework it is crucial that the real fed funds rate stays below its neutral level because monetary policy must remain accommodative if inflation is to rise back to the 2% target. In other words, the Fed does not have "room" for further rate hikes unless inflation rises first, causing the real fed funds rate to fall. We won't re-hash prior arguments about why core inflation is likely to rise on a 6-12 month horizon,1 but we will note that our diffusion indexes for both PCE and CPI inflation have recently swung into positive territory. These indexes have strong track records capturing the near-term moves in year-over-year core inflation (Chart 2), and this development gives us some confidence that the downtrend in inflation will soon reverse. Chart 1Closing In On Neutral Chart 2A Positive Signal On Inflation While the dovish camp wants to see strength in core inflation before delivering another hike, the hawkish camp views the easing of financial conditions as sufficient to forecast stronger growth and higher inflation in the near future. This view is backed by some solid empirical evidence. Chart 3 shows one measure of financial conditions - the financial conditions component of our Fed Monitor.2 This index performs reasonably well predicting near-term swings in GDP, and at the moment it suggests that growth will accelerate further in the back half of the year. This "financial conditions approach" to policymaking suggests that monetary policy impacts financial markets and that financial market performance then translates into economic outcomes. From this perspective, the fact that financial conditions have continued to ease since the Fed started tightening in December 2015 means that, so far, monetary tightening has not had any impact cooling the economy (Chart 4). Chart 3Financial Conditions##br## Lead Growth Chart 4Financial Conditions Easier, ##br##Despite Fed Tightening To us, this is the crucial point about the arguments made by the hawkish camp. This group focuses on financial conditions because it believes that easier financial conditions will soon lead to stronger growth and higher inflation. The group is not making the case that the Fed should abandon its 2% inflation target because of concerns about stability in financial markets. From Jackson Hole: Financial Conditions Vs. Financial Stability The focus on financial stability at Jackson Hole led many commentators to forecast that the Fed might tighten due to concerns about excessive leverage and risk-taking in financial markets, ignoring progress toward its inflation target.3 We think this is incorrect, and would draw an important distinction between when central bankers talk about "financial conditions" and when they talk about "financial stability". While the two concepts are obviously similar, central bankers tend to focus on financial conditions as a leading indicator for the economy. It is not separate from the 2% inflation target, rather, it is an input to the Fed's growth and inflation forecasts. However, when central bankers talk about financial stability, they are typically referring to an assessment of the amount of risk-taking and leverage in financial markets. If the risk-taking and leverage in financial markets is deemed excessive, it could pose a downside risk to future growth. Currently, central bankers in general do not believe that there is an imminent threat from financial stability. But more importantly, no current prominent central banker has proposed tightening policy to deal with financial stability risks while disregarding the inflation target. Here is what Janet Yellen had to say on the topic at Jackson Hole: I expect that the evolution of the financial system in response to global economic forces, technology, and, yes, regulation will result sooner or later in the all-too-familiar risks of excessive optimism, leverage, and maturity transformation reemerging in new ways that require policy responses. And Mario Draghi: [W]hen monetary policy is accommodative, lax regulation runs the risk of stoking financial imbalances. By contrast, the stronger regulatory regime that we have now has enabled economies to endure a long period of low interest rates without any significant side-effects on financial stability[.] The above passages make a couple of points abundantly clear: Neither central banker views financial stability as currently posing an economic risk. The preferred method for dealing with this risk, if it were to arise in the future, would be through macroprudential regulation. That is, regulations that limit leverage and maturity transformation. In fact, Draghi plainly said that a robust regulatory regime is important because it allows central banks to use interest rate policy to manage inflation back to target. Janet Yellen also pointed out in her remarks that financial stability risks in the future will almost certainly emerge in "new ways". This makes these risks much more difficult to detect in real time. Meanwhile, it is comparatively easy for Fed policymakers to look at inflation and judge it relative to the 2% target. This is yet another reason why interest rate policy will continue to be guided by inflationary pressures in the economy, not concerns about financial stability. Put differently, if inflation does not reach the Fed's 2% target before the next recession, that would be an easily quantifiable policy failure. This is an outcome that Fed policymakers will seek to avoid at all costs. Bottom Line: The Fed's inflation forecast will continue to guide interest rate policy. This means that while an announcement about winding down the balance sheet will occur in September, a December rate hike is only in the cards if inflation shows some strength in the coming months. Financial conditions are an important input to the Fed's growth and inflation forecasts, but the Fed will not tighten policy due to concerns about financial stability alone. Fiscal Policy Judging from the performance of a high tax-rate basket of U.S. stocks, investors appear to have completely priced out any possibility of tax reform (Chart 5). This is likely a mistake. Tax reform is a major component of both President Trump's and congressional Republicans' agendas. If it fails, Republicans will have to go to their home districts empty-handed to campaign for the November 2018 midterm elections. Chart 5Too Complacent On Tax Cuts? Further, as was recently discussed in depth by our Geopolitical Strategy service,4 until recently the White House had been divided into two cliques. The "Goldman clique", led by National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, is pragmatic and un-ideological. It is focused on passing tax reform and pro-business regulation. In contrast, the "Breitbart clique" is populist and nationalist. It also leans to the left on economic matters. The recent removal of White House Chief Strategist (and Breitbart clique leader) Stephen Bannon signals a shift in power toward the Goldman clique. Cohn, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross are now 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. This likely points to an increased resolve to push through some sort of tax legislation. While the size of any tax cut is still very much in question, given how little is priced in, it will not take much to move the needle on financial markets. Bottom Line: The market is likely too pessimistic on the potential for fiscal stimulus from tax cuts, especially given the recent shift in power within the White House. Corporate Spread Valuation How expensive are corporate bonds compared to history? On its face, a simple question. But one that quickly gets complicated when we dig into the details. Case in point, the top panel of Chart 6 shows the average option-adjusted spread (OAS) on the Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index going back to 1990. A cursory glance at this chart shows that the OAS is somewhat below its historical average, but also that it has been tighter in the past. But this simple visual obscures a few important factors: The average credit quality of the index has worsened since the financial crisis (Chart 6, panel 2). All else equal, this means the average spread should be wider. The average duration of the index has risen over time as bond yields have fallen (Chart 6, panel). This means that the same change in spreads has a larger return impact today than in years past. The stage of the credit/monetary policy cycle is also important. In the top panel of Chart 6 we see that the OAS does not spend a lot of time near its long-run average. Rather, it tends to be very wide in the negative phases of the cycle and very tight in the positive phases. In past reports we have considered the performance of corporate bonds across the four phases of the Fed cycle (Chart 7). To recap, these phases are defined as follows: Chart 6Corporate Spreads Need To Be Adjusted Chart 7Stylized Fed Cycle Phase I represents the early stage of the withdrawal of monetary stimulus. This phase begins with the first rate hike of a new tightening cycle and ends when the fed funds rate crosses above its equilibrium (or neutral) level. Phase II represents the late stage of the tightening cycle, when the Fed hikes its target rate above equilibrium in an effort to slow the economy. Phase III represents the early stage of the easing cycle. It begins with the first rate cut from the peak and lasts until the Fed cuts its target rate below equilibrium. Phase IV represents the late stage of the easing cycle. It encompasses both the period when the fed funds rate descends to its cycle trough and the subsequent adjustment period when the Fed remains on hold in an effort to kick start an economic recovery. In phases I and IV, we can expect tight spreads and relatively strong excess returns from corporate bonds. Phases II and III are characterized by wider spreads and lower returns. At the moment we judge that we are firmly in phase I of the cycle. The Fed has begun to tighten policy, but by all accounts monetary conditions remain accommodative and the real fed funds rate is below its neutral level (Chart 6, bottom panel).5 Adjusting Corporate Spreads On the first necessary adjustment, we can easily adjust for differences in average credit rating by looking at the different credit tiers of the corporate bond index rather than the index as a whole. As for the second necessary adjustment, we adjust for changes in duration over time by using a 12-month breakeven spread instead of the OAS. The 12-month breakeven spread is defined as the spread widening (in basis points) required over a 12-month period before the given corporate bond index delivers a negative excess return relative to duration-matched Treasuries. It thus includes both the OAS and the impact of lower duration.6 Chart 8 shows 12-month breakeven spreads for each investment grade corporate bond credit tier alongside its historical average and +/- one standard deviation. In each case we observe that breakeven spreads are well below average. In fact, the breakeven spread makes corporate bonds appear slightly more expensive than does the OAS. The final adjustment we need to make is to consider current spreads relative to other similar phases of the Fed cycle. In Chart 9 we show OAS for each credit tier, with dashed lines denoting the historical average, minimum and maximum OAS seen during prior Phase I periods. Adjusting only for credit rating and the stage of cycle (not for changes in duration), we find that Aaa, Aa and A-rated credits appear quite cheap, while Baa-rated credits appear close to fair value. In Chart 10 we show 12-month breakeven spreads for each credit tier relative to other similar phases of the Fed cycle. In other words, the spreads here are adjusted for credit rating, duration and the stage of the cycle. This chart tells a somewhat different story. Here, Aaa-rated credits appear very expensive. Meanwhile, Aa, A and Baa-rated credits appear close to fairly valued. Chart 8Breakeven Spreads Versus Long-Run Average Chart 9Cycle-Adjusted OAS Chart 10Cycle-Adjusted Breakeven Spreads Bottom Line: With the exception of Aaa-rated credits (which appear expensive), investment grade corporate spreads are fairly valued after adjusting for changes in credit rating, duration and the stage of the cycle. Investors should expect to earn excess returns from corporate bonds consistent with carry on a 6-12 month horizon. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Low Inflation And Rising Debt", dated June 13, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For more details on the Fed monitor, please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Back-Up In Junk Spreads", dated March 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-25/el-erian-says-markets-too-sanguine-about-fed-view-on-instability 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn", dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 5 As was stated earlier in this report, the gap between the real fed funds rate and its neutral level will widen as inflation bounces back in the coming months. 6 For simplicity we assume no convexity impact on excess returns. The 12-month breakeven spread is then calculated as OAS divided by duration. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Yellen sidesteps monetary policy at Jackson Hole. The Fed raised rates in late 1990s before seeing any inflation. Tax cut deal is still likely... ..but a prolonged debt ceiling battle or government shutdown is not. Inflation surprise has not yet followed economic surprise higher. Earnings and earnings guidance matters more than politics. Feature Fed Chair Yellen's speech on financial stability at the Jackson Hole symposium on Friday, August 25 shed little light on the timing of the central bank's next policy move. Some investors were fearing that Yellen would give a nod to the hawks in her speech. Yellen did no such thing. She simply noted "that the core reforms we have put in place have substantially boosted resilience without unduly limiting credit availability or economic growth". Yellen made no comments to suggest that monetary policy needs to tighten in order to reduce financial froth and foster greater stability. Financial stability1 matters to the Fed almost as much as maintaining low and stable inflation, and full employment. In this week's report, we discuss the FOMC's deliberations when the economy was at full employment in the late 1990s, and note that the Fed was willing to raise rates even before inflation accelerated. Gary Cohn, a potential replacement for Yellen, suggested in an interview last week that tax cut legislation is on the way. We agree and discuss below. The economic surprise index is rebounding, but that has not yet led to positive surprises on inflation as it has in the past. We also examine what history says about earnings guidance, U.S. equities and the stock-to-bond ratios during and after earnings reporting season. Fed Deliberations At Full Employment Chart 1The Fed And Inflation At Full Employment Minutes from FOMC meetings in the late 1990s are instructive in understanding the central bank's reaction function due to a lack of inflation as the economy moves beyond full employment (Chart 1). The Fed cut rates following the LTCM financial crisis in late 1998 and subsequently held the fed funds rate at 4¾% until June 1999. Core inflation was roughly flat during the on-hold period, even as the unemployment rate steadily declined and various measures pointed to significant labor market tightness. The FOMC discussion in the late 1990s of why inflation was still quiescent sounds very familiar. Policymakers pointed to the widespread inability of firms to raise prices because of strong competitive pressures in domestic and global markets. In the Fed's view, significant cost-saving efforts and new technologies also contributed to the low inflation environment for both consumer prices and wages. Moreover, rapid increases in imports and a drawdown in the pool of available workers was also seen as satisfying growing demand and avoiding upward pressure on inflation. 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 any 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%, 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. Question marks regarding the structural headwinds to inflation will remain in place, but it will not take much of a rise in core inflation in the coming months for the Fed to deliver the next rate hike (most likely in December). Any fiscal stimulus, were it to occur, would reinforce the FOMC's bias to normalize interest rates. Is All Lost For U.S. Tax Cuts? Although tax reform was a major component of President Trump's legislative agenda, investors are skeptical that any fiscal stimulus or tax cuts will succeed (Chart 2). In our view, there is a high probability that at least a modest package will be passed. The reason is that, if it fails, Republicans will return empty-handed to their home districts to campaign for the November 2018 mid-term elections. Historically, Republican Presidents who have low approval ratings ahead of mid-term elections tend to lose a larger number of seats to Democrats (Chart 3). Chart 2Market Has Priced Out Trump's Economic Agenda Chart 3GOP Is Running Out Of Time Now that the border adjustment tax is officially dead, the GOP must either significantly moderate its tax cuts or add to the deficit. BCA's geopolitical strategists argue that regardless of which bill is passed by the GOP, the legislation will expire after a "budget window" of around 10 years.2 Tax cut plans ultimately will be watered down, but even a modest cut would be positive for the equity market. The dollar should also receive a boost, especially given that the Fed would have to respond to any fiscally driven growth impulse with higher interest rates. We expect Trump to ensure that the Fed retains its dovish bias when Chair Janet Yellen's term expires on February 3, 2018. He may favor a non-economist and a loyal adviser, such as Gary Cohn, over any of the more traditional and hawkish Republican candidates. Cohn could not single-handedly affect the course of monetary policy. The FOMC votes on rate changes, but decisions are formed by consensus (with one or two dissents). Cohn could implement an abrupt change in policy in the unlikely event that 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. The FOMC has been very cautious in tightening policy and we do not see Trump taking an active role in monetary policy. The bottom line is that Cohn's possible appointment to the Fed Chair would not signal a major shift in monetary policy. Raising The Debt Ceiling Recent fights over Obamacare and tax reform have pitted fiscally conservative Republicans against moderates, with the debt ceiling used as a bargaining chip in the battles. 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 government could not withstand the public pressure. Democrats can't be blamed because the Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House. Even the Freedom Caucus, the most fiscally conservative grouping in the House, is divided on the issue. This augurs well for a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling because 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, between October 1 when the current funding for the government will expire, and mid-October when the CBO predicts that the debt ceiling will be reached. Odds of such a scenario are probably around 25%. 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. The good news is that at least the economy is cooperating. Economic Surprise Versus Inflation Surprise Economic expectations are now low enough for the still-tepid activity data to beat, but this trend has not yet spilled over into the inflation data. Elevated economic expectations post-election led to a four-month period (early March-mid June) when the Citi Economic surprise index rolled over3 (Chart 4). In mid-July, the data began to top washed-out expectations and the surprise index accelerated. In the past two months, readings across a wide spectrum of economic indicators (consumer and business sentiment, consumer spending, home prices, manufacturing sentiment, and employment) have outpaced lowered expectations. Even so, inflation readings continue to disappoint relative to forecasts. Chart 4Inflation Surprise Usually Follows Economic Surprise Higher... But Not This Time After briefly moving above zero in early 2017 - indicating that inflation data was stronger than analysts projected- the Citi inflation surprise index rolled over again (Chart 4, bottom panel). Reports on the CPI, PPI, and average hourly earnings continued to fall short of consensus forecasts. This despite the rebound in the economic surprise index and the tightening of labor and product markets. The disappointment on price data relative to consensus forecasts is not new. Although there were brief periods where prices exceeded forecasts in 2010 and 2011, the last time that inflation exceeded market consensus in this business cycle was in late 2009 and early 2010. In the last few years of the 2001-2007 economic expansion through early 2009, the price data eclipsed forecasts more than half of the time. During this interval, economists underestimated the impact of surging energy prices on inflation readings. Moreover, the disconnect between economic surprise and inflation surprise has never been wider, but the inflation surprise index should follow the economic surprise index upward. In the past 13 years, there have been 15 periods when economic surprise has climbed after a trough. The inflation surprise index has temporarily increased in 13 of those episodes. For example, in the aftermath of the oil price peak in the U.S. in mid-2014, both economic surprise and inflation surprise diminished through early 2015 and then began moving up. However, today's inflation surprise index has rolled over while economic surprise has gained, but remember that inflation is a lagging indicator.4 Asset class performance since the economic surprise index formed a bottom in mid-June has run counter to history as risk assets have underperformed (Table 1). Returns on the S&P 500 have lagged Treasuries since the June 14 trough, driving down the stocks-to-bond ratio. U.S. large cap equities have outperformed Treasuries by an average of 290 basis points in the 11 prior episodes in this expansion as economic surprise climbed. Similarly, both high yield and investment-grade corporate bond returns have lagged Treasuries since mid-June. During previous episodes when the surprise index was climbing, credit outperformed Treasuries. Small caps have also lagged large caps, which is counter to the historical pattern, although oil and gold have both gained since the trough in economic surprise. The evidence is mixed for these two commodities after a bottom in economic surprise. Table 1Performance Of Risk Assets As Economic Surprise Rises BCA's view5 is that a Fed-led recession will begin in 2019. Nonetheless, markets were concerned about a recession occurring this year as the economic data underwhelmed in the first part of the year. Despite market fears, reliable leading indicators of a recession such as the LEI, the yield curve and the 26-week change in claims, are not signaling a recession (Chart 5). BCA does not expect the buildup of the types of imbalances that led to economic downturns in the past. Instead, a recession may be triggered by a Fed policy mistake, or a terrorist attack that disrupts economic activity over large area for an extended time, or a widespread natural disaster. Chart 5Data Suggest Low Odds Of A##BR##Recession In Next 12 Months Bottom Line: There are few imbalances in the economy and a recession in the U.S. is more than a year away. Although risk assets have not outperformed as is typical after a trough in economic surprise, we anticipate that stocks will beat bonds in the next 12-18 months. Inflation will surprise to the upside in the coming months, pressuring the Fed and the bond market. Stay short duration. Is Trump To Blame For The Stalled Stock Market Rally? Corporate earnings, not politics, drive equity prices. The S&P 500 has retreated from its all-time highs in early August despite another terrific earnings reporting season.6 Investors are concerned that Trump's erratic presidency may be to blame, but we take a different view Since the start of the economic expansion, the S&P 500 rose in 83% of the periods when large U.S. corporations provide results for the prior quarter and guidance on subsequent periods. (Table 2, bottom panel) U.S. equities increased only 66% of the time when managements were silent on profitability and future prospects (Table 3, bottom panel). However, there are periods when exogenous events like the 2011 U.S. debt downgrade and the 2015 Chinese devaluation that can disrupt the normal pattern, and we have excluded those from our calculations. Nevertheless, with the Q2 earnings reporting season over, the odds are less favorable for a rising U.S. equity market in the next few months. Table 2S&P 500, Stock-Bond-Ratio And Guidance During Earnings Season Table 3S&P 500, Stock-Bond-Ratio And Guidance Outside Of Earnings Season The stock-to-bond ratio also fares better during earnings season than during corporate quiet periods, and moves higher more often. When companies report profits, the stock-to-bond ratio increases 73% (Table 2, bottom panel) of the time versus just 65% outside of earnings season (Table 3, bottom panel). Since the start of 2010, the median return for the stock-to-bonds ratio is 0.046% per day during reporting season (Table 2, top panel) and 0.037% when it is not earnings season (Table 3, top panel). The implication is that the stock-to-bond ratio over the next two months may move higher, and at a faster rate than it did during the just completed Q2 earnings reporting season. Counter-intuitively, earnings guidance increases more often outside of earnings season (90% of the time and 0.04% per day, Table 3) than during it (77% of the time and 0.019% per day, Table 2). The top panels of Tables 3 and 2 respectively also show that the median daily return on stocks is higher outside of earnings reporting season (0.074% per day) than it is as earnings are being reported (0.054% per day). This is also somewhat counter-intuitive, as over the long term, earnings trends drive stock prices. We intend to examine the shorter term relationship between stock prices, the stocks to bond ratio and earnings guidance in a future Weekly Report. Bottom Line: The path of corporate earnings and not politics, ultimately drive stock prices. In the past eight years, the stocks to bond ratio during earnings season rises more and more often than when there was no new information on earnings. We remain upbeat on the earnings outlook for at least the remainder of this year, which will help the equity market weather the ongoing turbulence emanating from Washington. Next year, the earnings backdrop will not be as supportive. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate", dated July 24, 2017. It is available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Trump Put Over" dated August 23, 2017. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Monetary Policy Recalibration", published July 17, 2017. It is available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "From Slow Burn Recovery To Retro-Recession?," August 18, 2017. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession" published June 16, 2017. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Stage Is Set For Jackson Hole", August 21, 2017. It is available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Feature Turkey's banking system has in recent years relied on enormous liquidity provisions by the central bank (Chart I-1) to sustain its ongoing credit boom, and hence economic growth. Since early this year, the authorities have doubled down: they have also begun using fiscal policy to prop up growth. Chart I-1Turkey: Central Bank Large Liquidity Injections On the whole, this combination of colossal credit and fiscal stimulus is indisputably bearish for the currency. Despite strong performance by Turkish stocks this year, we are maintaining our bearish call on the lira. The lira is set to depreciate by 20-25% in the next 12 months or so versus both an equally-weighted basket of the U.S. dollar and the euro. Bringing Fiscal Stimulus Into Play The Turkish authorities have recently begun using fiscal means to stimulate growth: Last summer, a sovereign wealth fund was set up by presidential decree to pool shares in companies owned by the government and use them as collateral to raise debt and initiate spending on various infrastructure projects. The target size of the fund is US$ 200 billion, compared with the government non-interest expenditure of US$ 165 billion in the last 12 months. This would effectively allow the government to issue debt and increase expenditures off-balance sheet. In addition, this past March, the government decided to recapitalize the Credit Guarantee Fund. This initiative allowed it to underwrite US$ 50 billion, or 7% of GDP, worth of credit to Turkish companies. This is considerable as it compares with US$ 93 billion worth of loan origination by commercial banks last year. By assuming credit risk on these loans, the government is effectively encouraging banks to lend, in turn boosting economic growth. In effect, this has lowered lending standards and given a green light to banks to flood the economy with credit. Even though interest rates have risen since last November, credit growth has accelerated as banks have provided loans covered by government guarantees (Chart I-2). On top of this quasi-fiscal stimulus, government expenditures excluding interest payments have accelerated (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Bank Loan Growth Has Accelerated ##br##Despite Higher Interest Rates Chart I-3Turkey: Fiscal Spending Has Surged Such a rise in government spending has been financed by commercial banks whose holdings of government bonds have risen sharply. Essentially, government spending has also been funded by commercial banks' money creation. In short, fiscal and credit stimulus have boosted domestic demand, thereby widening the country's current account deficit once again (Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B). Chart I-4AWidening Twin Deficit Chart I-4BWidening Twin Deficit Given that the starting point of the government's fiscal position is good - public debt stands at only 28% of GDP - the authorities have ample room to rely on fiscal levers to promote growth. However, a widening fiscal deficit will be bearish for the currency. Bottom Line: Widening twin (current account and fiscal) deficits (Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B) are a bad omen for the lira. Monetary Tightening? What Monetary Tightening? Chart I-5Turkey: Money/Credit Growth Is Too Strong Although interbank and lending rates have risen in recent months, money and credit growth have been booming (Chart I-5). This does not support the idea that monetary policy is tight. On the contrary, thriving money and credit growth suggest that the policy stance is very easy. The Central Bank of Turkey (CBT) raised various policy rates and capped the overnight liquidity facility at the beginning of this year. However, commercial banks' usage of the late liquidity window facility - the one facility that has been left uncapped - has literally gone exponential - it has risen from zero to TRY 70 billion in the past 8 months. On the whole, the central bank’s net liquidity injections into the banking system continue to make new highs, even though the price of liquidity has been rising. Adding all the liquidity facilities – the intraday, overnight and late window facilities – the CBT's outstanding funding to banks is 90 billion TRY, or 3% of GDP, more than ever recorded (Chart 1, bottom panel). This entails that monetary policy is loose rather than tight. On the whole, commercial banks are requiring more and more liquidity, and the CBT is continuously supplying it. These injections maintain liquidity in the banking system to a sufficiently high level to allow aggressive money/credit creation among commercial banks. Bottom Line: The CBT is facilitating/accommodating an economy-wide credit binge by providing copious amounts of liquidity to commercial banks. The Victim Is The Lira The lira will inevitably depreciate in the months ahead: Chart I-6Turkey: Central Bank's Foreign ##br##Reserves Have Been Depleted The lira's exchange rate versus an equally-weighted basket of the U.S. dollar and the euro has been mostly flat year-to-date, despite the CBT intervening in the market to support the lira by selling U.S. dollars. Aggressive selling of CBT foreign exchange reserves has so far prevented much steeper lira depreciation in Turkey. However at this stage, the central bank is literally running out of reserves and will soon lose its ability to support the currency (Chart I-6). A developing country with foreign exchange reserves worth less than three months' imports is considered vulnerable. Therefore, at 0.5 months of imports coverage, or US$ 9.7 billion, the CBT has little capacity to continue supporting the currency via interventions. Economic growth has recovered: export volumes are very strong, driven by shipments to Europe, while loan growth is supporting private domestic demand and government expenditures have mushroomed. The ongoing economic recovery will boost inflation, and strong domestic demand will assure the current account deficit widens. This will weigh on the exchange rate. Core inflation measures have subsided from 10% to 7%, but remain well above the central bank's target of 5%. Provided inflation is a lagging variable, the acceleration in money growth and domestic demand this year will lead to higher inflation in the months ahead. Wage growth remains high and our profit margin proxy for both manufacturing and service industries - calculated as core CPI divided by unit labor costs - has relapsed signifying deteriorating corporate profitability (Chart I-7). This in turn will force businesses to raise prices. Provided demand is strong, companies will likely succeed in passing through higher prices to customers. In brief, odds are that inflation will rise significantly soon. Escalating unit labor costs also offsets the benefit of nominal currency depreciation. Chart I-8 illustrates that the real effective exchange rate is not cheap based on consumer prices, or unit labor costs. Chart I-7Companies Profit Margins Are Shrinking Chart I-8The Lira Is Not Cheap At All As inflation rises, residents' desire to convert their deposits from local to foreign currency will increase. In fact, this is already happening - households' foreign currency deposit growth is accelerating. In short, lingering high inflation will continue to weigh on the currency's value. Bottom Line: The authorities have doubled down on fiscal and credit stimulus, warranting a doubling down on bearish bets on the lira. Investment Implications On the whole, the authorities will continue resorting to fiscal and monetary stimulus to sustain economic growth. According to the Impossible Trinity theory, in countries with an open capital account structure, the authorities can control either interest rates or the exchange rate, but not both simultaneously. Chart I-9Bank Stocks Have Rallied Despite ##br##Shrinking Net Interest Margins In Turkey, policymakers will eventually opt to control interest rates, meaning they will not have much control over the exchange rate. We suggest currency traders who are not shorting the lira do so at this time. We remain short the lira versus the U.S. dollar. A weaker lira will undermine U.S. dollar returns on Turkish stocks and domestic bonds. Dedicated EM equity investors as well as those overseeing EM fixed income and credit portfolios should continue to underweight Turkish assets within their respective EM universes. Bank stocks have rallied strongly, and have decoupled from interest rates (Chart I-9). This reflects the recent credit binge, where banks are making profits on loan originations while the government is holding responsibility for bad loans. These dynamics could persist for a while. However, both loan growth and banks' profitability will be hurt if the credit guarantee scheme is not renewed. So far, it is estimated that TRY 200 billion of an announced TRY 250 billion of this credit guarantee scheme has been utilized. Continuous credit guarantee schemes and accumulation of off-balance-sheet liabilities by the government will widen sovereign credit spreads. In many EM countries, including Turkey, bank share prices have historically correlated with sovereign spreads. Hence, rising sovereign risk will weigh on banks stocks too. Finally, as the lira begins to depreciate and inflation rises, local interest rates will have to climb. This will also weigh on bank share prices. In brief, we are reiterating our negative/underweight stance on Turkish banks. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The GOP's failure to repeal Obamacare could rev up the Republicans' motivation to move forward on tax cuts. Fed policymakers are taking financial stability seriously. Constructive conditions for consumer spending. Margin expansion continues in early Q2 earnings results. Feature Tax Cuts Still On The Table The Republicans' failure to pass their health care legislation is leading the markets to doubt the prospect for tax cuts. This may be premature but, contrary to conventional wisdom, it may actually increase the chances of tax cuts. Ironically, the inability to jettison Obamacare may turn out to be a blessing for President Trump and the Republican Party. According to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2026, 22 million fewer Americans would have health care if the legislation had been enacted compared with the status quo. The Senate bill also would have led to substantial cuts to Medicaid and deep reductions to insurance subsidies for poor and middle-class families, many of whom voted for Trump. The failure to repeal Obamacare could actually increase the motivation of Republicans to move forward on tax cuts anyway. The chances for broad tax reform have certainly diminished, since that will be just as difficult to get passed as healthcare reform. The GOP also wanted to use the roughly $200 billion in savings from healthcare reform to fund reduced tax rates. However, tax cuts are something that all Republicans can easily agree too, and they will need to show a legislative victory ahead of next year's mid-term elections. The difficulty will be how to pay for these cuts. We expect them to be "fully funded" in the sense that there will be offsetting spending cuts, but these will be back-loaded toward the end of the 10-year budget window, whereas the tax cuts will be front-loaded. This would generate a modest amount of fiscal stimulus over the next few years. Implications For The Fed Expansionary fiscal policy next year would generate difficulties for the FOMC. The June CPI report underscored that inflation is not a problem for now. Nonetheless, we highlighted in last week's report that pipeline inflationary pressures are gradually building. The unemployment rate is already below the Fed's estimate of the full employment level. Chart 1Inside The Fed's Forecasts... Moreover, unemployment will continue to fall unless productivity picks up soon. We backed out the productivity growth rate implied by the Fed's latest Summary of Economic Projections, given its assumption that real GDP growth will be roughly 2% over the next couple of years and that the unemployment rate will stabilize near the current level. This combination implies that productivity growth will accelerate from the average rate observed so far in this expansion (0.7%) to about 1%, which is consistent with monthly payrolls of 135,000. If we instead assume that productivity does not accelerate (and real GDP growth is 2%), then payrolls must jump to 160,000 and the unemployment rate would fall below 4% next year (Chart 1). The implication is that, unless real GDP growth slows, the unemployment rate is soon likely to reach lows not seen since 2000. The FOMC hawks would become even more worried that the Fed is taking too large a risk with inflation and financial stability (see below). Fiscal stimulus in 2018 would place the FOMC even further behind the curve. Policymakers would be forced to tighten aggressively to bump up the unemployment rate. The Fed would hope for a soft landing, but the more likely result is a recession in 2019. That said, it is too early for investors to position for a recession.1 Bonds rallied and the dollar weakened anew following the collapse of the Senate's healthcare bill on the view that hopes for fiscal stimulus are all but dead. We still believe that bond yields and the dollar have more upside potential, even in the absence of fresh fiscal stimulus. Last week's report2 highlighted that a global monetary policy recalibration is under way because central bankers have decided that "emergency" levels of monetary accommodation are no longer required. Moreover, the maximum level of policy divergence has not yet been reached between the Fed and other major central banks, which means that the dollar will have one last leg higher. The U.S. stock market has weathered the fiscal disappointment, seemingly moving out of sync with dollar and bond market action in the past several months. The equity market appears to have been given a "free pass" because earnings have been very supportive. The combination of robust earnings growth, steady real GDP growth near 2%, and low bond yields, all have been bullish for stocks. It will be tougher sledding when profit growth peaks. Fortunately, the earnings backdrop is still constructive at the moment (see below). A Third Mandate? Financial stability has become a third mandate for the Fed, and is one of the reasons the hawks want to keep tightening despite the fact that the FOMC has not yet met the inflation target. The topic has been mentioned by either Fed staff or FOMC members in 27 of the 39 meetings since September 2012. Fed Chair Yellen has elevated financial stability during her tenure, leading discussions or staff briefings in 19 of the 27 meetings she has presided over. The topic merited only passing mention in Fed deliberations prior to 2012. At the June meeting, Fed staff characterized the "financial vulnerabilities of the U.S. financial system" as moderate on balance.3 This assessment has not changed since the Fed began to offer opinions on the health of the financial system at its September 2013 meeting. However, the Fed does not provide a financial stability grade at every meeting. In December 2013, Fed staff described financial conditions as moderate, but its next judgment (also moderate) was only in January 2016. Since then, Fed staff has provided an assessment of financial stability in half of the 12 subsequent meetings. Another indication that Fed policymakers are paying particular attention to financial market risk is that the issue has become a key part of the Monetary Policy Report (MPR).4 Before the onset of the GFC, financial stability warranted only a few paragraphs in the MPR, but since 2013 the report has included a special section on the topic. Chart 2FOMC Closely Monitoring Financial Stability The four primary areas that the Fed monitors to assess financial stability are: Vulnerabilities stemming from maturity and liquidity transformation in the financial sector (Chart 2, panel 1); Valuation pressures across a range of assets, including Treasury securities, equities, corporate bonds and commercial real estate (panel 2); Leverage in the household and business sectors (panel 5); and Regulatory burden (not shown). Some FOMC members are worried that if rates are not normalized soon, then valuation will become even more stretched in bond and equity markets, which could potentially lead to financial stability issues. This is a reason why a few of the central bankers want to hike rates even though inflation is still too low. This group believes it is better to tighten slowly, rather than wait and raises rates sharply in the future when financial valuations may be even more stretched. Nonetheless, others at the Fed are concerned that higher rates may trigger an equity correction, which if significant enough, would spark a slowdown in the U.S. economy via the wealth channel. In this case, greater financial instability would push the Fed to pause its rate hike regime prematurely. We intend to return to this scenario in a future Weekly Report. The monetary authority is also concerned by negative term premiums in the bond market. We expect only minimal impact on Treasury bond yields linked to the reduction in the Fed's balance sheet.5 That said, a big sell-off in bond prices that leads to a sudden correction in equity prices or a widening of credit spreads would tighten financial conditions, impact the real economy and prompt the Fed to rethink its path for the fed funds rate and its balance sheet. Bottom Line: The conditions that foster financial stability matter to the central bank almost as much as maintaining low and stable inflation, and full employment. The doves want to see inflation rise closer to the 2% target before tightening even more. The hawks worry that the relationship could be non-linear, which means that a further undershoot of unemployment below estimates of full employment could suddenly generate a surge in inflation. At a minimum, an undershoot could boost risks to financial stability by promoting excess risk-taking in the financial markets. Conditions Still Favor The Consumer June's reading on retail sales released in mid-July was disappointing, but the conditions that cultivated increased consumer spending are still in place. Core retail sales dipped by 0.1% month-over-month in June, and both the 3-month and 12-month rates of change have been on a downward trajectory since the start of the year (Chart 3, panel 1). Moreover, auto sales have stagnated near all-time highs in recent months, adding to the market's consumer concerns (panel 2). The only positive is that consumer spending looks better in real terms because inflation has moderated (panel 3). Nominal retail sales have softened, but inflation-adjusted spending is what feeds into the construction of GDP. Even so, conditions are in place for a rebound in spending in the coming months. Consumer confidence readings are still near cycle peaks; home values are elevated and rising; household net worth is at an all-time high and expanding rapidly, financial conditions are easy, and accelerating income growth is supported by the tightening labor market. When these economic circumstances prevailed in the past, consumer spending almost always sped up (Chart 4). Chart 3Soft Patch In Retail Sales##BR##And Inflation Continues Chart 4Conditions Conducive For##BR##Consumer Spending Bottom Line: The soft patch in consumer spending is lingering longer than expected, which challenges our view that U.S. economic growth will be stronger in the second half of the year relative to the first half average. Nevertheless, we anticipate that GDP growth will permit economic output to hit the Fed's low target for the year and keep the monetary authority on track to tighten policy at a faster pace than is discounted in the bond market. The resulting bond sell-off will not derail the equity bull run as long as profits remain supportive. Q2 Earnings Update: Margin Expansion Continues Chart 5Positive Earnings Surprises Continue The Q2 earnings reporting season is off to a strong start, with both EPS and sales running well ahead of consensus expectations as forecasted in our July 3 preview. Moreover, the counter trend rally in profit margins is still in place. Just under 20% of companies have reported results so far with 74% of companies beating consensus EPS projections, right at the long-term average of 70% (Chart 5). In addition, 74% have posted Q2 revenues that exceeded expectations. The surprise factor for Q2 stands at 5% for EPS and 1% for sales. We anticipate the secular mean-reversion of margins to re-assert itself in the S&P data, perhaps beginning early in 2018. Nonetheless, the initial results imply that Q2 will see another quarter of margin expansion. Average earnings growth (Q2 2017 versus Q2 2016) is strong at 9% with revenue growth at 5%. The BCA Earnings model predicts EPS growth to hit roughly 18% later this year on a 4-quarter moving total basis, before moderating in 2018 (Chart 6). Measured on this basis, S&P 500 EPS growth so far in Q2 is 18%, compared with 12% in Q1. The strength in earnings and revenue is broad based (Table 1). Earnings per share are up in Q2 2017 versus Q2 2016 in 10 of 11 sectors; the lone exception is the utilities sector. EPS results are particularly strong in energy, technology and financials. Energy revenues surged by 15% in Q2 versus a year ago. Sales gains in technology (7%), materials (6%), utilities (5%), and real estate (5%), are notable. The upward trajectory of EPS estimates for 2017 and 2018 (Chart 7) since the start of 2017 is encouraging. We will provide an update on the Q2 earnings season in the August 7 Weekly Report. Chart 6Strong EPS##BR##Growth Ahead Table 1S&P 500:##BR##Q2 2017 Results* Chart 7Estimates For '17 & '18 Have Moved##BR##Higher Since Start Of The Year Bottom Line: EPS growth will continue to accelerate through the end of 2017 and into early 2018, aided by a period of margin expansion and decent top-line growth. The elevated level of ISM sets the stage for EPS growth to gather speed in the second half of 2017. Firm readings on ISM are an indication that our bullish profit story for 2017 is still intact. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Waiting For The Turn", dated June 26, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Global Monetary Policy Recalibration", dated July 17, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20170614.htm 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/20170707_mprfullreport.pdf 5 Please see BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers", dated May 23, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The FOMC statement reaffirmed that the Fed remains in hiking mode. If the Fed keeps raising rates in line with the "dots," monetary policy will move into restrictive territory by early 2019. By then, the unemployment rate will have fallen to a level where it has nowhere to go but up. Unfortunately, history suggests that once unemployment starts rising, it keeps rising. The good news is that today's economic imbalances are not as formidable as those that existed in the lead-up to the past few recessions. The bad news is that cracks are starting to form. We are especially worried about the health of the U.S. commercial real estate sector. Remain overweight global equities for now, but look to significantly pare back exposure next summer. Feature The U.S. Expansion Is Getting Long In The Tooth Chart 1How Low Can It Go? The current U.S. expansion has now reached eight years, making it the third longest in the post-war era. History teaches that expansions do not die of old age. Rather, they are usually murdered by some combination of Fed tightening and the unwinding of the imbalances that were built up during the boom years. Thinking about the present, there is good and bad news on both fronts. Let's start with the Fed. This week's FOMC statement reaffirmed that the Fed remains in hiking mode. The good news is that real rates are still very low by historic standards, suggesting that the economy is unlikely to stall out this year. The bad news is that the Fed has less scope to raise rates than in the past. Chart 1 shows estimates of the real neutral rate developed by Fed researchers Thomas Laubach and Kathryn Holston, along with John Williams, President of the San Francisco Fed and Janet Yellen's close confidante. Their calculations suggest that the real neutral rate has plummeted over the past decade in the U.S. and the euro area, with lesser declines recorded in Canada and the U.K. In the U.S., the real neutral rate currently stands at 0.4%. Assuming the Fed raises interest rates in line with the "dots," rates will move into restrictive territory in early 2019. Given that monetary policy affects the real economy with a lag of 12-to-18 months, the Fed may not realize that it has raised rates too much until it is too late. The Downside Of A Low Unemployment Rate One might argue that this justifies a "go-slow" approach to tightening monetary policy. There is certainly validity to this view, but it is not without its drawbacks. The unemployment rate has now fallen to 4.3%, 0.4 points below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. As Chart 2 illustrates, the odds of a recession rise when the unemployment rate reaches such low levels. Some commentators have argued that the headline unemployment rate understates the amount of economic slack. We are skeptical that this is the case. Table 1 compares a wide variety of measures of labor market slack with where they stood at the height of the business cycle in 2000 and 2007. The main message of the table is that the unemployment rate today is broadly where one would expect it to be based on these collaborating indicators. Taken together, these indicators suggest that slack is comparable to what it was in 2007, albeit still above the levels seen in 2000. Table 1Comparing Current Labor Market Slack With Past Cycles As we noted last week, the easing in U.S. financial conditions over the past six months is likely to boost growth in the second half of this year (Chart 3). If growth does accelerate, the unemployment rate - which is already 0.2 points below where the Fed thought it would be at the end of this year when it made its December 2016 projections - will fall below 4%. There is a high probability that this will fuel inflation, reversing the largely technically-driven decline in most core inflation measures over the past few months. Chart 3U.S.: Easy Financial Conditions Will Support Growth In H2 2017 The market is not pricing this in at all. In fact, 2-year breakeven inflation rates have tumbled by 87 basis points since March. A bit more inflation would be a welcome development. Not only have market-based projections of inflation fallen since the Great Recession, but long-term survey-based measures have dipped as well (Chart 4). Of course, one can have too much of a good thing. The experience of the 1960s is illustrative in that regard. Chart 5 shows that much like today, inflation in the first half of that decade was well anchored at just below 2%. However, once the unemployment rate fell below 4%, inflation soared. Core inflation rose from 1.5% in early 1966 to nearly 4% in early 1967, ultimately making its way to 6% by 1970. Chart 4Inflation Could Use A Boost Chart 5Inflation In The 1960s Took Off ##br##Once The Unemployment Rate Fell Below 4% If the Fed today wants to avoid the same fate, it will have to take steps to lift the unemployment rate back up to NAIRU. Unfortunately, history suggests that it is difficult to raise the unemployment rate a little bit without inadvertently raising it by a lot. Once unemployment starts to rise, a vicious circle tends to erupt where increasing joblessness leads to slower income growth, falling confidence, and ultimately, less spending and higher unemployment. In fact, there has never been a case in the post-war era where the three-month moving average of the unemployment rate has risen by more than one-third of a percentage point without a recession ensuing (Chart 6). Chart 6Even A Small Uptick In The Unemployment Rate Is Bad News For The Business Cycle Imbalances Are Growing The vicious circle described above tends to be amplified when there are large imbalances in the economy. The good news is that today's imbalances are not as formidable as those that existed in the lead-up to the past few recessions. The bad news is that cracks are starting to form. The ratio of household debt-to-disposable income is still close to post-recession lows, but this is largely because mortgage debt continues to be weighed down by a depressed homeownership rate (Chart 7). In contrast, consumer credit is rebounding: Student debt is going through the roof and auto loans are nearly back to pre-recession levels as a share of disposable income (Chart 8). Not surprisingly, this is starting to translate into higher default rates (Chart 9). The fact that this is happening at a time when the unemployment rate is at the lowest level in 16 years is a cause for concern. Chart 7Low Homeownership Rate Keeping A Lid On Mortgage Debt Chart 8Consumer Credit: Making A Comeback... Chart 9...With Defaults Starting To Rise In Some Categories Meanwhile, the ratio of corporate debt-to-GDP has risen above 2000 levels and is closing in on its 2007 peak (Chart 10). Contrary to the widespread notion that "wages aren't rising," real wages are increasing more quickly than corporate productivity (Chart 11). As the labor market continues to tighten, corporate profitability could suffer, setting the stage for rising defaults and increasing layoffs. Chart 10U.S. Corporate Sector Has Been Feasting On Credit Chart 11Real Wages Now Increasing Faster Than Productivity Worries About Commercial Real Estate We are particularly worried about the health of the commercial real estate (CRE) market. CRE prices currently stand 7% above pre-recession levels in real terms, having risen by a staggering 82% since the start of 2010 (Chart 12). Financial institutions hold $3.8 trillion in CRE loans, $2 trillion of which are held by banks. As a share of GDP, the outstanding stock of CRE bank loans in most categories is near pre-recession levels (Chart 13). Chart 12Commercial Real Estate Prices Have ##br##Surpassed Pre-Recession Levels Chart 13CRE Debt Is Rising Going forward, the fundamental underpinnings for the CRE market are likely to soften. The retail sector is already under intense pressure due to the shift in buying habits towards eCommerce. CMBX spreads in this space are rising. Vacancy rates in the apartment sector have started to tick higher and rent growth has slowed (Chart 14 and Chart 15). The number of apartment units under construction stands at a four-decade high according to Census data, despite a structurally subdued pace of household formation (Chart 16). Most of these units are likely to hit the market in 2018, which will result in a further increase in vacancy rates. Chart 14Vacancy Rates Are Bottoming Outside The Industrial Sector... Chart 15...While Rent Growth Is Losing Steam Chart 16Apartment Supply Is Surging, But Will There Be Enough Demand? There are fewer signs of overbuilding in the office sector. Nevertheless, vacancy rates are likely to rise, given the recent increase in the number of new projects in the pipeline. On the flipside, demand growth for new office space is set to weaken, as a tighter labor market leads to slower payroll gains. The Fed estimates that the U.S. needs to add only 80,000 workers to payrolls every month to keep up with a growing labor force, down from about 150,000 in the two decades preceding the Great Recession.1 The secular shift towards increased office density and teleworking will only further depress office demand over time. Chart 17Tighter Lending Standards Could Lead To Lower CRE Prices The one bright spot is industrial real estate. Thanks to a revival in U.S. manufacturing, vacancy rates remain low and rent growth is rising. However, if the U.S. economy does accelerate over the remainder of the year, the dollar is likely to strengthen, putting a dent in the profitability of U.S. manufacturing companies. Standing back, how worried should investors be about the CRE sector? For now, there is limited cause for concern. U.S. financial institutions have been tightening lending standards on CRE loans for seven straight quarters. Consequently, the average loan-to-value ratio for newly securitized loans has fallen about four points to 60% since 2015, and is now down eight points compared to 2007. However, if vacancy rates keep rising, real estate prices will fall, leading to a decline in the value of the collateral backing CRE loans. This could prompt lenders to pull back credit, causing prices to fall further (Chart 17). Seasoned real estate investors are no strangers to such vicious cycles, and if the next one begins at a time when growth is slowing because the economy is running out of spare capacity and financial conditions are tightening, it could easily trigger a recession. Fiscal Policy To The Rescue? Could looser fiscal policy delay the day of reckoning? The answer is yes, but much will depend on when the stimulus arrives and what form it takes. The best-case scenario is that fiscal policy is eased just as the economy is beginning to slow of its own accord. A burst of stimulus that arrives on the scene too early would be less desirable, although not necessarily counterproductive, since it would allow the Fed to step up the pace of rate hikes, thereby giving it more scope to cut rates later in response to slower growth. In practice, however, calibrating the amount of monetary tightening that is necessary to offset a given amount of fiscal loosening is difficult to achieve. This is especially the case in today's environment where another fight over the debt ceiling looms large, a new health care bill is making its way through the Senate, and Trump's tax agenda remains heavy on promises but short on specifics. Our expectation is that Congress will pass a "balanced" budget which equates revenues with expenditures over the 10-year budget horizon. How this affects growth is hard to predict with any certainty. On the one hand, spending cuts tend to depress aggregate demand more than tax cuts raise demand. In economic parlance, the fiscal multiplier for government spending is larger than for taxes. On the other hand, the tax cuts are likely to be front-loaded, while the spending cuts will be back-dated. If history is any guide, this means that the latter will never see the light of day. In addition, some of the budgetary impact from cutting statutory tax rates will be paid for through dynamic scoring, the questionable practice of assuming that lower personal and corporate tax rates will significantly spur growth. On balance, we expect fiscal policy to turn modestly stimulative over the next few years. However, given the uncertainty involved, there is a risk that the Fed either raises rates too much - thereby choking off growth - or by not enough, causing the unemployment rate to fall to a level where it has nowhere to go but up. Both outcomes could trigger a recession. Investment Conclusions Right now, our recession timing model, as well as the models maintained by various regional Fed banks, assign a low probability of a severe slowdown in the coming months (See Box 1 for details). These models, however, tend to send reliable signals only over a fairly short horizon. Looking further ahead, we see a heightened probability of weaker growth in the second half of 2018, which could set the stage for a recession in 2019. The good news is that today's economic imbalances are not as daunting as they were in the late innings of many past economic expansions. Thus, the 2019 recession is not likely to be especially severe. The bad news is that valuations across most markets are quite stretched. Thus, like the 2001 recession, the financial market impact could be disproportionally large compared to the economic impact. We are still overweight global equities, but will be looking to significantly reduce exposure by next summer. Once the equity bear market begins - most likely late next year - a 20%-to-30% retracement in U.S. stocks is probable. Given that correlations across stock markets tend to rise when risk sentiment is deteriorating, it is likely that other global bourses will also suffer if U.S. stocks weaken. Indeed, considering that most stock markets have a beta to the S&P 500 that exceeds one, other regions could suffer even more than the U.S. As the U.S. economy falls into recession, the Fed will stop raising rates. This will cause the dollar to weaken, although not before it has appreciated by about 10% in trade-weighted terms from current levels. Thus, while we remain bullish on the dollar over the next 12 months, we are much less sanguine about the greenback over the long haul. As the dollar weakens, the yen and euro will strengthen, imparting deflationary pressures on those economies. If our timing for the next recession proves correct, neither the ECB nor the BoJ will hike rates for the remainder of the decade. The Bank of England is a tougher call. The neutral rate of interest is higher in the U.K. than in continental Europe. Last week's election results represented a clear rejection of fiscal austerity. A more expansionary fiscal stance would give the BoE some scope to raise rates. A weaker pound has also given the economy a much needed competitive boost. With inflation picking up, it is not surprising that the BoE struck a more hawkish tone this week. Nevertheless, Brexit negotiations are liable to drag on for some time, which will constrain the ability of the BoE to tighten monetary policy. Stay long GBP/EUR and GBP/JPY over the next 12 months, but remain short GBP/USD. Housekeeping Note: Closing Our Tactical S&P 500 Short Hedge As noted above, we remain cyclically overweight global equities over a 12-month horizon. However, on occasion, we have put on a tactical hedge whenever equities appeared to be technically overbought. Such a situation arose six weeks ago. While the stock market did dip briefly shortly after we initiated the trade, it subsequently rallied back. At the time of initiation, we indicated that the trade would have a lifespan of six weeks. The clock has now run out, and we are closing the trade for a loss of 2%. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Rhys Bidder, Tim Mahedy, and Rob Valletta, "Trend Job Growth: Where's Normal?" FRBSF Economic Letter, 2016-32, Federal Reserve Bank Of San Francisco (October 24,2016), and Daniel Aaronson, "Estimating The Trend In Employment Growth," Chicago Fed Letter, No. 312, Federal Reserve Bank Of Chicago (July 2013). BOX 1 The Message From Our Recession Timing Model Chart Box 18Near-Term Recession Risk Remains Low Our recession timing model is based on eight variables: The Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicator, the Coincident Economic Indicator, the fed funds rate, inflation expectations, the unemployment rate, oil prices, credit spreads, and the yield curve. We use a logistic regression framework to model the probability of a recession. Currently, our model shows that the odds of a recession are low (Chart Box 18, panel 1). Only one of the components, namely, a rising fed funds rate, is signaling a risk of a recession. The various models developed by regional Federal Reserve banks also show very low near-term odds of a recession (panels 2 and 3). Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights The U.K. election was about austerity, not Brexit; The median voter in the U.K. and the U.S. has moved to the left; Nationalism will not satisfy the popular revolt in these countries; The pound is not likely to fall much below GBP/USD 1.2. Feature The political consequences of the extraordinary U.K. general election are still not clear. The coalition-building process will take time as the horse-trading between parties proceeds over the weekend. Our high-conviction view, however, is that the investment implications were in fact already self-evident and do not require foresight into the eventual make-up of the U.K. government. How can that be? Last year, in anticipation of unorthodox electoral results, we introduced the "Median Voter Theory."1 This theory in political science posits that policymakers are not price-makers but price takers in the political marketplace. The price maker is the median voter. Policymakers, of all stripes and colors, will attempt to approximate the policy demands of the median voter in order to win over as many voters as they can in the marketplace. Further, we argued that the median voter in the two most laissez-faire economies, the U.S. and the U.K., had moved to the left of the economic spectrum.2 The U.K. election confirms this argument. It also confirms our suspicion that the plebian revolts in these two bastions of free-market capitalism will not be extinguished merely by rallying the public around the flag and promoting nationalist themes of de-globalization.3 As such, the two trends we believe will emerge from this election, regardless of the ultimate political outcome, are: The Brexit process will continue, albeit toward a "softer" variety and with a somewhat higher probability of eventual reversal; Fiscal austerity is dead in Britain and investors should expect its economic policy - under whatever leadership ultimately gains power - to swing firmly to the left on fiscal, trade, and regulatory policy. Because of this mix of policy outcomes, we expect the GBP to suffer little in the post-election environment, though heading back towards its January lows versus the USD later this year. The market will have to price in much looser fiscal policy out of the U.K. over the course of the next government, with expectations that the BoE will continue to stand pat. This Election Was About Austerity And Globalization, Not Brexit It is absolutely crucial for investors to understand that the Labour Party did not, in any way whatsoever, focus its campaign on the results of the Brexit referendum. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's strategy was not only to accept Brexit as a done deal, but ostensibly even to accept the "hard Brexit" of keeping the U.K. out of the Common Market, which PM Theresa May announced in a major policy speech on January 17. The three policy positions of the Labour Party on Brexit during the campaign were: Gain "tariff-free access" to the EU single market, while accepting that Common Market membership was off the table; Keep the option of negotiating a customs union - which would prohibit the U.K. from negotiating its own trade deals - on the table; Refuse the mantra that "no deal" is better than a "bad deal." Overall, these points are not too far from Tory strategy, although they are devoid of nationalist rhetoric. More importantly, the key difference between the Labour and Tory approach to Brexit was that Labour was not trying to entice blue-collar voters, battered by the winds of globalization, with promises of free-trade agreements with India and China. If last year's Brexit voters did not want a free-trade tie-up with Europe, why on earth would they support a Tory vision of free trade deals with China and India?! Jeremy Corbyn's Labour has, in other words, a much better handle on what the Brexit referendum was all about. As we concluded in our net assessment ahead of the referendum in March of last year, the vote would ultimately be about globalization and its impact on the economic wellbeing of the median voter in the U.K. (Chart 1), not the angst over the EU's technocratic elites and bureaucratic overreach.4 Yes, the latter also mattered, but not to the blue-collar voters who crossed the aisle to support the Tory/UKIP vision on Brexit. For them, Brexit was a vote against elites that have profited from globalization. Election polls gave investors a hint that blue-collar Brexit voters would shift back to Labour. Tories began to see a drop in support almost immediately after they called the election on April 18 - i.e. before May's various mistakes (Chart 2). All the subsequent gaffes by May reinforced the trend, but the trend started on the first day of campaigning. This suggested that traditional Labour voters were turning back to their bread-and-butter economic demands immediately as the campaign began. Chart 1Brits Exposed To Harsher Change Chart 2Labour Rally Began When Election Called Corbyn, who has been underestimated by the media for over a year, was quick to press the gas pedal on left-wing economic issues, steering clear of Brexit. In fact, if one was unfamiliar with British politics, and only focused on the Labour campaign rhetoric, one would hardly know that a referendum on EU membership had even taken place. Corbyn's campaign was straight out of the Labour playbook of the 1980s. He gambled that the median voter had swung to the left. In particular, the Labour campaign pounced on three policy issues that isolated Tory tone-deafness on the unpopularity of austerity: "Dementia tax" - May's quip that the elderly would be means-tested by including the value of their homes in assessing government support for social care ultimately proved to be profoundly self-harming. At the moment when she made the gaffe, Tories were up 11% on Labour in the polls. "Triple Lock" - May hesitated and waffled over the triple lock pension system - which was introduced by the Conservative and Liberal Democratic coalition from 2010-15. It guaranteed that government pension payouts would rise annually at the highest rate of inflation, 2.5% per year, or wage growth. She did so even as inflationary pressures built up as a result of Brexit, which similarly fell flat with voters. This is unsurprising, given that it was the Euroskeptic Tories and UKIP plan to exit the EU that caused inflationary pressures in the economy in the first place. That they then asked low-income elderly to shoulder the costs of Brexit also illustrates a profound misunderstanding of what the Brexit referendum was about. Police funding - May thought that the Manchester and London Bridge terrorist attacks would swing the vote towards the center-right, security-conscious party. She went so far as to announce that human rights concerns would not stand in the way of Britain's fight against terrorism, doubling down on nationalist rhetoric.5 Corbyn stuck to the strategy of tying everything to austerity: he condemned the attacks but criticized the Tories for significant cuts to police forces under May's watch as Home Secretary, claiming that these imperiled law enforcement's ability to keep U.K. citizens safe. Following Brexit, May did try to shift policy to the left. For example, her October 2016 speech - her first major address as the U.K. Prime Minister - blamed "globalized elites" for the pain incurred by Britain's low and medium income households. However, Tories could not help to subsequently promise corporate tax cuts and budget-saving measures. And her gaffes during the election convinced voters - many of whom may have voted for Brexit - that Tories were stereotypical Tories; i.e., not concerned for the plight of the common man. All that said, the Conservative Party will still win around 57 seats more than the Labour Party. In any previous election, that would be considered a decent, if not commanding, result. What we want to stress to clients is that the Conservative Party in fact only won 22 more seats than the combined result of the most left-wing Labour Party in half a century and an extremely left-leaning Scottish National Party. When seen from that perspective, and when we consider the Tories' 22% lead in polls at the onset of the electoral campaign, the result on June 8 is an unmitigated disaster for the party and a wake-up call: the economic preferences of the U.K.'s median voter are as left wing as they have been since the mid-1920s. Bottom Line: The U.K. election was not contested solely on Brexit. As such, investors should not overthink the implications of the election on the Brexit process and hence the implications for the pound and U.K. assets. Labour gained around 29 more seats despite firmly accepting the Brexit referendum. This is not to say that the Labour Party, were it to cobble together a governing coalition with the SNP and others, would not be quick to reverse the Brexit process and call a second referendum if the economic costs of Brexit were to rise over the course of its mandate. That is a possible scenario. But the bigger picture is that Labour's opposition to austerity politics is what made all the difference in this election. Likely Government Formation Scenarios At the time of publication of this Client Note, May's comments and the distribution of seats favor a Tory minority government (or perhaps a formal coalition) supported by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland. As we discussed in our just-published Weekly Report, the Northern Irish have not exercised real power in Westminster in a century, literally.6 The party won ten seats, which makes for a majority with the Tories, and thus could provide just enough support to accomplish the single goal of a Tory-led Brexit. Tories and the DUP have already been in an informal coalition due to the Tories' attempts to increase their earlier majority of only 17 seats. Nonetheless, such a coalition will be controversial and will lead to uncertainties about parliament's ability to pass a final Brexit deal in 2019. Currently, such an arrangement would see a Tory government depend on the slimmest of majorities, around two seats over the 326 needed for a nominal majority. However, because the Irish nationalist Sinn Fein MPs (who gained seven seats this time around) normally do not sit in the parliament, and because the speaker and deputy speakers do not vote, Tory's would have some buffer. (And yet the extraordinary circumstances suggest that one should not rule out Sinn Fein taking up their seats!) How much political capital would a May-led government have? Extremely little. First of all, not only did the Tories squander an extraordinary lead in the polls, but their ultimate share of the total population's vote is merely 2.4% above Labour's haul (Chart 3). In fact, the only thing that saved the Tories from opposition is the U.K.'s first-past-the-post electoral system, which allowed them to win more seats merely by being the only right-of-center option for British voters. In addition, it is now clear that May failed to get all of the UKIP voters to swing to the center-right, establishment party. The UKIP vote declined by over 11% in the election, but the Tory net gain in percentage terms from the last election is only half that figure. This supports our view from above that many blue-collar voters, who voted for Brexit, swung back to the Labour party the minute the election was announced, reflecting deep distrust of the Tory Party on bread-and-butter, non-Brexit issues. A slim government majority made possible by a Euroskeptic Northern Irish Party will ensure that the Brexit process continues. Would Euroskeptic Tories have a bigger say in such a government, forcing May to swing further to the nationalist right and leading to acrimony with Europe? Normally we would say "yes." However, it was May's turn to the nationalist right at the expense of nurturing left-leaning economic policies that cost her a majority. As such, we doubt that she, or her potential replacement in the wake of the disastrous result, would double-down on more Euroskepticism. That would be a profound error following a clear signal from the electorate that nationalist rhetoric and Brexit chest-beating is insufficient to bolster the Conservative Party in the post-Brexit environment. As May herself said, Brexit means Brexit. The median voter appears to agree and now wants the government to move on by turning the U.K. away from austere economic policies. We suspect the Tories understand this now. As for a potential Labour coalition with the SNP and Liberal Democratic Party, the numbers do not add up at the moment. Nonetheless, if we combine all the left-of-center parties in the U.K., their share of total vote is 52%. As such, we expect the Tories, assuming they govern, to tilt to the left on the economic front. Bottom Line: Tories are likely to produce a government in some kind of coalition with Northern Irish DUP. We highly doubt that they will double down on Euroskepticism after that strategy proved so disastrous in the election. The U.K. voters have moved on from Brexit and are not interested in re-litigating the reasons for it. They are, however, interested in seeing a definitive end to austerity. Investment Implications Another reason this election is not a game changer on anything other than domestic economic policy is that the Scottish National Party sustained serious losses of 21 seats. Former banner-bearing member Alex Salmond even lost his seat. Voters are simply not interested in the constitutional struggles within the U.K. or the EU at this point. The key takeaway for investors is that fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Brexit was not only a vote about sovereignty and immigration, it was also a demand from the lower and middle classes for an end to second-class status. That is why May highlighted the need for government to moderate the forces of globalization and capitalism and make the economy "work for everyone" in her October 2016 speech at the Conservative Party conference and in her rhetoric since then. She lost sight of her own message and squandered her massive lead. The Tories had started to ease fiscal policy ahead of the election. In his first Autumn Statement, Chancellor Philip Hammond abandoned his predecessor George Osborne's promise to eliminate the budget deficit by 2019, pushing the timeline beyond 2022 (Chart 4). The latest budget projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the current government is projecting more spending than its predecessor (Chart 5). Thus monetary and fiscal conditions are both accommodative in the short and medium term. Given that we do not expect the European Union to exact crippling measures on the Brits for leaving, as we have outlined in previous reports, the result is a relatively benign environment for the U.K., at least until the business cycle turns, the effects of Brexit begin to bite, and/or global growth slows down. The combination of fiscal stimulus and easy monetary policy, however, should weigh on the pound regardless of the election outcome. We do not expect the GBP to retest its January 16, 2016 lows against the USD in the near term, but the large amount of uncertainty injected into the British political sphere will nonetheless result in a few more days of cable weakness that can be exploited by short-term traders. The competing crosswinds confusing investors in the immediacy of the election are as follow: Jeremy Corbyn's Labour is as left-wing as any major center-left party has become in the West. Yet it just won over 40% of the vote in the U.K.; Brexit remains the likely outcome of U.K.-EU negotiations, but the chances of a "super hard Brexit" or some sort of a "Brexit cliff" have been reduced as voters have repudiated May's hard right turn; The pound has already fallen on every gaffe and misstep by the Tories, suggesting that the current disappointing result, although not fully priced, was partly anticipated by the FX markets. In the long term, however, a reversal of austerity and a relatively dovish monetary policy from the BoE should be negative for the pound. While less austerity is a big plus for the economy, the inflationary momentum experienced in recent months should increase further and dampen the fiscal dividend as higher prices hurt real spending (Chart 6). This puts the BoE in a bind, in which it will be hard to move away from its super-accommodative stance even if inflation is becoming dangerous. Thanks to these dynamics, the leftward tilt for one of the previously most laissez-faire economies in the world could see the GBP ultimately retest its January 16 lows over the medium term as the recent surge in FDI could peter off, increasing the cost of financing the U.K.'s large current-account deficit. Moreover, BCA's House View calls for a higher dollar by year's end, another negative for cable. Yet a fall much below GBP/USD 1.2 is unlikely, given that uncertainty over Brexit negotiations with the EU were overstated to begin with and likely to be resolved towards a "softer Brexit" outcome over the life of the next government. Additionally, the pound is now cheap, and another pullback would result in a more than 1-sigma undervaluation relative to long-term fundamentals (Chart 7). Chart 6The BOE's Dilemma Chart 7The Pound Enjoys A Valuation Cushion Is there a message for the rest of the world from the U.K. election? Absolutely. It signals that the voters who did not benefit from globalization are singularly focused on economic issues and that distracting them with nationalism will only go so far. This is a message that the Trump administration in the U.S. will either heed over the next three years or ignore and suffer a left-wing backlash in the 2020 election that will unsettle the markets in a fundamental way.7 The bastions of laissez-faire economics - the U.K. and the U.S. - are swinging to the left. We continue to believe that investors are unprepared for the consequences of this reality. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The failure of May's tough rhetoric on terrorism to help her in the polls suggests, along with other evidence, that Europeans are becoming desensitized to terror attacks. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk?" dated June 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.