Policy

Highlights Global QE has made bonds as risky as equities. Thereby, global QE has forced investors to accept identically depressed returns from equities and from bonds, requiring equity and other risk-asset valuations to surge. The good news is that record high valuations of risk-assets are fully justified if global bond yields remain at current levels or fall. The bad news is that risk-asset valuations will become dangerously unstable if global bond yields march much higher. The 'rule of 4' for equity/bond allocation: sum the three 10-year yields - the German bund, the U.S. T-bond, and the JGB. Above 3.5 means a neutral stance in equities... ... Above 4 means it's time to go underweight equities and overweight bonds. Feature Chart of the WeekAt Higher Bond Yields, The Correlation With Equity Prices Has Flipped From Positive To Negative At Higher Bond Yields, The Correlation With Equity Prices Has Flipped From Positive To Negative At Higher Bond Yields, The Correlation With Equity Prices Has Flipped From Positive To Negative The end is nigh for QE. The ECB will exit its asset purchase program at the end of the year. In doing so, it will mark the end of an epoch which began in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, a ten year period in which at least one of the world's major central banks has been buying a defined quantity of assets every month (Chart I-2). Approaching the end of the epoch, it is fitting to ask: how did the global QE stimulant work, and what will be the withdrawal symptoms? Chart I-2The End Is Nigh For QE The End Is Nigh For QE The End Is Nigh For QE As far back as 2011, in a provocative report titled QE And Riots we predicted that: "QE... will exacerbate already extreme income inequality and the consequent social tensions that arise from it" Events in the subsequent seven years have fully vindicated our prediction. Simply put, QE has front-loaded asset returns which would ordinarily have accrued in the distant future to the here and now - in the form of sharply higher capital values. So if you were invested in the financial markets or most housing markets, congratulations, you have received a bonanza; if you weren't, bad luck, there's not much left for you (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Equities Are Now Priced To Generate A Measly Long-Term Return Equities Are Now Priced To Generate A Measly Long-Term Return Equities Are Now Priced To Generate A Measly Long-Term Return To understand why, we need to delve deeper into behavioural economics. QE: Why The Stimulant Was So Powerful Central banks admit that there is a lower bound for interest rates below which there would be an exodus of bank deposits. Once policy rates hit the lower bound, central banks can unleash a 'plan B': a commitment to keep policy rates at this lower bound for an extended period. QE is simply a powerful signalling tool for this commitment. As ECB Chief Economist Peter Praet explains: "There is a signalling channel inherent in asset purchases, which reinforces the credibility of forward guidance on policy rates. This credibility of promises to follow a certain course for policy rates in the future is enhanced by the asset purchases, as these asset purchases are a concrete demonstration of our desire (to keep policy rates at the lower bound)" The credible commitment to keep policy rates near the lower bound for an extended period depresses bond yields towards the lower bound too (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Credible Commitment To Keep Policy Rates##br## Low Pulls Down Bond Yields The Credible Commitment To Keep Policy Rates Low Pulls Down Bond Yields The Credible Commitment To Keep Policy Rates Low Pulls Down Bond Yields Now comes the part of the story that is not well understood, even by central bankers, because it derives from recent breakthroughs in behavioural economics. When bond yields approach the lower bound, the asymmetry in their future direction makes bonds very risky investments. The short-term potential for capital appreciation - nominal or real - vanishes, while the potential for vicious losses increases dramatically (Chart I-5). The technical term for this unattractive asymmetry is negative skew. Years of research in behavioural economics has led Nobel Laureate Professor Daniel Kahneman to conclude: negative skew is the measure that best encapsulates our perception of an investment's risk. Chart I-5Bonds Become Much Riskier ##br## At Low Bond Yields The 'Rule Of 4' For Equities And Bonds The 'Rule Of 4' For Equities And Bonds Professor Kahneman's work reveals a profound truth: global QE has made bonds as risky as equities (Chart I-6). The ramification is that equities and other risk-assets no longer need to lure investors with an excess return over bond returns. QE has forced investors to accept identically depressed returns from equities and from bonds, requiring equity and other risk-asset valuations to surge.1 Chart I-6Global QE Has Made Bonds ##br##As Risky As Equities The 'Rule Of 4' For Equities And Bonds The 'Rule Of 4' For Equities And Bonds One counterargument we hear is that bonds offer investors a diversification benefit and, because of this, investors will still accept a lower return from bonds. But this argument is flawed. Just as bonds are a diversifier for equity investors, equities are a diversifier for bond investors. Indeed in recent years, equities have protected bond investors during vicious sell-offs in the bond market such as after Trump's shock victory in 2016. So we could equally argue that equities require the lower return. In fact, with the same negative skew and symmetrical diversification properties, both assets must offer the same prospective return. The breakthroughs in behavioural economics provide some good news and some bad news. The good news is that record high valuations of risk-assets are fully justified if bond yields remain at current levels or fall. The bad news is that risk-asset valuations will become dangerously unstable if bond yields march much higher (Chart I-7). Chart I-7At Low Bond Yields The Required Return On ##br##Equities Plunges, So Equity Valuations Surge The 'Rule Of 4' For Equities And Bonds The 'Rule Of 4' For Equities And Bonds Financial Markets Dwarf The World Economy One common misunderstanding about QE is that it has been the bond purchasing itself that has held down bond yields. This seems a natural assumption because we connect the act of buying with higher prices (lower yields). Moreover, the $10 trillion of bonds that the 'big four' central banks have bought is not far short of the size of the euro area economy. But let's put this into context. The global bond market exceeds $100 trillion. Long-term bank loans amount to something similar. In this $217 trillion2 global fixed income market, $10 trillion of QE is peanuts. To reiterate, QE's impact came not from the $10 trillion of central bank purchases in itself, but from the signal that interest rates would remain at the lower bound for a long time, mathematically requiring bond yields to approach the lower bound too;3 and from the consequent equalization of negative skew on bonds and risk-assets, mathematically requiring an exponential rerating of all risk-asset valuations (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Equities Are Now Priced To Generate A Measly Long-Term Return Equities Are Now Priced To Generate A Measly Long-Term Return Equities Are Now Priced To Generate A Measly Long-Term Return Now note that the combination of equities and correlated risk-assets such as corporate and EM debt is worth around $160 trillion, and real estate is worth $220 trillion. World GDP is worth much less, around $80 trillion. So if returns from these richly valued risk-assets were reallocated from the here and now back to the distant future, through lower capital values today, there would be a very real risk that current spending could take a dive. Supporting this broad thesis, central bank measures of 'financial conditions easiness' are just tracking the level of the stock market (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Financial Conditions Are Just##br## Tracking The Stock Market Financial Conditions Are Just Tracking The Stock Market Financial Conditions Are Just Tracking The Stock Market The 'Rule Of 4' For Equities And Bonds On February 1 this year, we advised that the big threat to risk-asset valuations "comes from the global 10-year bond yield rising to 2% - broadly equivalent to the German 10-year bund yield rising to 1% or the U.S. 10-year T-bond yield rising to 3%." This advice has proved to be remarkably prescient. Whenever bond yields have been at the lower end of recent ranges, the correlation with equities has been positive, meaning equities have risen in tandem with bond yields. But whenever bond yields have moved to the upper end of recent ranges, the correlation has abruptly flipped to negative, meaning equities have fallen as bond yields have risen (Chart of the Week). While many strategists and commentators are fixated on the risks from trade wars and/or the global economy, our non-consensus call is that the biggest threat to risk-assets comes from rich valuations which will become dangerously unstable if bond yields march much higher. In this regard the bond yield that matters is the global bond yield. Previously we defined this in terms of the German 10-year bund yield and the U.S. 10-year T-bond yield. But today for completeness, we would like to add another important component: the Japanese 10-year government bond yield. The global bond yield is a weighted average of the three components. But for a useful rule of thumb, just sum the three 10-year yields - the German bund, the U.S. T-bond, and the JGB. A sum above 3.5 means a neutral stance to equities. A sum above 4 - which broadly equates to the global yield rising above 2% - means it's time to go underweight equities and overweight bonds. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Consider what happens to valuations when bond yields decline from 4% to 2%. At a 4% bond yield, equities possess significantly more negative skew than 10-year bonds. So investors will demand a comparatively higher return from equities, let’s say 8% a year. Whereas, at a 2% bond yield, equities and 10-year bonds possess the same negative skew. So investors will demand the same return from equities as they can get from bonds, 2% a year. At the lower bond yield, the bond must deliver 2% a year less for ten years compared to previously, meaning its price must rise by 22%. But equities must deliver 6% a year less for ten years, so the equity market must surge by 80%. 2 Source: The Institute of International Finance (IIF) https://www.iif.com/publication/global-debt-monitor/global-debt-monitor-june-2017 3 In contrast, if the market feared bond purchases would cause inflation and thereby imply a higher path of interest rates, QE would push up bond yields! Fractal Trading Model* This week we note that the underperformance of emerging market versus developed market equities is technically stretched and ripe for at least a brief countertrend reversal. The 65-day trade is long EM versus DM with a profit target of 2.5% and a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 Long EM / short DM Long EM / short DM The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights The regulatory or "stroke of pen" risk is rising on FAANG stocks - Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google; The U.S. anti-trust regulatory framework was designed to curb anti-competitive actions but has evolved to focus mostly on consumer welfare and prices; A shift toward the original regulatory regime would threaten the FAANGs, particularly Google and Amazon; A trade war hit to tech earnings could be the catalyst for a more general selloff today - but this is not our base case; For now, the market will view regulatory risk as noise and tech stocks will likely enter a blow-off phase; We remain neutral, preferring S&P software and hardware while underweighting semiconductors. Feature "I don't know what Twitter is up to." Rep. Devin Nunes (R-California), Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, July 29, 2018 "I have stated my concerns with Amazon long before the Election. Unlike others, they pay little or no taxes to state & local governments, use our Postal System as their Delivery Boy (causing tremendous loss to the U.S.), and are putting many thousands of retailers out of business." President Donald J. Trump, March 29, 2018 "If we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessities of life. If we would not submit to an emperor, we should not submit to an autocrat of trade, with power to prevent competition and to fix the price of any commodity." Senator John Sherman, 1890 Social media companies have had a terrible week, with Twitter falling 21% on July 27th and Facebook 19% on July 26th. Facebook posted weaker than expected earnings, but investors appeared to be particularly concerned with a miss in monthly active users. The shortfall in active users may have been affected by the new EU privacy rules, which came into force in May. Twitter's fall from grace came even though its revenues were up 24% on the year, with a record profit of $100 million. However, its effort to delete "bots" and suspicious user accounts brought its user total down to 335 million, from 336 million, prompting fears that the platform was slowing down. Twitter's and Facebook's enormous price volatility, despite decent earnings figures, reveals that investors are jittery about the performance of technology stocks, epitomized by the so-called FAANGs - Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google. They are right to be, given that there are three broad risks to these companies: The next big thing: Before Facebook, there was MySpace. It is not inconceivable that new platforms - for instance, ones that emphasize privacy or that redistribute a portion of advertising revenue with users - could replace current market leaders. Revenue model: Although they are perceived to be cutting-edge technology companies, social media firms generate vast amount of their revenue through advertising. Facebook and Google have captured 25% of global media advertising revenues.1 At some point, Internet companies will reach a ceiling on this revenue as the attrition rate of local newspapers slows, as foreign markets introduce local alternatives (RenRen or Weibo in China, VKontakte in Russia), and as non-tariff barriers to trade begin impacting their international expansion (China's Internet Security Law). Regulation: Finally, regulatory pressure could grow for a number of reasons. First, European concerns regarding user privacy could migrate to the U.S. where a majority of voters already believe that tech companies need greater oversight (Chart 1). In fact, Americans now see tech companies as having as pernicious an influence as energy companies (Chart 2). Second, the U.S. approach to anti-trust problems could evolve away from the current paradigm that focuses on delivering lower prices to consumers. Third, President Trump and his conservative allies could target social media companies with perceived liberal bias for purely political reasons. Chart 1Majority Of Americans Want Tech Regulated Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG? Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG? Chart 2Tech And Energy Companies Now In Same Boat Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG? Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG? We have no particular insight into the competitive landscape of social media, web browsing, and Internet retail industries, so we will leave the first two threats to the experts in the field. Instead, we will focus in this report on the third threat, the "stroke of pen" regulatory risk. From Standard Oil To The Chicago School - America's Anti-Trust Framework Today's anti-trust regulatory framework has significantly deviated from the original intent behind the 1890 Sherman Act. As Lina M. Khan argues in "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," "Congress enacted antitrust laws to rein in the power of industrial trusts, the large business organizations that had emerged in the late nineteenth century. Responding to a fear of concentrated power, antitrust sought to distribute it."2 Railroad construction in the late nineteenth century, largely financed by the municipal debt of farm-belt states, evolved from a shrewd capex investment in a new technology to a mania. To boost sagging profits, railroad barons fixed their prices to reduce competition. State anti-trust laws that emerged out of this era, the so-called "Granger laws," sought to curb monopolistic behavior by giving states control over railroad operations. These state laws ultimately coalesced into federal legislation, the 1890 Sherman Act. No trust had a larger impact on the U.S. legal and regulatory infrastructure than the case of Standard Oil in the early twentieth century.3 Although the company faced criticism in the immediate aftermath of the 1880s recession - particularly from the famous muckraking journalist Henry Demarest Lloyd - the dam broke for Standard Oil when the oil-price bubble popped in Kansas in 1904. A Standard Oil subsidiary - the Prairie Oil and Gas Company - decided to purchase oil by a specific gravity test, forcing some of the Kansas oil from the market. At the time, the oil boom in Kansas had turned many into stockholders in some prospecting company. When oil prices fell, so did the fortunes of these locals. The shock of the price collapse radicalized Kansas politics at the turn of the twentieth century. An idea for a state-owned oil refinery picked up steam in the state despite being labeled socialist. Ultimately, Kansas' delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives requested that the Secretary of Commerce investigate the causes of the low price of crude oil in the state. After several disastrous performances of Standard Oil executives on witness stands and in testimony, the federal government filed a petition against the company in November 1906. A large fine followed in August 1907. The 1890 Sherman Act and subsequent anti-trust policies were grounded in the theory of economic structuralism. "This view holds that a market dominated by a very small number of large companies is likely to be less competitive than a market populated with many small- and medium-sized companies." Through the 1960s, courts blocked mergers - both horizontal and vertical - and policed markets not only for size, or effect on consumer welfare, but also for conflicts of interest.4 In the 1970s and 1980s, however, the Chicago School approach gained prominence. The Chicago School rested on "faith in the efficiency of markets, propelled by profit-maximizing actors."5 While economic structuralists believed that the structure of an industry leads to market outcomes, Chicago School saw structure as the outcome of market dynamics, which themselves are sacrosanct. Chicago School adherents focused primarily on price dynamics and consumer welfare, ignoring how economic structures could create barriers to entry and thus uncompetitive markets. The most influential economist behind the Chicago School was Robert Bork, who asserted in his highly influential The Antitrust Paradox that the "only legitimate goal of antitrust is the maximization of consumer welfare."6 That said, his definition of consumer welfare was incredibly broad and revealed a clear corporate, if not a pro-monopoly, bias.7 The influential Chicago School ultimately impacted the Supreme Court, which declared in 1979 that "Congress designed the Sherman Act as a 'consumer welfare prescription.'"8 The Reagan Administration subsequently rewrote the 1968 merger guidelines to shift the focus purely to consumer welfare in the form of preventing monopolistic price increases and output restrictions. The government also stopped bringing anti-trust cases under the 1936 Robinson-Patman Act, which prohibits price discrimination by retailers among producers and vice versa. Bottom Line: The U.S. anti-trust regulatory framework was designed to curb broad anti-competitive actions of trusts. As Lina Khan discusses in her seminal article, these actions "include not only cost but also product quality, variety, and innovation."9 However, through subsequent regulatory evolution, the Chicago School has taken hold of the U.S. anti-trust process, solely focusing on consumer welfare and prices. We can draw two immediate conclusions from this historical overview of U.S. anti-trust policy. First, the laws on the books have not changed since World War Two. Despite the laws remaining the same, the theory of how to apply them in courts of law has dramatically changed, as economic structuralism gave way to the Chicago School's focus on prices and consumer welfare. If President Reagan and the courts could change how these laws are administered in the 1980s, then so can subsequent administrations and courts in the future. Second, a long period of slow growth, income inequality, and economic volatility - such as the 1870s-80s - can produce a political impetus for anti-trust policy. This was certainly the case for Standard Oil in 1911, which became a nation-wide boogeyman despite most of its transgressions occurring in the farm belt states. While the U.S. has not experienced a recession in almost a decade, it will eventually - and besides, income inequality is a prominent theme once again and a potential source of consumer discontent.10 A narrative could emerge - particularly if politically expedient - that growth has been unequally distributed between the old economy and the twenty-first century technology leaders. Will FAANGs Be De-FAANGed? At BCA Research, we are neither regulatory nor policy experts. As such, we do not have insight into current regulatory activity involving social media companies, Google, or Amazon. The preceding section merely illustrates that the federal government's approach to the anti-trust process could change. Indeed, the Obama administration signaled that its approach could become more active. One quantitative approach that investors can use to assess the risk of anti-trust legislation is the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). It is the most commonly accepted measure of market concentration, used by the Department of Justice in assessing whether a particular market is controlled by a single firm.11 Chart 3 shows our reconstruction of the HHI for the present-day era, with three examples from the past. Chart 3Market Concentration By Industry And Eras Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG? Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG? The 1911 refined petroleum sector harkens back to the aforementioned Standard Oil case; The 2001 Internet browser market refers to the United States v. Microsoft Corp that led to the June 2000 decision (later reversed on appeal) to break-up the software giant; The 1983 telecommunication sector illustrates the HHI for the telecom market at the time of the AT&T divestiture. The data is clear: of the five FAANG companies, only Google reaches a concerning level on the HHI measure. This has already made it a target of European authorities. On the other hand, competition within both streaming (Netflix, Amazon) and social networks (Facebook) appears relatively healthy. However, social networks could be at risk of European-style privacy protections. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force on May 2018, imposes considerable compliance burdens on any company handling user data. California has already signed its own version of the law - the Consumer Privacy Act - which will go into effect in January 2020. These laws give consumers the right to know what information companies are collecting about them and what companies that data is being shared with. They also allow consumers to ask technology companies to delete their data or not to sell it. While tech companies are likely to fight the new California law, we believe the writing is on the wall. The EU is by some measures the largest consumer market on the planet. California is certainly the largest U.S. market. It is unlikely that the momentum behind consumer protection will change, especially with the EU and California taking the lead. Given that advertising revenue is crucial to the business model of social media companies and Google, a significant uptick in privacy regulation could hurt their bottom line. On the other hand, as we discuss below, the new regulatory rules create massive barriers to entry for small firms looking to replace the tech giants. Furthermore, many of the targeted social media companies have run afoul of President Trump in particular and the broader conservative movement in general. As such, privacy advocates - who tend to lean left - and conservatives, who feel that their commentators are being silenced by Silicon Valley, could form a classic "bootleggers and abolitionists" coalition against the FAANGs (Chart 4). Finally, there is the question of Amazon. We do not construct an HHI for Amazon's place in the retail market because E-commerce only accounts for about 9.5% of total U.S. retail sales (Chart 5). Amazon has been leading the charge, but it still accounts for just under half of that 9.5% total figure (Chart 6). Chart 4Conservatives Distrust Tech Companies Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG? Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG? Chart 5E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share Chart 6Amazon Dominates Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG? Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG? Amazon's strength is that, in the current anti-trust framework, it conforms fully to the "consumer welfare" priorities elucidated by the Chicago School. Amazon, by and large, lowers prices for consumers. However, several of its practices could be seen as predatory in the more expansive, economic structuralist, approach.12 In addition, President Trump has reserved most of his Twitter scorn on the firm, particularly because CEO Jeff Bezos owns the liberal-leaning Washington Post. Bottom Line: Investors are correct to fret that the "stroke of pen" risk is rising when it comes to FAANG companies. Google scores considerably higher than either Standard Oil or Microsoft on the Department of Justice HHI. Social media companies are already under the microscope by conservative legislators and voters, who perceive them to be biased. Liberals, on the other hand, support toughened-up privacy rules that could undermine the business model of social media companies. Amazon's market dominance is overstated. However, several of its business practices could come under greater scrutiny if any administration should revert back to the original reading of the 1890 Sherman Law. Technology Stocks Have Brought The S&P 500 Up; Could They Bring It Down? It is now a well-worn understanding that the reason why the S&P 500 has performed well is largely due to the performance of a few (enormous) technology stocks (see Chart 7 and Table 1) who have seen both earnings and valuation multiples expand amid one of the longest economic growth phases in history. The preceding section certainly suggests that frothy valuations and the rising regulatory impetus imply that future upside potential is swamped by downside risk. Chart 7FAANG Stocks + Microsoft Have##br## Dramatically Outperformed... FAANG Stocks + Microsoft Have Dramatically Outperformed... FAANG Stocks + Microsoft Have Dramatically Outperformed... Table 1...Generating 50% Of The##br## 2018 S&P 500 Return! Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG? Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG? If this negative scenario is what actually plays out in the market, the implications could be more severe than in the past. Indexed fund inflows have replaced actively managed fund outflows, as our colleagues in BCA's Global ETF Strategy recently pointed out (Chart 8).13 Considering the rise of these few technology stocks and their increasing weight in the S&P 500 and, necessarily, in the majority of ETFs, more people than ever before are invested in technology stocks, whether they know it or not. Accordingly, the performance of these stocks has become material to the household balance sheet, which is a driver of consumption and, hence, the economy. Thus, it may not be hyperbole to say the economy depends to some extent on Amazon maintaining a high valuation multiple. Chart 8ETF Inflows Offset Actively Managed Outflows ETF Inflows Offset Actively Managed Outflows ETF Inflows Offset Actively Managed Outflows Adding some weight to this thesis is the mounting concern over a global trade war. The technology sector in general is by far the most international (as defined by foreign-sourced revenues) of GICS 1 sectors. More specifically, the top three semiconductor & semiconductor equipment companies (INTC, NVDA & TXN), which collectively represent more than 50% of the weight of that index, generate on average only 17% of their revenues in the U.S. Moreover, the more dangerous and lasting trade risk emanates from the U.S.-China showdown, which centers on the technology sector. Should the worst trade outcomes occur, it is not unreasonable to see impaired technology earnings being the catalyst for a more general sell-off. We recommend underweight positions in both the S&P semiconductors and S&P semiconductor equipment indexes. We Think Not Despite the foregoing, we think a more likely scenario is actually a blow-off phase where technology stocks accelerate rather than decline in an increasingly restrictive regulatory environment. In a recent report analyzing sector performance in the last stages of the bull market, we noted that across seven iterations dating back to the 1960's, the information technology sector delivered a median 14% outperformance relative to the S&P 500 (Table 2).14 And, while returns in these stocks have been excellent this year, their gains seem modest compared to the performance in the 1999-2000 iteration. Table 2Tech Stocks Are Strong Late Cycle Performers Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG? Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG? Underpinning our expectations is the recent stock reactions to regulatory actions. Beginning with Facebook, in the week of March 26, 2018, the firm was hit with severely negative headlines. First, the Cambridge Analytica scandal pointed out that the firm may be caught on the wrong side of EU GDPR rules, followed by the firm being investigated for an EU antitrust suit for the online ad market; the stock fell 15% from the week prior. However, within two months, the stock had fully recovered and a further two months later the stock was up 18% from its starting point. Recently the stock has fallen significantly on the back of very weak guidance; the company noted that revenue growth would decelerate and operating margins would fall to the mid-30% range from the current mid-40% range. It is not unreasonable to think management may be sandbagging earnings growth to defray some of the elevated regulatory scrutiny into its outrageous profitability. Google too has seen negative regulatory headlines, having been hit with a $5 billion fine in the EU for abusing the dominance of the Android mobile operating system in July this year. The stock responded by closing higher and then rose a further 10% in the following two weeks. Overall, we think the market views regulatory risk as noise. For now. But What About The Earnings? Do They Matter? While the earnings implications of yet-to-be-proposed regulatory changes are unknowable, we believe even the pursuit of an answer is a red herring. As shown by Chart 9, the market does not appear to care about next year's earnings as valuation multiples have little consistency with either themselves or the broad market. The implication is that near-term earnings are of relatively little importance, at least compared to the long-term growth outlook. Chart 9Tech Valuations Are Meaningless Tech Valuations Are Meaningless Tech Valuations Are Meaningless Further, these companies are a collection of businesses that are not necessarily cohesive. For example, Facebook includes Instagram, WhatsApp and Oculus while Amazon Web Service is a non-retail business that delivers half of Amazon's profit. A reasonable case could be made that breaking up these companies into their components could actually unlock considerable value. Lastly, new regulation, particularly with respect to privacy and data protection, is likely to create significant barriers for new entrants as compliance costs will be relatively more onerous for those companies with fewer resources. Thus, incoming privacy legislation may neuter the impact of any anti-trust legislation. Be Wary With Technology But For The Right Reasons We fully expect more regulation to remain a significant part of the conversation with respect to FAANG stocks and further expect that conversation to promote higher than normal volatility in the sector. However, we also expect the market to mostly look through this risk; buying the dip has thus far been the right approach to headline risk in technology. We think there are better reasons to remain cautious with technology. As noted above, they are heavily international and a strengthening U.S. dollar will be a headwind to 2019 earnings to a greater extent than to the broad market (please see our June 4th Weekly Report for more details). Supporting the dollar, BCA expects higher interest rates in 2018 on the back of rising inflation. Overall, we prefer old tech (S&P software and S&P technology hardware, storage & peripherals, both which are high-conviction overweights) that is levered to our synchronized global capex upcycle theme. It also boasts high cash flow and low valuations. We are less sanguine about technology early cyclicals (S&P semiconductors and S&P semiconductor equipment) which we rate as underweight. Net, we think risks are balanced in the tech sector and maintain a neutral recommendation for the S&P information technology sector. BCA Geopolitical Strategy Housekeeping In light of several announcements regarding China's efforts to ease up on economic policy, we are closing several of our trades: Short China-exposed S&P 500 Companies versus U.S. financials and telecoms - opened on May 30 for a 7.13% gain; Long DXY - opened on January 31 for a 5.85% gain; Short GBP/USD - opened on February 14 for a 6.21% gain; Long Indian equities / short Brazilian equities - opened on March 6 for a 27.54% gain. Long French industrial equities / short German industrial equities - opened on May 16 for a 2.21% gain. We still believe that Chinese structural reforms will continue, weighing on domestic and global growth. In the face of ongoing U.S. fiscal stimulus, the interplay between the two major economies will therefore continue to produce a dollar-bullish environment. However, the dollar's stretched positioning and the Chinese reflation narrative could hurt the greenback while reflating global risk assets in the near term. We will therefore look for an opportunity to reassert our negative EM view. Over the next two weeks, our reports will focus on Chinese stimulus and ongoing structural reforms. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Chris Bowes, Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy chrisb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see WARC, "Mobile is the world's second-largest ad medium," dated November 30, 2017, available at warc.com. 2 Please see Lina M. Khan, "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," The Yale Law Journal 126:710 (2017). 3 Please see Steven L. Piott, The Anti-Monopoly Persuasion (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1985). 4 Khan 718. 5 Khan 719. 6 Please see Robert H. Bork, The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself (New York: Free Press, 1978). 7 By Bork's broad definition of "consumer welfare," even Jeff Bezos is a consumer whose rights have to be protected by anti-trust policy. "Those who continue to buy after a monopoly is formed pay more for the same output, and that shifts income from them to the monopoly and its owners, who are also consumers. This is not dead-weight loss due to restriction of output but merely a shift in income between two classes of consumers. The consumer welfare model, which views consumers as a collectivity, does not take this income effect into account," Bork, 32, our emphasis. 8 Please see Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 342 (1979). 9 Khan 737. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see The U.S. Department of Justice, "Herfindahl-Hirschman Index," available at justice.gov. 12 Please see Olivia LaVecchia and Stacy Mitchell, "Amazon's Stranglehold: How the Company's Tightening Grip Is Stifling Competition, Eroding Jobs, and Threatening Communities," Institute for Local Self-Reliance, dated November 2016, available at ilsr.org. 13 Please see BCA Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "Do ETF Flows Lead Currencies?" dated April 18, 2018, available at etf.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Portfolio Positioning For A Late Cycle Surge," dated May 22, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Dear Client, This week we are sending you two Special Reports. One report deals with the outlook for U.S. fiscal policy and government debt. It was written by Mark McClellan, Chief Strategist of the monthly Bank Credit Analyst, and was first published in the July edition of that publication. We are also sending a Special Report on the topic of global yield curves that was written by Chief Global Fixed Income Strategist Robert Robis. We trust you will find both reports very informative. Best regards, Ryan Swift Highlights Congress is conducting a major economic experiment that has never been attempted in the U.S. outside of wartime; substantial fiscal stimulus when the economy is already at full employment. The budget deficit is on track to surpass 6% of GDP in a few years. It would likely peak above 8% in the case of a recession. The alarming long-term U.S. fiscal outlook is well known, but it has just become far worse. The combination of rising life expectancy and a decline in the ratio of taxpayers to retirees will place growing financial strains on the Social Security and Medicare systems. The federal government will be spilling far more red ink over the next decade than during any economic expansion phase since the 1940s. The debt/GDP ratio could surpass the previous peak set during WWII within 12 years. Shockingly large budget deficits in the past have sparked some attempt in Congress to limit the damage. Unfortunately, there will be little appetite to tighten the fiscal purse strings for the next decade. Voters have shifted to the left and politicians are following along. Factors that explain the political shift include disappointing income growth, income inequality, and rising political clout for Millennials, Hispanics and the elderly. Fiscal conservatism is out of fashion and this is unlikely to change over the next decade, no matter which party is in power. This means that a market riot will be required to shake voters and the political establishment into making the tough decisions necessary. While the U.S. is not at imminent risk of a market riot over the deteriorating fiscal trends, there are costs: in the long-term, the dollar will be weaker, borrowing rates will be higher and living standards will be lower than otherwise would be the case. Feature Profligacy: (Noun) Unconstrained by convention or morality. Congress is conducting a major economic experiment that has never been attempted before in the U.S. outside of wartime; substantial fiscal stimulus at a time when the economy is already at full employment. Investors are celebrating the growth-positive aspects of the new fiscal tailwind at the moment, but it may wind up generating a party that is followed by a hangover as the Fed is forced to lean hard against the resulting inflationary pressures. Moreover, even in the absence of a recession, the federal government will likely be spilling far more red ink than during any economic expansion since the 1940s (Chart 1). What are the long-term implications of this macro experiment? Will the U.S. continue to easily fund large and sustained budget deficits? Chart 1U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period Historically, shockingly large budget deficits sparked some attempt by Congress to limit the damage. Unfortunately, we argue in this Special Report that there will be little appetite to tighten the fiscal purse strings for the next decade. Voters have shifted to the left and politicians are following along. While the U.S. is not at imminent risk of a market riot over the deteriorating fiscal trends, the dollar will be weaker, borrowing rates will be higher and living standards will be lower than otherwise would be the case. On The Bright Side The Trump tax cuts, the immediate expensing of capital spending and a lighter regulatory touch have stirred animal spirits in the U.S. The Administration's trade policies are a source of concern, but CEO confidence is generally high. The NFIB survey highlights that small business owners are almost euphoric regarding the outlook. The IMF estimates that the tax cuts and less restrictive spending caps will provide a direct fiscal thrust of 0.8% in 2018 and 0.9% in 2019 (Chart 2). The overall impact on the economy over the next 12-18 months could be larger to the extent that business leaders follow through on their newfound bullishness and ramp up capital spending. Chart 2Lots Of Fiscal Stimulus In 2018 And 2019 U.S. Fiscal Policy: An Unprecedented Macro Experiment U.S. Fiscal Policy: An Unprecedented Macro Experiment Fiscal policy is a clear positive for stocks and other risk assets in the near term, as long as inflation is slow to respond. In addition to the near-term boost, there will be longer-term benefits from the 2017 tax act. Various provisions of the act affect the long-run productive potential of the U.S. economy, by promoting increases in investment and labor supply. Corporate tax cuts and the full expensing of business capital outlays should permanently increase the nation's capital stock relative to what it otherwise would be, leading to a slightly faster trend pace of productivity growth. Similarly, lower income taxes are projected to encourage more people to enter the workforce or to work longer hours. The CBO estimates that the tax act will boost the level of potential real GDP by 0.9% by the middle of the next decade. This may not sound like much, but it translates into almost a million extra jobs. The supply-side benefits of the 2017 tax act are therefore meaningful. Unfortunately, given the lack of offsetting spending cuts, it comes at the cost of a dramatically worse medium- and long-term outlook for government debt. The CBO estimates that the recent changes in fiscal policy will cumulatively add $1.7 trillion to the federal government's debt pile, relative to the previous baseline (Chart 3). The annual deficit is projected to surpass $1 trillion in 2020, and peak as a share of GDP at 5.4% in 2022. Federal government debt held by the private sector will rise from 76% this year to 96% in 2028 in this scenario. The budget situation begins to look better after 2020 in the CBO's baseline forecast because a raft of "temporary provisions" are assumed to sunset as per current law, including some of the personal tax cuts and deductions included in the 2017 tax package. As is usually the case, the vast majority of these provisions are likely to be extended. The CBO performed an alternative scenario in which it extends the temporary provisions and grows the spending caps at the rate of inflation after 2020. In this more realistic scenario, the deficit reaches 7% of GDP by 2028 and the federal debt-to-GDP ratio hits 105% (Chart 3). Chart 3Comparing To The Reagan Era Comparing To The Reagan Era Comparing To The Reagan Era Moreover, there will undoubtedly be a recession sometime in the next five years. Even a mild downturn, on par with the early 1990s, could inflate the budget deficit to 8% or more of GDP. The Demographic Time Bomb The pressure that the aging population will place on federal coffers over the medium term is well known, but it is worth reviewing in light of Washington's new attitude toward deficit financing. The combination of rising life expectancy and a decline in the ratio of taxpayers to retirees will place growing financial strains on the Social Security and Medicare systems. In 1970, there were 5.4 people between the ages of 20 and 64 for every person 65 or older. That ratio has since dropped to 4 and will be down to 2.6 within the next 20 years (Chart 4). Spending on entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Income Security and government pensions) is on an unsustainable trajectory (Charts 5 and 6). In fiscal 2017, these programs absorbed 76% of federal revenues and the CBO estimates that this will rise to almost 100% by 2028, absent any change in law. If we also include net interest costs, total mandatory spending1 is projected to exceed total federal government revenues as early as next year, meaning that deficit financing will be required for all discretionary spending. Chart 4The Withering ##br##Support Ratio The Withering Support Ratio The Withering Support Ratio Chart 5Entitlements Will Explode ##br##Mandatory Spending Entitlements Will Explode Mandatory Spending Entitlements Will Explode Mandatory Spending Chart 6All Discretionary Spending ##br## To Be Deficit Financed? All Discretionary Spending To Be Deficit Financed? All Discretionary Spending To Be Deficit Financed? The CBO last published a multi-decade outlook in 2017 (Chart 7). The Federal debt/GDP ratio was projected to reach 150% by 2047. If we adjust this for the new (higher) starting point in 2028 provided by the CBO's alternative scenario, the debt/GDP ratio would top 164% in 2047. Chart 7An Unsustainable Debt Accumulation An Unsustainable Debt Accumulation An Unsustainable Debt Accumulation To put this into perspective, the demands of WWII swelled the federal debt/GDP ratio to 106% in 1946, the highest on record going back to the early 1700s (Chart 8). The debt ratio could rocket past that level before 2030, even in the absence of a recession. Chart 8U.S. Debt In Historical Context U.S. Debt In Historical Context U.S. Debt In Historical Context These extremely long-term projections are only meant to be suggestive. A lot of things can happen in the coming years that could make the trajectory better or even worse. But the point is that current levels of taxation are insufficient to fund entitlements in their current form in the long run. Chart 9 shows that outlays as a share of GDP have persistently exceeded revenues since the mid-1970s, except for a brief period during the Clinton Administration. The gap is set to widen over the coming decade. Something will have to give. Chart 9U.S. Outlays And Revenues U.S. Outlays And Revenues U.S. Outlays And Revenues Forget Starving The Beast "Starve the Beast" refers to the idea that the size of government can be restrained through a low-tax regime that spurs growth and pressures Congress to cut spending and control the budget deficit. It has been the mantra of Republicans since the Reagan era. The 1981 Reagan tax cuts included an across-the-board reduction in marginal tax rates, taking the top rate down from 70% to 50%. Corporate taxes were slashed by $150 billion over a 5-year period and tax rates were indexed for inflation, among other changes. It was not surprising that the budget deficit subsequently ballooned. Outrage grew among fiscal conservatives, but Congress spent the next few years passing laws to reverse the loss of revenues, rather than aggressively attacking the spending side. Today, Congressional fiscal hawks are in retreat and the Republican Party under President Donald Trump is not as fiscally conservative as it once was. This trend reflects the pull toward the center of the economic policy spectrum in response to a shift to the left among voters. BCA's political strategists have highlighted that this is the "median voter theory" (MVT) in action.2 The MVT posits that parties and politicians will approximate the policy choices of the median voter in order to win an election or stay in power. Every U.S. presidential election involves candidates making a mad dash to the most popularly appealing positions. President Trump exhibited this process when he ran in the Republican primary on a platform of increased infrastructure spending and zero cuts to "entitlement" spending. The Great Financial Crisis, disappointingly slow growth, stagnating middle class incomes and the widening income distribution have resulted in a leftward shift among voters on economic issues. Adding to the shift is the rising political clout of the Millennial generation, which generally favors more government involvement in the economy and will become the major voting block as it ages in the 2020s. There also are important changes underway in the ethnic composition of the electorate. The rising proportion of Hispanic voters will on balance favor the Democrats, according to voting trends (Chart 10). A previous Special Report by Peter Berezin, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, predicted that Texas will become a swing state in as little as a decade and a solid Democrat state by 2030.3 Chart 10The Proportion Of Minority Voters Set To Grow The Proportion Of Minority Voters Set To Grow The Proportion Of Minority Voters Set To Grow President Trump's shift to the left on economic policy helped him to out-flank Clinton in the election, particularly in the Rust Belt, where his protectionist and anti-austerity message resonated. Even his anti-immigration appeal is mostly based on economic reasoning - i.e. jobs, rather than cultural factors. Trump has admitted that he is not all that concerned about taking the country deeper into hock. The Republican rank-and-file has generally gone along with Trump's agenda because he has delivered traditional Republican tax cuts and continues to rate highly among his supporters (his approval is around 90% among Republicans). Fiscal hawks within the GOP have been forced to the sidelines while Trump and moderate Republicans have passed bipartisan spending increases with Democratic assistance. Where's The Outrage? The implication is that, unlike the Reagan years, we do not expect there will be a strong political force capable of leading a fight against budget deficits. After a decade of disappointing income growth, voters are in no mood for tax hikes. On the spending side, health care and pensions are still politically untouchable. A recent study by the Pew Research Center confirms that only a very small percentage of Americans of either political stripe would agree with cuts to spending on education, Medicare, Social Security, defense, infrastructure, veterans or anti-terrorism efforts (Chart 11). It is therefore no surprise that a populist such as Trump has promised to defend entitlement programs. Moreover, the graying of America will make it increasingly difficult for politicians to tame the entitlement beast. An aging population might generally favor the GOP, but it will also solidify opposition towards cutting Medicare and Social Security. As for defense, U.S. military spending was 3.3% of GDP and almost 15% of total spending in 2017 (Chart 12). Congress recently lifted the spending cap for defense expenditures, but it is still projected to fall as a share of total government spending and GDP in the coming years. It is conceivable that Congress could eventually trim the defense budget even faster, but spending is already low by historical standards and it is hard to see any future Congress gutting the military at a time when the global challenge from China and Russia is rising. Indeed, given the geopolitical atmosphere of great power competition, defense spending is more likely to rise. Chart 11Entitlements Are Popular* U.S. Fiscal Policy: An Unprecedented Macro Experiment U.S. Fiscal Policy: An Unprecedented Macro Experiment Chart 12What's Left To Cut? What's Left To Cut? What's Left To Cut? So, what is left to cut? If entitlements and defense are off the table, that leaves non-defense discretionary spending as the sacrificial lamb. This category includes spending by the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Justice, State and Veteran Affairs. Such spending has already declined sharply during the past several decades (Chart 12). Non-defense discretionary spending amounted to $610 billion in 2017, which is only 15.3% of total federal spending. To put this into perspective, cutting every last cent of non-defense discretionary spending by 2022 would still leave a budget deficit of about 2½% of GDP. And it would be political suicide. The Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice and Veterans Affairs account for more than half of non-defense discretionary spending. But these programs are very popular among voters. And, at only 1.3% of total spending, eliminating all foreign aid won't make much difference. Either President Trump or Vice-President Mike Pence will be the GOP presidential candidate in 2020. Pence could be more fiscally conservative than Trump, but Congress is unlikely to remain GOP-controlled through 2024. Similarly, it is difficult to see the Democrats making more than a token effort to rein in the deficit if the party is in charge after 2020. Perhaps they will raise taxes on the rich and push the corporate rate back up a bit, but voters will probably not favor a full reversal of the Trump tax cuts. Democrats will not tackle entitlements either. In other words, we can forget about "starving the beast" as a viable option no matter which party is in power. There will be little appetite for fiscal austerity in the U.S. through to the mid-2020s at a minimum. International Comparison This all places the U.S. out of sync with other major industrialized countries, where structural budget deficits have been tamed in most cases and are expected to remain so according to the IMF's latest projections (Chart 13). The U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit is projected to be almost 7% of GDP in 2019, by far the highest among other industrialized countries except for Norway. Spain and Italy are expected to have relatively small structural deficits of 2½% and 0.8%, respectively, next year. Greece is running a small structural surplus! Including all levels of government, the IMF estimates that the U.S. general government gross debt/GDP ratio is projected to be well above that of the U.K., France, Germany, Spain and Portugal in 2023 (Chart 14). It is expected to be on par with Italy at that time, although the newly-installed populist government there is likely to negotiate a loosening of the fiscal rules with Brussels, leading to higher debt levels than the IMF currently expects. Chart 13U.S. Budget Deficit Stands Out U.S. Fiscal Policy: An Unprecedented Macro Experiment U.S. Fiscal Policy: An Unprecedented Macro Experiment Chart 14International Debt Comparison U.S. Fiscal Policy: An Unprecedented Macro Experiment U.S. Fiscal Policy: An Unprecedented Macro Experiment The implication is that the U.S. government appears destined to become one of the most indebted in the developed world. The Fiscal Tipping Point Investors are not yet worried about the path of U.S. fiscal policy; the yield curve is quite flat, CDS spreads on U.S. Treasurys have not moved and the dollar is still overvalued by most traditional measures. The challenge is timing when a fiscally-induced crisis might occur. A warning bell does not ring when government debt or deficits reach certain levels. Fiscal trends generally do not suddenly spiral out of control - it is a gradual and insidious process reflected in multi-year deficits and slowly accumulating debt burdens. Eventually, a tipping point is reached where the only solution is drastic policy shifts or in extreme cases, default. Along the way, there are a number of signs that fiscal trends are entering dangerous territory. The relevance of the various signs will be different for each country, reflecting, among other things, the depth and structure of the financial system, the soundness of the economy, the dependence on foreign capital, and the asset preferences of domestic investors. Some key signs of building fiscal stress are given in Box 1. None of the factors in Box 1 appear to be a threat at the moment for the U.S. Moreover, comparisons with other countries that have hit the debt wall in the past are not that helpful because the U.S. is a special case. It has a huge economy and has political and military clout. The dollar is the world's main reserve currency and the country is able to borrow in its own currency. This suggests that the U.S. will be able to "get away with" its borrowing habit for longer than other countries have in the past. At the same time, financial markets are fickle and, even with hindsight, it not always clear why investors switch from acceptance to bearishness about a particular state of affairs. Box 1: Traditional Signs Of An Approaching Debt Crisis Government deficits absorb a rising share of net private savings, leaving little for new investment. Interest payments account for an increasingly large share of government revenues, squeezing out discretionary spending and requiring tough budget action merely to stop the deficit from rising. The government exhausts its ability to raise tax burdens. Traditional sources of debt finance dry up, requiring alternative funding strategies. Fears of inflation and/or default lead to a rising risk premium on interest rates and/ or a falling exchange rate. Political shifts occur as governments get blamed for eroding living standards, high taxes, and continued pressure to cut spending. The Costs Of Fiscal Profligacy Even if the U.S. is not near a fiscal tipping point, this does not mean that massive debt accumulation is costless: Interest Costs: Spending 3% of GDP on servicing the federal government's debt load over the next decade is not a disaster. Nonetheless, it does reduce the tax dollars available to fund entitlements or investing in infrastructure. Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy: Lawmakers would have less flexibility to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected events, such as natural disasters or recessions. As noted above, a recession in 2020 could generate a federal deficit of more than 8% of GDP. In that case, Congress may feel constrained in supporting the economy with even temporary fiscal stimulus. National Savings: Because government borrowing reduces national savings, then either capital spending must assume a smaller share of the economy or the U.S. must borrow more from abroad. Most likely it will be some combination of both. Crowding Out: If global savings are not in plentiful supply, then the additional U.S. debt issuance will place upward pressure on domestic interest rates and thereby "crowd out" business capital spending. This would reduce the nation's capital stock, leading to lower growth in productivity and living standards than would otherwise be the case. The CBO estimates that the positive impact on the capital stock from the changes to the corporate tax structure will overwhelm the negative impact from higher interest rates over the next decade. Nonetheless, the crowding out effect may dominate over a longer-time horizon. Academic studies suggest that every percentage point rise in the government's debt-to-GDP ratio adds 2-3 basis points to the equilibrium level of bond yields. If this is correct, then a rise in the U.S. ratio of 25 percentage points over the next decade in the CBO's baseline would lift equilibrium long-term bond yields by a meaningful 50-75 basis points. Much depends, however, on global savings backdrop at the time. External Trade Gap: If global savings are plentiful, then it may not take much of a rise in U.S. interest rates to attract the necessary foreign inflows to fund both the higher U.S. federal deficit and the private sector's borrowing requirements. Of course, this implies a larger current account deficit and a faster accumulation of foreign IOUs. Twin Deficits The U.S. has run a current account deficit for most of the past 40 years, which has cumulated into a rising stock of foreign-owned debt. The Net International Investment Position (NIIP) is the difference between the stock of foreign assets held by U.S. residents and the stock of U.S. assets held by foreign investors. The NIIP has fallen increasingly into the red over the past few decades, reaching 40% of GDP today (Chart 15). The current account deficit was 2.4% at the end of 2017, matching the post-Lehman average. Nonetheless, this deficit is set to worsen as increased domestic demand related to the fiscal stimulus is partly satisfied via higher imports. Chart 15Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position We estimate that a two percentage point rise in the budget deficit relative to the baseline could add a percentage point or more to the current account deficit, taking it up close to 4% of GDP. Upward pressure on the external deficit will also be accentuated in the next few years to the extent that the U.S. business sector ramps up capital spending. Chart 16Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar The implication is that the NIIP will fall deeper into negative territory at an even faster pace. A 2% current account deficit would be roughly consistent with stabilization in the NIIP/GDP ratio. But a 4% deficit would cause the NIIP to deteriorate to almost 80% of GDP by 2040 (Chart 15). The sustainability of the U.S. twin deficits has been an area of intense debate among academics and market practitioners for many years. The U.S. has been able to get away with the twin deficits for so long in part because of the dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. The critical role of the dollar in international transactions underpins global demand for the currency. This has allowed the U.S. to issue most of its debt obligations in U.S. dollars, forcing the currency risk onto foreign investors. The worry is that foreign investors will at some point begin to question the desirability of an oversized exposure to U.S. assets within their global portfolios. We argued in our April 2018 Special Report 4 that the U.S. situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar and Treasury bond prices are about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns about the unsustainability of the current account deficit. Even though the NIIP/GDP ratio will continue to deteriorate in the coming years, it does not appear that the U.S. is close to the point where foreign investors would begin to seriously question America's ability or willingness to service its debt. That said, the "twin deficits" and the downward trend in U.S. productivity relative to the rest of the world will ensure that the underlying long-term trend in the dollar will remain down (Chart 16).5 Conclusions The long-term U.S. fiscal outlook was dire even before the Great Recession and the associated shift to the political left in America. Fiscal conservatism is out of fashion and this is unlikely to change before the mid-2020s, no matter which party is in power. This means that a market riot will be required to shake voters and the political establishment into making the tough decisions. Given demographic trends, it appears more likely that taxes will rise than entitlements cut. We do not foresee a crisis occurring in the next few years. Nonetheless, arguing that the U.S. fiscal situation is sustainable for the foreseeable future does not mean that it is desirable. There will be costs associated with current fiscal trends, even on a relatively short 5-10 year horizon. Interest costs will mushroom, potentially crowding out government spending in other areas. U.S. government debt has already been downgraded by S&P to AA+ in 2013, and the other two main rating agencies are likely to follow suit during the next recession as the deficit balloons to 8% or more. Investors may begin to demand a risk premium in order to entice them to continually raise their exposure to U.S. government bonds in their portfolios. Taxes will eventually have to rise to service the government debt, and some capital spending will be crowded out, both of which will undermine the economy's growth potential. Finally, the dollar will also be weaker than it otherwise would be in the long-term, representing an erosion in America's standard of living because everything imported is more expensive. Could Japan offer a roadmap for the U.S.? The Bank of Japan has effectively monetized 43% of the JGB market and has control over yields, at least out to the 10-year maturity. Moreover, Japan has enjoyed a "free lunch" so far because monetization has not resulted in inflation. The reason that Japan has enjoyed a free lunch is that it has suffered from a chronic lack of demand and excess savings in the private sector. The government has persistently run a deficit and fiscally stimulated the economy in order to offset insufficient demand in the private sector. The Bank of Japan purchased bonds and drove short-term interest rates down to zero. These policies have made very slow progress in eradicating lingering deflationary economic forces. However, if animal spirits in the business sector perk up, then inflation could make a comeback unless the policy stimulus is dialed down in a timely manner. In other words, the BoJ-financed fiscal "free lunch" should disappear at some point. The U.S. is in a very different situation. There is no lack of aggregate demand or excessive savings in the private sector. The economy is at full employment, and thus persistent budget deficits should turn into inflation much more quickly than was the case in Japan. In other words, the U.S. is unlikely to enjoy much of a "free lunch", whether the Fed monetizes the debt or not. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Mandatory spending refers to entitlements; that is, government expenditure programs that are required by current law. These include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, government pensions and other smaller programs. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing The Median Voter Theory," June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "America's Fiscal Fortune: Leave Your Wallet On The Way Out," June 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed?," April, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5 In the near term, fiscal stimulus and increased business capital spending will likely boost the dollar. But this effect on the dollar will reverse in the long-term.

Highlights Editor's Note: I am pleased to return to U.S. Investment Strategy (USIS). I worked with the service when I joined BCA in 2010, and previously led it from August 2013 through September 2014. Sara Porrello, who has been with the team for over 20 years, and I look forward to re-aligning USIS with its original mandate. We hope you will find it consistently insightful. Best regards, Doug Peta U.S. Investment Strategy is getting back to basics: Today's report, plainly stating our position on the near-term direction of interest rates, is the first in an ongoing series meant to stake out our views on the macro issues that are most important to investors. Rates are headed higher, consistent with a booming economy that may well overheat, ... : Assuming trade tensions don't short-circuit the expansion, the U.S. economy is poised to grow above trend well into 2019. ...thanks to a tightening labor market and dubious fiscal spending, ... : Employers will be forced to bid up wages as the pool of idled and under-utilized workers dries up, and the fiscal stimulus package is all but certain to goose inflation pressures. ... and neither tweets nor testy interviews nor other expressions of presidential pique are likely to stay the Fed from its appointed rounds: The Federal Reserve cherishes its independence, and it is extremely unlikely to bow to presidential pressure. Feature U.S. Investment Strategy is meant to provide analyses of the U.S. economy and its future direction for the purpose of helping our clients make asset-allocation decisions. Starting with this report, we are going back to the basics of meeting that mandate. Over the rest of the summer, we intend to outline our positions on the key macro drivers of financial markets: rates, credit, the business cycle, and the state of monetary policy. Laying out our big-picture views, and the rationale underpinning them, will establish a framework for evaluating incoming data. The goal is to allow our clients to think along with us as new information is disseminated, and to distinguish signals from noise. We also want to make it easier for clients to anticipate the evolution of our views. To that end, will make frequent use of checklists highlighting the specific elements that might lead us to change our take on the evolution of the key cycles. The ultimate goal is to stay on top of cyclical inflection points, and to use them to inform asset-allocation decisions. The Fed Gets Its Way On Rates Monetary policy is a blunt instrument that works with indeterminate lags, and its effect has been roundly questioned. At the ends of the armchair-quarterback continuum, the Fed is mocked as a clueless bumbler, turning dials at random like a fumbling Mr. Magoo, or bemoaned as an omnipotent manipulator of financial markets and real-world activity. Strictly speaking, it controls nothing more than short rates. As its post-crisis communications strategy has shown, however, its reach extends well beyond its official policy-rate dominion. Talk of last decade's "conundrum" aside, changes in the fed funds rate reverberate along the entire yield curve. As the Chart Of The Week demonstrates, the aggregate yield on all outstanding Treasury issues is joined at the hip, directionally, with the fed funds rate. Aggregate weighted-average Treasury duration sits squarely in the belly of the curve, and it is a not-quite-perfect proxy for the long end, where the Fed's gravitational pull wanes (Table 1). Its pull is still powerful, though; the 90% correlation between the fed funds rate and the 30-year bond testifies eloquently to the Fed's significant influence at all points of the curve (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekThe Fed Gets Its Way The Fed Gets Its Way The Fed Gets Its Way The investment takeaway is that the Fed gets what it wants across the full spectrum of rates the vast majority of the time. Given the FOMC's repeatedly expressed intention to continue on its normalization course, the path of least resistance for rates at all maturities is higher. Despite the money markets' resistance to extrapolate the 25-bps-a-quarter "gradual pace" across the rest of this year and next (Chart 3), six more quarters of that pace is our baseline expectation provided an economic shock does not occur. Investors should be prepared for a higher peak in the fed funds rate than the consensus expects. Table 1Correlation With The Fed Funds##BR##Rate By Bond Maturity The Rates Outlook The Rates Outlook Chart 2The Long Arm##BR##Of The Fed The Rates Outlook The Rates Outlook Chart 3Rates Have Room To##BR##Surprise To The Upside Rates Have Room To Surprise To The Upside Rates Have Room To Surprise To The Upside Bottom Line: The Treasury curve faithfully reflects changes in the fed funds rate. In the absence of a shock that would cause the FOMC's repeatedly expressed plans to change, monetary policy is a catalyst for higher rates. But What About An Inverted Yield Curve? The yield curve typically inverts in the latter stages of a rate-hiking campaign, so it is more correct to say a higher fed funds rate implies higher Treasury yields until the yield curve inverts. An inverted yield curve is a classic recession indicator, albeit often a very early one (Table 2), and it should not be taken as a signal to immediately de-risk portfolios. The yield curve may be prone to invert even earlier than it otherwise would this time around, given that QE1, QE2, and QE3 may well have depressed the term premium on long-term bonds,1 as The Bank Credit Analyst noted in its August edition. The question of how much the Fed's asset purchases have affected the term premium, if at all, is far from settled within either the Fed or BCA, but its potential to impact the signal from the yield curve reinforces our conviction to look to other indicators to confirm its recession message before declaring the end of the bull markets in equities and spread product. Table 2The Yield Curve Is Early The Rates Outlook The Rates Outlook The Inflation Outlook As the tepid post-crisis expansion has stretched on and on, investors have grown accustomed to sleepy inflation readings and begun to regard the prospects for a pickup in inflation with skepticism, if not outright disdain. Even within BCA, there has been spirited debate about the relevance of the Phillips Curve - the formalization of the idea that there is an inverse relationship between wage growth and the unemployment rate. Despite the stagflation of the 1970s and the lengthy post-crisis dry spell that have undermined the Phillips Curve's credibility with the rigorously empirically-minded, we do not find it controversial. The relationship between unemployment and compensation may not be perfectly linear, but the Phillips Curve is nothing more than an extension of the laws of supply and demand to wage negotiations. We can accept that the Phillips Curve is kinked - that compensation growth is utterly indifferent to changes in the unemployment rate when labor supply is glutted (as can be seen in Chart 4 when covering all of the observations below 7%), but rather sensitive to its moves when it is in the neighborhood of full employment (as can be seen when covering all of the observations above 5%). We believe the U.S. labor market has reached the point at which employers will have to compete fiercely to attract new talent. After nine years, the economy has finally worked down nearly all of the hidden slack that had padded the broader U-6 unemployment rate.2 The pool of discouraged workers - those who are not counted as officially unemployed because they're not actively looking for a job, but would start tomorrow if offered one - has shrunk below its 2000 and 2007 levels (Chart 5, top panel). Similarly, the share of the labor force that is working part time but would prefer to be working full time is approaching its pre-crisis bottom (Chart 5, bottom panel). The prospects for inflation gained another boost last December upon the passage of the spending package on the coattails of the tax-cut bill. The U.S. economy is poised to receive a substantial dose of fiscal stimulus this year and next (Chart 6). Mainstream macroeconomic thought holds that stimulus injected into an economy that is already operating at full capacity is prone to kindle inflation.3 Chart 4The Phillips Curve Can't Handle Copious Slack ... The Rates Outlook The Rates Outlook Chart 5... But Almost All Of It Has Been Worked Off ... But Almost All Of It Has Been Worked Off ... But Almost All Of It Has Been Worked Off Chart 6Goosing Inflation Along With Output Goosing Inflation Along With Output Goosing Inflation Along With Output Bottom Line: The U.S. labor market has tightened considerably and competition between employers to attract scarce talent should soon translate to a pickup in wage growth. Unneeded fiscal stimulus is also likely to push prices higher. There are plenty more inflation green shoots behind the ones that have already begun to emerge. White House-Fed Tension Is Nothing New It is not beyond the realm of possibility that presidential pressure could deter the Fed from following through on its intentions and present a risk to our above-consensus terminal rate estimate. The bond market immediately discounted the potential of a less independent Fed by selling off at the long end after the president stated he was "not thrilled" with ongoing rate hikes in an interview with CNBC. There would seem to be little doubt that a captive Fed would be more reluctant to remove the punch bowl than a Fed which was free to pursue its inflation mandate without outside interference. After all, elected officials would be happy to trade long-term pain for near-term gain (at least through the next campaign). The president may have upended convention by publicly airing his displeasure, but there is a natural tension between the White House and the Fed. There have been dust-ups in the past, and there will be dust-ups in the future for as long as elected officials shudder at the thought of an economic downturn. Alan Greenspan wrote frankly in his memoir about friction with the first Bush administration, which included public criticism from the sitting president. "I do not want to see us move so strongly against inflation that we impede growth," President Bush told the press at the beginning of his term, in response to hawkish congressional testimony from Greenspan.4 By all accounts, however, the conflict between Bush père and Greenspan was of a lower-pressure variety than the conflicts between LBJ and William McChesney Martin, and Nixon and Arthur Burns. The legendarily intimidating LBJ summoned Martin to his ranch following an unwelcome rate hike. According to several accounts (and consistent with his longstanding negotiating practices in the Senate), LBJ backed the smaller Martin up against a wall before giving full voice to his complaints. Martin did not budge, pointing out that the Fed had acted in accordance with the legislation governing its actions.5 If Martin represents the heroic Fed chief, standing his ground in the face of heavy pressure from a larger-than-life figure, Arthur Burns is the poster child for folding like a cheap lawn chair. The Nixon tapes capture Nixon and his proxies repeatedly pressuring Burns to prime the pump ahead of the 1972 election, which Burns ultimately did.6 Our view is that Fed Chair Powell is more likely to follow Martin than Burns. The Fed is more transparent today, and its independence is more firmly established than it was in the 1970s. Even if Powell were amenable to doing the president's bidding, he would be held back by the realization that it would ultimately be self-defeating: any hint of political manipulation in the rate-setting process would risk a bond market riot that would blast rates far beyond the levels where a 3.5% fed funds rate would take them. Bottom Line: We are not concerned that the FOMC will yield to pressure from the White House to back away from their rate hike plans. Attempted influence of the Fed is nothing new, and investors need not worry about it now. Investment Implications If we are correct in our view that rates have not yet peaked, the bond market is likely to face continued headwinds. Long-dated Treasuries will come under more pressure than shorter-maturity issues. Thanks to positive carry, spread product will be less vulnerable to higher rates, but our bond strategists are lukewarm on the risk-reward offered by investment-grade and high-yield bonds given the late stage of the cycle and historically tight spreads. We acknowledge the potential seriousness of the current spate of geopolitical risks, headlined by trade tensions, and advocate temporarily de-risking portfolios in line with the BCA house view (equal weight equities, underweight bonds, overweight cash). We are more constructive than the BCA consensus, however, because we remain constructive on the business cycle, the monetary policy cycle, and the credit cycle. If the key cycles aren't over, the equity bull market probably isn't over, and neither spread widening nor a pickup in defaults is likely to wipe out spread product's excess returns. We will express all of our calls in a basket of ETF recommendations once we have completed our review of the most impactful macro questions, but for now we recommend maintaining below-benchmark positioning in Treasury portfolios while overweighting TIPS at the expense of nominal Treasuries. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Long-term bond yields can be decomposed into the expected path of short-term rates and a term premium, which compensates an investor for the uncertainties that can arise over the extended time period that s/he is locking up his/her money by buying a longer-maturity instrument. 2 In the monthly employment report, the headline unemployment rate, which includes only jobless workers who are actively seeking work, is labeled U-3 unemployment. The U-6 series broadens the definition of unemployment to include the jobless who aren't actively searching and those who are working part time only because they cannot find a full-time position. 3 Please see the November 7, 2016 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy, Polls, Probability," available at usis.bcaresearch.com, for a discussion of fiscal multipliers under a range of scenarios. 4 Greenspan, Alan. The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, Penguin (New York): 2007, p.113. To this day, several members of the G.H.W. Bush administration continue to pin a large measure of blame for its 1992 electoral loss on overly conservative monetary policy. The ex-president himself, in a 1998 television interview, said, "I reappointed him [Greenspan], and he disappointed me." 5 Granville, Kevin. "A President at War With His Fed Chief, 5 Decades Before Trump," New York Times, June 15, 2017, page B3 (updated July 19, 2018). https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/business/economy/a-president-at-war-with-his-fed-chief-5-decades-before-trump.html 6 "How Richard Nixon Pressured Arthur Burns: Evidence from the Nixon Tapes, Vol. 20, No. 4," Journal of Economic Perspectives (Fall 2006). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1167/item/2388, accessed on July 24, 2018.

Highlights Without swift and considerable fiscal austerity or aggressive privatization, Brazil's public debt situation will become uncontrollable. Brazilian voters' priorities and preferences are for more public spending, not fiscal austerity. Hence, the upcoming president will not have a mandate to pursue fiscal austerity. The sole politically viable solution to stabilize Brazil's public debt situation is to boost nominal GDP growth - something that can only be achieved by sacrificing the exchange rate. The real is set to depreciate considerably. Provided the currency is key to the performance of Brazilian asset prices, the latter will remain in a bear market. Stay put/underweight on Brazilian risk assets. Feature Brazil is approaching a major showdown between creditors and the government. The country's public debt burden is out of control and unsustainable, unless immediate and drastic actions on the fiscal front are undertaken. At the same time, the economy has barely recovered after an extended period of depression, and the general population does not have the appetite for fiscal austerity. Crucially, the nation is heading into presidential and general elections in October. Whoever is elected, the new president will struggle to stabilize public debt dynamics amid a weak economy and the public's intolerance for fiscal tightening. On the surface, the plunge in Brazilian financial markets in recent months could well be attributed to the truckers' strike following the liberalization of fuel prices. The authorities hiked fuel prices because the deteriorating budget situation forced them to discontinue subsiding it. However, the strike was a symptom of a much deeper problem: the government's debt dynamics are degenerating, while the population and businesses have grown tired of the prolonged depression - and are deeply opposed to any kind of fiscal austerity. The sole macro solution to this debt problem is to boost nominal growth. This can be achieved via much lower real interest rates and/or a major currency devaluation. The latter will be detrimental to foreign investors holding Brazilian assets. Fiscal Austerity Is Required... Chart I-1Nominal Growth (A Proxy For Revenue) Is Lower Than Borrowing Costs Nominal Growth (A Proxy For Revenue) Is Lower Than Borrowing Costs Nominal Growth (A Proxy For Revenue) Is Lower Than Borrowing Costs Brazil continues to head towards a fiscal debacle. Not only does the government's fiscal position remain untenable, but nominal GDP growth has also relapsed to its 2015 lows (Chart I-1). The lack of nominal growth is depressing government revenues. Importantly, the widened gap between nominal GDP growth that currently stands at 4% and local currency borrowing rates of 10% is not sustainable (Chart I-1). Barring swift and substantial fiscal tightening, weak economic growth and high borrowing costs will ensure that the public debt-to-GDP ratio continues to rise into the foreseeable future. A rising debt-to-GDP ratio without clear government policies and actions to tackle indebtedness will feed into a higher risk premium in the exchange rate as well as government borrowing costs. Hence, a vicious cycle will likely unravel: escalating public debt will exert upward pressure on the government's borrowing costs, rising interest rate payments on public debt will keep the fiscal deficit wide and, consequently, the debt-to-GDP ratio will continue to escalate. Table 1 presents three scenarios for Brazil's public debt trajectory. In our base case scenario, the gross debt-to-GDP ratio1 reaches 82% by the end of 2019. In fact, even under the optimistic scenario, the gross public debt-to-to GDP ratio will continue to rise and end up at 80%. Table 1Brazil: Public Debt Sustainability Test Brazil: Faceoff Time Brazil: Faceoff Time Chart I-2High Debt Is Not A Problem In The U.S. High Debt Is Not A Problem In The U.S. High Debt Is Not A Problem In The U.S. A public debt burden above 80% of GDP would not be alarming if interest rates on that debt were not in the double digits. For example, the U.S.'s public debt burden of 100% of GDP is not a problem because interest rates are low, in fact well below nominal GDP growth (Chart I-2). To stabilize the public debt dynamics, the Brazilian government must run primary fiscal surpluses. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Brazil escaped a public debt trap because the government tightened fiscal policy considerably. They adopted Fiscal Responsibility Law in 2000, whereby the authorities were required by law to keep government expenditures limited to 50% of net revenues for that year. In turn, this allowed governments to run comfortable primary fiscal surpluses of 3% and above (Chart I-3). As shown on this chart, Brazil ran primary surpluses of 3-4% from 2001 through to 2012. Presently, the primary fiscal balance stands at -1.5% of GDP (Chart I-3, bottom panel). To stabilize the public debt dynamics, the government must undertake fiscal tightening of about 3% of GDP within the next 12-24 months to bring the primary surplus to around 1.5% of GDP. However, such fiscal tightening at a time when the economy is still very weak will push it back into recession. More importantly such fiscal tightening is politically unfeasible, as discussed below. Brazil's Achilles heel has been and remains social security finances. The social security deficit at the moment amounts to 3% of GDP (Chart I-4). According to IMF projections,2 social security expenditures will rise to 15% of GDP by 2021, bringing the total social security deficit to 12% of GDP under the current system. Chart I-3Brazilian Public Debt Dynamics Are Unsustainable Brazilian Public Debt Dynamics Are Unsustainable Brazilian Public Debt Dynamics Are Unsustainable Chart I-4Brazil's Social Security Deficit Brazil's Social Security Deficit Brazil's Social Security Deficit Crucially, Brazil is facing demographic headwinds that are contributing to the ballooning social security deficit. In particular, a rapidly aging population and rising life expectancy are all expected to drag government finances lower in the coming decades (Chart I-5). The social security deficit has increased in recent years to 40% of the overall deficit. Chart I-5Deteriorating Demographics Deteriorating Demographics Deteriorating Demographics Major and front-loaded cuts in social security expenditures are vital to stabilize government finances and debt dynamics. However, there is little support among the population and Congress for such austerity measures (we discuss this in more detail in the next section). Aggressive privatization could be a one-off short-term solution if the proceeds are used to reduce public debt. This could avert a vicious cycle of rising risk premiums, higher interest rates and larger debt burdens, at least for a while. However, the recent case of the privatization of Eletrobras shows that the process has been much slower than expected. Moreover, the total estimated sale price of Eletrobras will only produce BRL 12 billion. This compares with a BRL 104 billion annual primary deficit. Further, a sale of the Brazilian government's ownership of oil giant Petrobras would bring in an estimated BRL 90-95 billion, or 1.6% of GDP (this assumes a sale of a 64% stake in common shares, including government, BDNES and Caixa shares). This is still less than the annual primary deficit of BRL 104 billion (1.5% of GDP). Consequently, even aggressive privatization will not be sufficient to reduce debt or improve the nation's fiscal position on a sustainable basis. Further, aggressive privatization is not politically feasible as it lacks public support, and Congressional approvals on this matter will be a challenge. Bottom Line: The public debt burden is surging and fiscal dynamics remain unsustainable. Without swift and considerable fiscal austerity or aggressive privatization, Brazil's public debt situation will become uncontrollable. ...But Is Politically Unfeasible The prospects for fiscal reforms and improved public debt sustainability are dependent on the upcoming presidential elections. As October's vote approaches, social security and privatization reforms will be key determinants of the path of Brazil's risk premium for the foreseeable future. The presidential elections are scheduled for October 7 and 28 (a second round will be held if no candidate achieves an absolute majority of the vote). Uncertainty is unusually high. Yet investors need to understand the constraints that underpin the current presidential race. First, Brazilian voters' priorities and preferences are for more public spending, not fiscal austerity. According to polls conducted by Confederacao Nacional da Industria (CNI), the top five priorities of respondents are to improve health and education, and raise wages (Chart I-6). By contrast, only 3% of respondents believe that pension reform (cutting spending) should be a top government priority. Chart 6Brazil's Population Is Not Open To Fiscal Austerity Brazil: Faceoff Time Brazil: Faceoff Time This polling confirms our thesis that the median voter in Brazil remains firmly on the left of the economic policy spectrum.3 The combined support for left-leaning candidates Lula, Marina Silva and Ciro Gomes remains close to 50% (Table 2). Table 2The Left Is Ahead Brazil: Faceoff Time Brazil: Faceoff Time On the whole, fiscal austerity and privatization, as proposed by centrist and right-leaning candidates, will garner little support from the electorate. Second, Brazil's Congress is one the most fractious in the world. With over 20 political parties in Congress, the key to passing critical reforms is contingent on the ability of the president to form, maintain and reward a coalition that can muster majority votes in Congress. Crucially, reforms requiring constitutional amendments, such as the pension system, would need a supermajority of 308 out of 513 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, or 60% of congressmen. As the recent experience of acting president Temer shows, this will be difficult. Temer was an experienced political operator and the head of the largest party in Congress, yet even he failed to gain sufficient support to pass social security reforms, even when they were watered down and their costs back-loaded. There are low odds that any of the existing presidential candidates - all of whom have single-digit or low double-digit support rates - will be able to get enough votes to adopt meaningful social security reforms. True, the right-wing candidate, Jair Bolsonaro, has proposed aggressive privatization and spending cuts to rein in the public debt. Ultimately, only policies of this kind can reduce spending, correct the debt trajectory, stabilize the foreign exchange rate, and enable the country to avoid a vicious cycle of escalating risk premiums in financial markets. That, in turn, would give the economy some breathing room -- a buying opportunity in financial markets might emerge. However, Jair Bolsonaro faces an uphill battle in the presidential election given that the median voter is on the left. Even if elected, he is unlikely to garner support for privatization and austerity in a fractionalised Congress. Bottom Line: Brazilian voters' priorities and preferences are for more public spending, not fiscal austerity. Hence, the upcoming president will not have a mandate to pursue fiscal austerity. Monetary Policy And The Exchange Rate Given fiscal austerity is politically unviable, the other option to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio is to boost nominal GDP. Yet the nominal GDP growth rate has relapsed to 2015 lows (refer to Chart I-1 above). Even though real GDP is slowly recovering, inflation has plunged, depressing nominal growth (Chart I-7). As a result, real rates in Brazil remain very high (Chart I-7, bottom panel). This in turn has curbed the economic recovery. Low income growth and high real rates are not only impairing public sector creditworthiness, but they are also hurting the private sector's ability to service its debt. Consistently, weaker nominal GDP growth points to a renewed rise in NPLs and NPL provisions at banks (shown inverted in the chart) (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Real Rates Are Still Punishingly High In Brazil Real Rates Are Still Punishingly High In Brazil Real Rates Are Still Punishingly High In Brazil Chart I-8Banks' Bad Loans And Provisions Are Set To Rise Banks' Bad Loans And Provisions Are Set To Rise Banks' Bad Loans And Provisions Are Set To Rise Monetary policy in Brazil is constrained by exchange rate movements. With the exchange rate currently under selling pressure, the central bank is unlikely to reduce interest rates for now. The next government will have no option but to force the central bank to reduce nominal and real interest rates in an attempt to both boost nominal growth and decrease public debt servicing costs. The victim of this policy will be the currency: the Brazilian real will plunge. The good news for the government is that 96% of its debt is in local currency. Hence, sizable currency depreciation will not have much of an effect on the public debt burden. Table 3External Debt As Of Q4 2017 Brazil: Faceoff Time Brazil: Faceoff Time That said, companies and banks have high levels of external debt (Table 3), and they will suffer at the hands of significant currency depreciation. However, this is the most politically viable and economically feasible way to avoid a public debt fiasco. If the government's pressure on the central bank to reduce interest rates leads to a riot in financial markets and borrowing costs on government debt rise, the government may put pressure on the central bank and state-owned commercial banks to monetize public debt - i.e., purchase government bonds to bring bond yields down. In short, Brazil could institute quantitative easing to reduce and cap government bond yields. The U.S., the UK, Japan, the euro area and Sweden have all done this, and the new government in Brazil may also opt for such a solution. It might either be done in a transparent way, as central banks in the developed economies did, or it might be done in a disguised manner. Chart I-9Divergence Between Central Bank Reserves & The Real Divergence Between Central Bank Reserves & The Real Divergence Between Central Bank Reserves & The Real Interestingly, there are some indications the central bank is trying to err on the side of easier money, despite the latest currency depreciation. Specifically, it has in recent months been injecting more liquidity into the banking system, despite the sharp selloff in the real, as illustrated in Chart I-9. This constitutes a departure from past policy reactions to selloffs in the real, and in a way is a form of disguised easing. The central bank's recent liquidity additions have prevented interbank rates - and hence the entire structure of interest rates - from increasing more than they otherwise would have. In short, the upcoming government might resort to open or disguised public debt monetization to prevent a fiscal debacle. Needless to say, the Brazilian real will plummet in such a scenario. Bottom Line: The sole politically viable solution to stabilize Brazil's public debt situation is to boost nominal GDP growth - something that can only be achieved by sacrificing the exchange rate. Financial Markets The currency is the key to the performance of Brazilian asset prices. The real will depreciate much further. In addition to the above factors, the following will continue to weigh on the currency: Export growth is decelerating (Chart I-10), and this trend is likely to persist as China's growth slows further and commodities prices drop. The currency is not yet very cheap, according to the real effective exchange rate based on consumer and producer prices (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Brazilian Export Growth Is Decelerating Brazilian Export Growth Is Decelerating Brazilian Export Growth Is Decelerating Chart I-11The Real Is Not Cheap The Real Is Not Cheap The Real Is Not Cheap Foreign debt obligations - external debt servicing over the next 12 months - are elevated both in dollars and from a historical perspective relative to exports (Chart I-12). Not surprisingly, demand for dollars is very strong, as evidenced by rising U.S. dollar funding rates (Chart I-13 ). Finally, even though interest rate differentials over the U.S. have never been a key driving force behind the real, they are currently at a record low (Chart I-14). Chart I-12Foreign Private Sector Debt Is High Foreign Private Sector Debt Is High Foreign Private Sector Debt Is High Chart I-13Demand For U.S. Dollars Is Strong Demand For U.S. Dollars Is Strong Demand For U.S. Dollars Is Strong Chart I-14Brazilian Interest Rate Differentials: At A Historical Low Brazilian Interest Rate Differentials: At A Historical Low Brazilian Interest Rate Differentials: At A Historical Low Chart I-15Brazil: Weak Trade Balance Is Negative For Equities Brazil: Weak Trade Balance Is Negative For Equities Brazil: Weak Trade Balance Is Negative For Equities With respect to equities, Brazilian share prices perform poorly when the current account and trade balances are deteriorating (Chart I-15). Falling commodities prices are negative for resource companies. Finally, the stock market's long-term technical profile seems to suggest that a major top has been reached in share prices in U.S. dollar terms and the path of least resistance is down (Chart I-16). Chart I-16Brazilian Stocks In U.S. Dollars Brazilian Stocks In U.S. Dollars Brazilian Stocks In U.S. Dollars Investment Conclusions We remain negative on Brazil's financial markets. Further depreciation in the currency will continue, and will cause a selloff in equities, local bonds and sovereign and corporate credit markets. Dedicated EM portfolios should continue to underweight Brazil in equity and fixed-income portfolios. We continue recommending a long position in the nation's sovereign CDSs. The BRL is among our favoured currency shorts - we are maintaining both our short BRL/long USD and our short BRL/long MXN positions. Among equity sectors, we are reiterating our short position in bank stocks. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthur@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst AndrijaV@bcaresearch.com 1 In our simulations, we used gross government debt, which is calculated as total government public debt excluding central bank holdings of government securities. Gross public debt-to-GDP ratio is now at 74%. Under the older methodology, which included accounting for government debt held by the central bank, the public debt-to-GDP ratio would have been 85%. 2 Cuevas et al. IMF Working Paper; Fiscal Challenges of Population Aging in Brazil, March 2017 3 Pease see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Brazil's Election: Separating Signal From The Noise", dated September 10, 2014, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Dear Client, This week I am sending you a Special Report written by Mark McClellan, Chief Strategist of the monthly Bank Credit Analyst. Mark deals with the implications of the U.S./Sino trade war for U.S. equity sectors. He identifies the next products to be targeted with higher tariffs on both sides of the dispute. A higher U.S. tariff wall will shield some industries from competition, but rising input costs will be widely felt because of extensive supply chains between and within industries. There is only a small handful of industries that will be winners in absolute terms. I trust you will find his report very informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the U.S./Sino trade war for U.S. equity sectors. The threat that trade action poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations. Perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between the U.S. and China. Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The USTR claims that it is being strategic in the Chinese goods it is targeting, focusing on companies that will benefit from the "Made In China 2025" initiative. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad import categories. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are apparel, footwear, toys and cellphones. Beijing is clearly targeting U.S. products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. Based on a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red and Swing States, China will likely lift tariffs in the next rounds on civilian aircraft, computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits. Supply chains within and between industries and firms mean that the impact of tariffs is much broader than the direct impact on exporters and importers. We measure the relative exposure of 24 GICs equity sectors to the trade war based on their proportion of foreign-sourced revenues and the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by U.S. tariffs. The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. China may also attempt to disrupt supply chains via non-tariff barriers, placing even more pressure on U.S. firms that have invested heavily in China. Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance are most exposed. U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war. Virtually all U.S. manufacturing industries will be negatively affected by an ongoing trade war, even defensive sectors such as Consumer Staples. The one exception is defense manufacturers, where we recommend overweight positions. Our analysis highlights that the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, and the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector is one of our favorites. Feature The trade skirmish is transitioning to a full-on trade war. The U.S. has imposed a 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods, and has proposed a 10% levy on an additional $200 billion of imports by August 31. China retaliated with tariffs on $50 billion of imports from the U.S., but Trump has threatened tariffs on another $300 billion if China refuses to back down. That would add up to over $500 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, only slightly less than the total amount that China exported to the U.S. last year. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has emphasized that President Trump is unconstrained on trade policy, giving him leeway to be tougher than the market expects.1 This is especially the case with respect to China. There will be strong pushback from Congress and the U.S. business lobby if the Administration tries to cancel NAFTA. In contrast, Congress is also demanding that the Administration be tough on China because it plays well with voters. Trump is a prisoner of his own tough pre-election campaign rhetoric against China. The U.S. primary economic goal is not to equalize tariffs but to open market access.2 The strategic goal is much larger. The U.S. wants to see China's rate of technological development slow down. Washington will expect robust guarantees to protect intellectual property and proprietary technology before it dials down the pressure on Beijing. The threat that the trade war poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations, such as that between Japan and the U.S. in the late 1980s. First, stocks are more expensive today. Second, interest rates are much lower, limiting how much central banks can react to adverse shocks. Third, and perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between China and the U.S. Nearly every major S&P 500 multinational corporation is in some way exposed to these supply chains. Chart 1 shows that Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The Global Value Chain Participation rate, constructed by the OECD, is a measure of cross-border value-added linkages.3 Chart 1Measuring Global Supply Chains U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the trade war for U.S. equity sectors. Complex industrial interactions make it difficult to be precise in identifying the winners and losers of a trade war. Nonetheless, we can identify the industries most and least exposed to a further rise in tariff walls or non-tariff barriers to trade. We focus on the U.S./Sino trade dispute in this Special Report, leaving the implications of a potential trade war with Europe and the possible failure of NAFTA negotiations for future research. Trade Channels There are at least five channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry: 1. The Direct Effect: This can be positive or negative. The impact is positive for those industries that do not export much but are provided relief from stiff import competition via higher import tariffs. The impact is negative for those firms facing higher tariffs on their exports, as well as for those firms facing higher costs for imported inputs to their production process. These firms would be forced to absorb some of the tariff via lower profit margins. Some industries will fall into both positive and negative camps. U.S. washing machines are a good example. Whirlpool's stock price jumped after President Trump announced an import tariff on washing machines, but it subsequently fell back when the Administration imposed an import tariff on steel and aluminum (that are used in the production of washing machines); 2. Indirect Effect: The higher costs for imported goods are passed along the supply chain within an industry and to other industries that are not directly affected by rising tariffs. This will undermine profit margins in these indirectly-affected industries to the extent that they cannot fully pass along the higher input costs; 3. Foreign Direct Investment: Some Chinese exports emanate from U.S. multinationals' subsidiaries in China, or by Chinese or foreign OEM suppliers for U.S. firms. Even though it would undermine China's economy to some extent, the Chinese authorities could make life more difficult for these firms in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. 4. Macro Effect: A trade war would take a toll on global trade and reduce GDP growth globally. Besides the negative effect of uncertainty on business confidence and, thus, capital spending, rising prices for both consumer and capital goods will reduce the volume of spending in both cases. Moreover, corporate profits have a high beta with respect to economic activity. We would not rule out a U.S. recession in a worst-case scenario. Obviously, a recession or economic slowdown would inflict the most pain on the cyclical parts of the S&P 500 relative to the non-cyclicals, in typical fashion. 5. Currency Effect: To the extent that a trade war pushes up the dollar relative to the other currencies, it would undermine export-oriented industries and benefit those that import. However, while we are bullish the dollar due to diverging monetary policy, the dollar may not benefit much from trade friction given retaliatory tariff increases by other countries. Some of the direct and indirect impact can be mitigated to the extent that importers facing higher prices for Chinese goods shift to similarly-priced foreign producers outside of China. Nonetheless, this adjustment will not be costless as there may be insufficient supply capacity outside of China, leading to upward pressure on prices globally. Targeted Sectors: (I) U.S. Tariffs On Chinese Goods As noted above, the U.S. has already imposed tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports and has published a list of another $200 billion of goods that are being considered for a 10% tariff in the second round of the trade war. The first round focused on intermediate and capital goods, while the second round includes consumer final demand categories such as furniture, air conditioners and refrigerators. The latter will show up as higher prices at retailers such as Wal Mart, having a direct and visible impact on U.S. households. Appendix Table 1 lists the goods that are on the first and second round lists, grouped according to the U.S. equity sectors in the S&P 500. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) claims that the Chinese items are being targeted strategically. It is focusing on companies that will benefit from China's structural policies, such as the "Made In China 2025" initiative that is designed to make the country a world leader in high-tech areas (see below). Table 1 reveals the relative size of the broad categories of U.S. imports from China, based on trade categories. The top of the table is dominated by Motor Vehicles, Machinery, Telecommunication Equipment, Computers, Apparel & Footwear and other manufactured goods. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad categories in Table 1. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are Apparel and Footwear, as well as two subcategories; Toys and Cellphones. These are all consumer demand categories. Table 1U.S. Imports From China (January-May 2018) U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers (II) Chinese Tariffs On U.S. Goods Total U.S. exports to China were less than $53 billion in the first five months of 2018, limiting the amount of direct retaliation that China can undertake (Table 2). The list of individual U.S. products that China has targeted so far is long, but we have condensed it into the broad categories shown in Table 3. The U.S. equity sectors that the new tariffs affect so far include Food, Beverage & Tobacco, Automobiles & Components, Materials and Energy. China has concentrated mainly on final goods in a politically strategic manner, such as Trump-supported rural areas and Harley Davidson bikes whose operations are based in Paul Ryan's home district in Wisconsin. Table 2U.S. Exports To China (January-May 2018) U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers Table 3China Tariffs On U.S. Goods U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers What will China target next? Chart 2 shows exports to China as percent of total state exports, and Chart 3 presents the value of products already tariffed by China as a percent of state exports. Other than Washington, the four states most targeted by Beijing are conservative: Alaska, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. Chart 2U.S. Exports To China By State U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers Chart 3Value Of U.S. Products Tariffed By China (By State) U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers Beijing is clearly targeting products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. To identify the next items to be targeted, we constructed a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red States (solidly conservative) and Swing States (competitive states that can go either to Republican or Democratic politicians). Appendix Tables 2 and 3 show this list of products, with those that have already been flagged by China for tariffs crossed out. Table 4 shows the top-10 list of products that are not yet tariffed by China, but are distributed in a large proportion of Red and Swing states. What strikes us immediately is how important aircraft exports are to a large number of Swing and Red States. In total, 27 U.S. states export civilian aircraft, engines and parts to China. This is an obvious target of Beijing's retaliation. In addition, we believe that computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits are next. Table 4Number Of U.S. States Exporting To China By Category U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers Market Reaction Chart 4 highlights how U.S. equity sectors performed during seven separate days when the S&P 500 suffered notable losses due to heightened fears of protectionism. Cyclical sectors such as Industrials and Materials fared worse during days of rising protectionist angst. Financials also generally underperformed, largely because such days saw a flattening of the yield curve. Tech, Health Care, Energy and Telecom performed broadly in line with the S&P 500. Consumer Staples outperformed the market, but still declined in absolute terms. Utilities and Real Estate were the only two sectors that saw absolute price gains. Chart 4S&P 500: Impact Of Trade-Related Events U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers The market reaction seems sensible based on the industries caught in the cross-hairs of the trade action so far. At least some of the potential damage is already discounted in equity prices. Nonetheless, it is useful to take a closer look at the underlying factors that should determine the ultimate winners and losers from additional salvos in the trade war. Determining The Winners And Losers The U.S. sectors that garner the largest proportion of total revenues from outside the U.S. are obviously the most exposed to a trade war. For the 24 level 2 GICS sectors in the S&P 500, Table 5 presents the proportion of total revenues that is generated from operations outside the U.S. for the top five companies in the sector by market cap. Company reporting makes it difficult in some cases to identify the exact revenue amount coming from outside the U.S., as some companies regard "domestic" earnings as anything generated in North America. Nonetheless, we believe the data in Table 5 provide a reasonably accurate picture. Table 5Foreign Revenue Exposure (2017) U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers Semiconductors, Tech Equipment, Materials, Food & Beverage, Software and Capital Goods are at the top of the list in terms of foreign-sourced revenues. Not surprisingly, service industries like Real Estate, Banking, Utilities and Telecommunications Services are at the bottom of the exposure list. U.S. companies are also exposed to U.S. tariffs that lift the price of imported inputs to the production process. This can occur directly when firm A imports a good from abroad, and indirectly, when firm A sells its intermediate good to firm B at a higher price, and then on to firm C. In order to capture the entire process, we used the information contained in the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Input/Output tables. We estimated the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by already-implemented U.S. tariffs and those that are on the list for the next round of tariffs. These estimates, shown in Appendix Table 4 at a detailed industrial level, include both the direct and indirect effects of higher import costs. At the top of the list is Motor Vehicles and Parts, where Trump tariffs could affect more than 70% of the cost of all material inputs to the production process. Electrical Equipment, Machinery and other materials industries are also high on the list, together with Furniture, Computers & Electronic Parts and Construction. Unsurprisingly, service industries and Utilities are in the bottom half of the table.4 We then allocated all the industries in Appendix Table 4 to the 24 GICs level 2 sectors in the S&P 500, in order to obtain an import exposure ranking in S&P sector space (Table 6). Chart 5 presents a scatter diagram that compares import tariff exposure (horizontal axis) with foreign revenue exposure (vertical axis). The industries clustered in the top-right of the diagram are the most exposed to a trade war. Table 6U.S. Import Tariff Exposure U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers Chart 5U.S. Industrial Exposure To A Trade War With China U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out by this metric, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. Food, Beverage & Tobacco lies between the two extremes. Joint Ventures And FDI Table 7Stock Of U.S. Direct Investment In China (2017) U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers As mentioned above, most U.S. production taking place in China involves a joint venture. The Chinese authorities could attempt to disrupt the supply chain of a U.S. company by hindering production at companies that have ties to U.S. firms. Data on U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in China will be indicative of the industries that are most exposed to this form of retaliation. The stock of U.S. FDI in China totaled more than $107 billion last year (Table 7). At the top of the table are Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance. Apple is a good example of a U.S. company that is exposed to non-tariff retaliation, as the iPhone is assembled in China by Foxconn for shipment globally with mostly foreign sourced parts. Our Technology sector strategists argue that U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war (See Box 1).5 BOX 1 The Tech Sector The U.S. has applied tariffs on the raw materials of technology products rather than finished goods so far. At a minimum, this will penalize smaller U.S. tech firms which manufacture in the U.S. and provide an incentive to move production elsewhere. Worst case, the U.S. tariffs might lead to component shortages which could have a disproportionately negative impact, especially on smaller firms. Although it has not been proposed, U.S. tariffs on finished goods would be devastating to large tech companies such as Apple, which outsources its manufacturing to China. China appears determined to have a vibrant high technology sector. The "Made In China 2025" program, for example, combines ambitious goals in supercomputers, robotics, medical devices and smart cars, while setting domestic localization targets that would favor Chinese companies over foreigners. The ZTE sanctions and the potential for enhanced export controls have had a traumatic impact on China's understanding of its relatively weak position with respect to technology. As a result, because most high-tech products are available from non-U.S. sources, Chinese engineers will likely be encouraged to design with non-U.S. components; for example, selecting a Samsung instead of a Qualcomm processor for a smartphone. Similarly, China is a major buyer of semiconductor capital equipment as it follows through with plans to scale up its semiconductor industry. Most such equipment is also available from non-U.S. vendors, and it would be understandable if these suppliers are selected given the risk which would now be associated with selecting a U.S. supplier. The U.S. is targeting Chinese made resistors, capacitors, crystals, batteries, Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and semiconductors with a 25% tariff. For the most part these are simple, low cost devices, which are used by the billions in high-tech devices. Nonetheless, China could limit the export of these products to deliver maximum pain, leading to a potential shortage of qualified parts. A component shortage can have a devastating impact on production since the manufacturer may not have the ability to substitute a new part or qualify a new vendor. Since the product typically won’t work unless all the right parts are installed, want of a dollar’s worth of capacitors may delay shipping a $1,000 product. Thus, the economic and profit impact of a parts shortage in the U.S. could be quite severe. Conclusions: When it comes to absolute winners in case of a trade war, we believe there are three conditions that need to be met: Relatively high domestic input costs. Relatively high domestic consumption/sales; the true beneficiaries of a tariff are those industries who are allowed to either raise prices or displace foreign competitors, with the consumer typically bearing the cost. Relatively low direct exposure to global trade - international trade flows will certainly slow in a trade war. There are very few manufacturing industries that meet all of these criteria. Within manufacturing, one would typically expect the Consumer Staples and Discretionary sectors to be the best performers. However, roughly a third of the weight of Staples is in three stocks (PG, KO and PEP) that are massively dependent on foreign sales. Moreover, a similar weight of Discretionary is in two retailers (AMZN and HD) that are dependent on imports. As such, consumer indexes do not appear a safe harbor in a trade war. Nevertheless, if the trade war morphs into a recession then consumer staples (and other defensive safe-havens) will outperform, although they will still decrease in absolute terms. Transports are an industry that has relatively high domestic labor costs and an output that is consumed virtually entirely within domestic borders. However, their reliance on global trade flows - intermodal shipping is now more than half of all rail traffic - means they almost certainly lose from a prolonged trade dispute. There is one manufacturing industry that could be at least a relative winner and perhaps an absolute winner: defense. Defense manufacturers certainly satisfy the first two criteria above, though they do have reasonably heavy foreign exposure. However, we believe high switching costs and the lack of true global competitors mean that U.S. defense company foreign sales will be resilient. After all, a NATO nation does not simply switch out of F-35 jets for the Russian or Chinese equivalent. Further, if trade friction leads to rising military tension, defense stocks should outperform. Finally, the ongoing global arms race, space race and growing cybersecurity requirements all signal that these stocks are a secular growth story, as BCA has argued in the recent past.6 Still, as highlighted by the data presented above, the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, especially the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector (BLBG: S5FEXD - CME, SPGI, ICE, MCO, MSCI, CBOE, NDAQ). Another appealing - and defensive - sector is Health Care Services. With effectively no foreign exposure and a low beta, these stocks would outperform in the worst-case trade war-induced recession. Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Chris Bowes, Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy chrisb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 For more information, please see: "Global Value Chains (GVSs): United States." May 2013. OECD website. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Trade Wars And Technology," dated July 10, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Table 1Allocating U.S. Import Tariffs To U.S. GICS Sectors U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers Appendix Table 2Exports By U.S. Red States U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers Appendix Table 3Exports By U.S. Swing States U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers Appendix Table 4Exposure Of U.S. Industries To U.S. Import Tariffs U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers U.S. Equity Sectors: Trade War Winners And Losers Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights President Trump has expressed dissatisfaction with the Fed's policy tightening. However, we do not think he will be able to influence policy in a dovish fashion this cycle. Trump has suggested that many nations are manipulating their exchange rates to the detriment of the U.S. We do not see the U.S. as having the same capacity to force large exchange rate appreciation for its trading partners as it previously did. We expect instead this rhetoric to result in more favorable trade deals for the U.S. As a result, while we believe Trump's rhetoric was the catalyst for a much-needed correction in the dollar, his utterances do not mark the end of the dollar rally for 2018. We have been hedging the dollar's short-term downside by selling USD/CAD. We do not anticipate the BoJ to tweak its YCC policy next week. As a result, we fade the yen's recent strength against the dollar. However, we do believe the global economic outlook warrants staying long the yen against the euro and the Aussie for the remainder of the year. Feature U.S. President Donald Trump has begun to fight back against the impact of his stimulative fiscal policy. Obviously, it is not that he is displeased with the decent growth and job performance of the U.S. Instead, he is not happy that this increase in economic activity and build-up in inflationary pressures is causing the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates faster than he would like, and the dollar to be stronger as well. Despite President Trump's intentions, it is unlikely that he actually has enough levers to push the Fed to conduct easier monetary policy, and it is even more doubtful that he can push the dollar lower by pressuring the euro area, China, and other trading partners to revalue their currencies. The Fed Is No Pushover While BCA has argued that President Trump is unconstrained when it comes to his international agenda, there are certainly large constraints on his domestic agenda. When it comes to the Fed, this constraint is binding, as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 clearly states that the U.S. central bank is a creature of Congress. Moreover, historically, the Fed has been a staunch defender of its independence. As Chart I-1 illustrates, through the post-war period, even when we include the 1970s when former U.S. President Richard Nixon's interferences temporarily eroded the Fed's independence, the U.S. central bank has been among the most fiercely independent monetary guardians in the G-10. Chart I-1The Fed Values Its Independence Rhetoric Is Not Always Policy Rhetoric Is Not Always Policy The 1970s offer a counter-argument to the view that the President has little influence on the Fed. However, Nixon chose Arthur Burns as Fed Chair in 1970 with the goal of maintaining very easy policy. Moreover, Burns continued to target full employment as his priority, which meant inflationary pressures only grew larger in response to the 1973 oil shock. This is in sharp contrast with today's Fed. In opposition to the period prior to the 1977 amendment of the Federal Reserve Act, which required the Fed to "promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates," the Fed is now much more focused on controlling inflation - even if this means more frequent large overshoots in unemployment (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Trump's Fed Is Not Nixon's Fed Trump's Fed Is Not Nixon's Fed Trump's Fed Is Not Nixon's Fed This means that in today's context, the Fed will continue to push rates higher in order to combat inflationary pressures in the U.S. (Chart I-3). Moreover, as Chart I-4 illustrates, our composite capacity utilization measure shows that the U.S. economy is experiencing its tightest conditions since the late 1980s. Historically, such a dearth of economic slack is accompanied by higher interest rates. Chart I-3Upside Risks To U.S. Inflation Budding Price Pressures Upside Risks To U.S. Inflation Budding Price Pressures Upside Risks To U.S. Inflation Budding Price Pressures Chart I-4Maximum Pressure... Capacity Pressures That Is Maximum Pressure... Capacity Pressures That Is Maximum Pressure... Capacity Pressures That Is This also means that it is highly unlikely the Fed will sit idly by in front of the large amount of fiscal stimulus implemented in the U.S. while the economy is at full employment (Chart I-5). Not since the late 1960s has the U.S. experienced this kind of a policy mix. While in the late 1960s it took some time for inflationary pressures to emerge, they ultimately did with much vigor by 1968. However, for inflation to become as pernicious a force as it was in the 1970s, the Fed had to maintain too-easy monetary policy. With its dual mandate that includes keeping inflation at bay, we doubt the Fed will allow the 1970s experience to repeat itself.1 Chart I-5Trump Will Push Rates Higher Unlike In The Past, The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline Trump Will Push Rates Higher Unlike In The Past, The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline Trump Will Push Rates Higher While this means that President Trump is unlikely to be able to affect policy this cycle, it does not mean that he has zero levers. He can ultimately change the Fed leadership to find a great dove; however, this will require that he waits until Fed Chairman Jerome Powell's term ends - something not in sight until 2020. And really, who can he find today that is that dovish; we doubt that Paul Krugman will make any Trump shortlist for Fed leadership anytime soon. In the meantime, we would anticipate President Trump to continue to voice his displeasure with the Fed's policy, as at the very least it will give him a culprit to blame in 2020 if the economy does not perform as he has promised. As a result, we remain confident that the Fed is likely to try to follow the path of rate hikes it currently envisions in its latest set of forecasts. As Chart I-6 illustrates, this path for policy remains above the path currently anticipated in the market. Moreover, we do not believe the Fed will tighten more than it currently anticipates only to assert its own independence. For the Fed to deviate from its current interest rate forecast, economic growth and inflationary pressures will also have to significantly deviate from current expectations, not for Trump to grow louder. Chart I-6U.S. Rate Pricing Has Upside Market Expectations Have Converged With The Fed Dots U.S. Rate Pricing Has Upside Market Expectations Have Converged With The Fed Dots U.S. Rate Pricing Has Upside Bottom Line: President Trump may express his unhappiness with the Fed's hiking campaign, but he can do little more than complain. For now, he cannot affect monetary policy directly, as the Fed is very independent and is very set on limiting the long-term upside to inflation. Since the White House's policies are inflationary, we expect the Fed to continue to tighten as per its current intended path. Trump will only be able to affect policy in a dovish fashion once he gets to change the Fed's leadership. In the meantime, blaming the Fed is an insurance policy for 2020: if the economy is not as strong as he promised, someone else will be responsible for it. Currency Manipulators? Another issue raised by President Trump has contributed to the recent decline in the dollar: His assertions that various currencies, including the euro, are being manipulated downward. Is there much to this assertion, and can the White House do anything to generate downward pressure on the dollar? Let's begin with China. We have argued that at the very least, the Chinese authorities are facilitating the recent slide in the RMB. As Chart I-7 illustrates, CNY/USD is much softer than implied by the level of the dollar itself. If we want to stretch the argument that one country is pushing down its currency today, it is China. Can President Trump do much about it? For the time being, we doubt it. The White House has announced a flurry of implemented and proposed tariffs on China (Chart I-8), and in the interim, the CNY has not strengthened; it has only weakened. Instead of letting the U.S. bully them on their exchange rate policy, it seems the Chinese authorities are finding other means to alleviate the pain created by U.S. tariffs. Chart I-7China Is Manipulating Its Currency... China Is Manipulating Its Currency... China Is Manipulating Its Currency... Chart I-8... And Is Already Facing An Onslaught Of Tariffs... Rhetoric Is Not Always Policy Rhetoric Is Not Always Policy To begin with, the People's Bank of China has injected RMB502 billion into the banking system in recent weeks in order to put downward pressure on overnight rates. Most importantly, earlier this week, it was revealed that the State Council in Beijing would accelerate the issuance of CNY1.4 trillion in local government bonds to support infrastructure. This significant amount of fiscal stimulus may not be enough to prevent China from slowing in response to its own deleveraging effort, it is nonetheless likely to soften the blow to the Chinese economy created by the Trump tariffs. Essentially, we believe that China wants to avoid the shock Japan suffered in the wake of the 1985 Plaza accord. In the 1980s, U.S. President Ronald Reagan and the American public were fed up with the growing Japanese trade surplus with the U.S. The White House started proposing tariffs on Japanese exports and ultimately got Japan to revalue the yen violently. However, this huge yen rally had massively deflationary consequences for Japan. At first, the Bank of Japan responded by cutting rates, inflating the Japanese bubble in the process. Once the bubble popped and the Japanese private sector debt burden was laid bare, the true deflationary impact of the sudden yen revaluation became evident (Chart I-9). To this day, Japan is still dealing with the consequences of these series of policy mistakes. Chart I-9... But It First And Foremost ##br##Wants To Avoid Japan's Fate ... But It First And Foremost Wants To Avoid Japan's Fate ... But It First And Foremost Wants To Avoid Japan's Fate Today, Chinese policymakers not only benefit from the insight of Japan's disastrous experience, but also they already face an enormous debt problem. China's corporate debt stands at 160% of GDP, versus Japan's corporate debt, which stood at 110% of GDP in 1985 when the yen began appreciating and 135% of GDP in 1989 just before the bubble burst. The deflationary consequences of a large FX revaluation are thus at least as dangerous in China today as they were in Japan in the 1980s. In fact, if China is serious about deleveraging and reforming its economy, it will need a cheap currency to ease the deflationary impact of these domestic economic adjustments. On the political front, the U.S. does not have the same levers on China today as it did on Japan in the 1980s. The U.S. is not a military ally; it does not defend the Middle Kingdom against foreign attacks. However, the U.S. was - and still is - Japan's most important military ally, its protector against the Soviet Union in the 1980s and China today. As a result, while Reagan was able to threaten Tokyo with the removal of the U.S. military umbrella, Trump does not have the same tool when it comes to China. Hence, we continue to expect that the outcome of the China-U.S. trade conflict to more likely result in a renegotiation of bilateral investments, tariffs and quotas than a sharply higher RMB. What about Trump's stance on the euro? After all, the U.S. does remain the EU's most important military ally, and the key financial contributor to NATO. This should count as leverage, no? Politically Europe is not as beholden to the U.S today as it was in the 1980s. As Marko Papic argues in BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service, the international political order has entered a multipolar state, with various regional powers vying for local dominance. In the 1980s, the world had two poles of power: the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Back then, Moscow constituted a real threat to Western Europe, as Warsaw Pact nations had tanks parked at the EUs border. Today, this is no longer the case. Russia has weakened, its army is technologically beleaguered, and, in fact, Russia is more dependent on the EU than a threat. As a result, the support of the U.S. is not as crucial to Europe as it once was. Moreover, as Marko also argues, global trade is not expanding as fast as it once was. This means that the U.S. allies are not as likely to tolerate a higher exchange rate as they once were. Essentially, in the 1970s and 1980s, Europe was willing to pushup its exchange rates and absorb an immediate negative shock in order to reap the benefits of growing trade later. This is not feasible anymore as future export growth will not be large enough to compensate for the immediate cost of a euro revaluation. This will limit the tolerance of Europeans to pushup the euro just because the U.S. asked them to do so.2 Nonetheless, President Trump is correct to insist that the euro is cheap, and that this is contributing to the huge trade surplus that Europe runs with the U.S. (Chart I-10). However, the euro area does not target a lower exchange rate, and the European Central Bank does not actively sell euros in the open market. Instead, the undervaluation of EUR/USD simply reflects the fact that the ECB continues to conduct very stimulative monetary policy, which is dragging European real rates lower versus the U.S. It is because of this domestic imperative that EUR/USD remains cheap (Chart I-11). Chart I-10European Exports Are ##br##Benefiting From A Cheap Euro.. ...And The Euro's Undervaluation Has Driven The U.S./Euro Area Trade Imbalance European Exports Are Benefiting From A Cheap Euro.. ...And The Euro's Undervaluation Has Driven The U.S./Euro Area Trade Imbalance European Exports Are Benefiting From A Cheap Euro.. Chart I-11... But This Cheapness Is A Consequence##br## Of Diverging Monetary Policies Relative Monetary Policy Has Driven The Euro's Undervaluation... ... But This Cheapness Is A Consequence Of Diverging Monetary Policies Relative Monetary Policy Has Driven The Euro's Undervaluation... ... But This Cheapness Is A Consequence Of Diverging Monetary Policies However, we think Europe does still need much easier monetary policy than the U.S. because: European growth is lagging that of the U.S. (Chart I-12); The European output gap remains negative, while the U.S.'s is now positive; The U.S. will receive a much larger dose of fiscal stimulus than Europe in 2018 and 2019 (Chart I-13). Chart I-12U.S. Growth Still##br## Outperforms Europe's... U.S. Growth Still Outperforms Europe's... U.S. Growth Still Outperforms Europe's... Chart I-13... And The Relative Fiscal Policy Points##br## To Continued Monetary Divergences Rhetoric Is Not Always Policy Rhetoric Is Not Always Policy This means that we do not expect the euro's long-term undervaluation to get anywhere near corrected this year. In fact, while we have argued that the dollar is likely to experience a correction in the very near term,3 we continue to anticipate that EUR/USD will make deeper lows later in 2018. As we have highlighted, the euro may be cheap on a long-term basis, but it continues to trade at a premium to its short-term drivers (Chart I-14). Moreover, relative inflation between the U.S. and the euro area has been a powerful driver of anticipated monetary policy shifts between these two economies. As a result, relative core inflation has been a good prognosticator of EUR/USD, and currently points to a lower euro (Chart I-15). Therefore, we are not closing our long DXY trade in the face of the dollar's anticipated correction. Instead, we prefer to hedge our risk through this countertrend move by selling USD/CAD. Chart I-14The Euro Is Not A Buy Yet... The Euro Is Not A Buy Yet... The Euro Is Not A Buy Yet... Chart I-15... And Will Not Become So Until Later This Year ... And Will Not Become So Until Later This Year ... And Will Not Become So Until Later This Year Bottom Line: President Trump can call China and Europe currency manipulators if he wants to, but this does not mean he has much leverage over these two economies. China already has a large debt load and is vulnerable to the kind of deflationary shock that Japan endured in the wake of the yen's appreciation following the 1985 Plaza Accord. This limits Beijing's willingness to let the CNY appreciate. Meanwhile, the euro is not manipulated per se; its undervaluation only reflects the fact that Europe needs much easier monetary policy than the U.S. This state of affairs is not changing this year. Thus, only once Europe is ready to withstand higher interest rates will the euro's undervaluation disappear. Japan: The End of YCC? Rumors have been circulating this week that the Bank of Japan may tweak its Yield Curve Control Strategy as soon as next week's Monetary Policy meeting. We are skeptical. First, it is true that Japanese wages have been accelerating in response to the tightest labor market conditions in 30 years (Chart I-16). However, Japanese inflation excluding food and energy has again weakened to 0.3%, pointing to the difficulty the country has in achieving its 2% inflation target. Second, economic numbers have been quite mixed. Japanese Manufacturing PMIs have weakened to 51.6 from as high as 54.8, five months ago. Moreover, industrial production has softened, heeding the message from the sagging shipments-to-inventories ratio (Chart I-17). As a result, capacity utilization will remain too low to be consistent with upward risk to core CPI. Chart I-16Strengthening Japanese ##br##Wages Are Inflationary... Strengthening Japanese Wages Are Inflationary... Strengthening Japanese Wages Are Inflationary... Chart I-17... But Capacity Utilization Concerns ##br##Cap The Upside To Inflation ... But Capacity Utilization Concerns Cap The Upside To Inflation ... But Capacity Utilization Concerns Cap The Upside To Inflation Third, money growth has also slowed significantly in Japan, and is now at the low end of the post-Abenomics experience (Chart I-18). This weighs on the outlook for both growth and inflation. Fourth, if there were a valid reason to removed YCC it would be if banks were in danger. After all, low rates and a flat yield curve hurt banks' profitability, potentially creating risks to the financial system. However, as Chart I-19 shows, Japanese regional banks have not experienced any meaningful downward pressure on their profits since YCC has been implemented, and are far from generating aggregate losses. Chart I-18Japanese Money Trends Do Not Justify Tweaking YCC Japanese Money Trends Do Not Justify Tweaking YCC Japanese Money Trends Do Not Justify Tweaking YCC Chart I-19YCC Does Not Yet Threaten Japanese Banks Health YCC Does Not Yet Threaten Japanese Banks Health YCC Does Not Yet Threaten Japanese Banks Health Fifth, it is customary in Japan policy circles to float trial balloons to test policy ideas. It is very likely that the recent rumors of a tweak to YCC were such a balloon. However, the market impact of this trial was clear: a rallying yen, rising yields and falling equity prices. All these market moves suggest that if YCC was indeed tweaked next week, Japan would experience a violent tightening in monetary conditions - exactly what the BoJ wants to avoid if it ever wishes to hit its 2% inflation target. Moreover, we do not read much into the decline of JGB purchases by the Japanese central bank. The BoJ does not need to buy many JGBs in order to cap Japanese bond yields. Instead, speculators can force JGB yields towards the BoJ's target, on the expectation that if JGB yields deviate too much from this target, the BoJ will force bond prices back to its objective. We think these dynamics are currently at play, explaining why the BoJ has not been buying JPY80 trillion of JGBs per annum. Instead, we think that the BoJ will stay the course with YCC. While Japanese wages are stronger than they have been for 20 years, they are still not consistent with 2% inflation. As such, the BoJ needs to engineer further labor market tightening for inflation to move to target. Even in the U.S., where the economy is not in the thralls of deep-seated deflationary pressures, the job-hoppers are the ones pocketing the lion's share of accelerating wages - not people staying in their current positions (Chart I-20). Since Japanese workers do not tend to switch jobs, the Japanese labor market needs to become a genuine pressure cooker before inflation can rise meaningfully. The BoJ will thus need to maintain very easy monetary policy. Chart I-20You Need To Leave Your Job To Get A Raise You Need To Leave Your Job To Get A Raise You Need To Leave Your Job To Get A Raise As a result, we are not buying into the current rally in the yen versus the dollar. We do believe the yen can continue to perform well this year versus the euro and the AUD, but this is because we expect the U.S. monetary policy to tighten along with China's efforts to de-lever to continue to weigh on EM asset prices, EM economic activity, and thus global trade. In the short term, the yen could correct against these currencies as we continue to foresee a temporary correction in "growth slowdown" trades. But ultimately we expect the yen to continue to rally against the more pro-cyclical euro and Australian dollar. Bottom Line: The BoJ will not adjust YCC next week. Japanese wages may have picked up, but inflation itself is not only still well below target, it has weakened of late. Additionally, economic growth is not strong enough to justify a removal of monetary accommodation, especially as YCC has not negatively affected the health of regional banks. As a result, we recommend investors fade the recent strength in the yen versus the dollar. The yen still has room to rally further against the EUR and AUD over the course of the next six to nine months, but this is a reflection of our stance on global growth and EM asset prices, not a consequence of any anticipated shift in YCC. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Trump: No Nixon Redux", dated December 2, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem", dated July 25, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Reports, "Time To Pause And Breathe" dated July 6, 2018 and "That Sinking Feeling", dated July 13, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Recent data in the U.S. has been mixed: Markit Manufacturing PMI came in at 55.5, outperforming expectations. It also increased from last month's reading. However, both services and composite PMI underperformed expectations, coming in at 56.2 and 55.9 respectively. Finally, existing home sales surprised to the downside, coming in at 5.38 million. This measure also decreased compared to last month's reading. The DXY has declined by roughly 1.3% this week. We are bearish on the dollar on a tactical basis. Stretched positioning in the USD as well as a respite in the global growth slowdown due to Chinese easing will combine to temporarily weigh on the greenback. However, we believe the DXY will resume its uptrend before year-end, as a combination of fed tightening, slower global growth, and positive momentum will help the dollar on a cyclical basis. Report Links: Time To Pause And Breathe - July 6, 2018 What Is Good For China Doesn’t Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 The Euro Recent data in the Euro area has been mixed: Manufacturing PMI outperformed expectations, coming in at 55.1, and increasing from last month's reading. Moreover the German IFO, also outperformed expectations, coming in at 101.7. However, both Markit Composite PMI and Markit Services PMI underperformed expectations, coming in at 54.3 and 54.4 respectively, while also decreasing from last month's numbers. Finally, Belgian Business confidence showed a deceleration in the month of July. EUR/USD is flat this week, as the surge at the beginning of the week was counteracted by a relatively dovish announcement by the ECB yesterday. On a 6-month basis we are bearish on the euro, given that the cumulative tightening by both the People's Bank of China and the Fed will still combined in a toxic cocktail for global growth, and hence, drag the euro lower in the process. Report Links: Time To Pause And Breathe - July 6, 2018 What Is Good For China Doesn’t Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 The Yen Recent data in Japan has been mixed: The Nikkei Manufacturing PMI underperformed expectations, coming in at 51.6. It also decreased from last month's reading of 53. However, the All Industry Activity Index month-on-month growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 0.1%. USD/JPY has declined by roughly 1.5%, partly due to the fall in the U.S. dollar, but also because of the newly perceived hawkish tone by the BoJ. On a short-term basis, we continue to be bullish on the yen against the euro and the Aussie, as we expect Chinese deleveraging to add volatility to the markets. On a longer-term basis, however, we are bearish on the yen, as the BoJ will have to remains very accommodative in order to meet its inflation mandate. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 British Pound Recent data in the U.K. has been positive: Public sector net borrowing outperformed expectations, coming in at 4.530 billion pounds. This measure also increased relatively to last month's number. Moreover, mortgage approvals also surprised to the upside, coming in at 40.541 thousand. This measure also increased relatively to last month's number. Finally, the CBI Distributed Trades Survey also surprised positively, coming in at 20%. GBP/USD has risen by nearly 1.5% this week. Overall, we are cyclically bearish on the pound, as the uncertainty of the Brexit negotiations continue to weigh on capital flows into the U.S. Moreover, the rise in the dollar will add further downward pressure to cable. That being said, the pound could have some upside against the euro, given that the U.K. is less exposed to global trade and industrial activity than its continental counterpart. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Australian Dollar Recent data in Australia has been mixed: Headline inflation came in at 2.1%, underperforming expectations. However, this measure increased from 1.9% the month before. Meanwhile, the RBA trimmed mean CPI yearly growth came in at 1.9%, in line with expectations and with the previous' month number. AUD/USD has rallied by roughly 1.7%, in part due to the fall in the dollar, as well as in response to positive news in China concerning the issuance of infrastructure bonds. Despite these temporary positives, we continue to be cyclically bearish on the Aussie, as a slowdown in the Chinese industrial cycle will weigh heavily on this currency, given its high exposure to base metals, and given the continued presence of slack in the Australian labor market. Report Links: What Is Good For China Doesn’t Always Help The World - June 29, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 New Zealand Dollar NZD/USD has risen by roughly 1.7% this week, as trade tensions have eased following the announcement by President Trump that the EU and the United States would collaborate to eliminate tariffs between the two economies. Moreover, Chinese authorities have implemented some easing at the margin, which should provide a temporary boost to high beta economies like New Zealand. However, on a cyclical basis, we remain bearish on the kiwi, as the tightening campaign in China is likely to continue. Moreover, a tightening fed will continue to put pressure on EM dollar borrowers, affecting New Zealand in the process, given its high exposure to global growth. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 Canadian Dollar Recent data in Canada has been mixed: Headline inflation came in at 2.5%, surprising to the upside. It also increased from last month's reading. Moreover, retail sales and retail sales ex-autos month-on-month growth both outperformed expectations, coming in at 2% and 1.4% respectively. However, core inflation underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.3%. This measure stayed stable compared to last month's reading. USD/CAD has declined by roughly 1.4% this week. In our view, the best cross to play what we believe will be a temporary correction in the greenback is to short USD/CAD, as the Canadian dollar trades at a deep discount to fair value, while short positions are likely overextended. Moreover, the BoC is the only nation among the G10 commodity producers raising rates, adding another boon for the Lonnie. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Inflation Is In The Price - June 15, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Swiss Franc EUR/CHF is down roughly 0.5% this week, especially after the perceived dovish tone to the ECB's press conference on Thursday. On a short-term basis, we are bearish on this cross, given that tightening by the fed and a sluggish Chinese economy should cause a risk-off period in markets, creating a supportive environment for the franc. On the other hand, we are bullish on this cross on a longer-term basis, given that the SNB will likely continue with its ultra-dovish monetary policy, as well as currency intervention to make sure that an appreciating franc does not derail its campaign to reach its inflation target. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Norwegian Krone USD/NOK is down roughly 0.7% this week. Overall we continue to be bullish on this cross, given that the tightening of the fed should increase the interest rate differential between Norway and the U.S., counteracting any further appreciation in oil prices due to OPEC output cuts. That being said, we are positive on the NOK within the commodity complex, as Norway will likely be less affected than New Zealand or Australia by the tightening campaign in China, given that oil has a lower beta to Chinese growth than other commodities. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 Swedish Krona EUR/SEK is down by slightly more than 1% this week, falling substantially after the interest rate decision by the ECB. We are bullish on the krona on a long-term basis, as inflationary pressures continue to be strong in Sweden, and the Riksbank has become progressively more hawkish. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights A flurry of policy announcements over the past month has given investors the impression that Beijing has turned the policy dial in the direction of supporting growth. We agree that China is easing at the margin, but several observations suggest that the stimulus proposed so far falls short of a "big bang" response that would reverse both the looming export shock as well as the underlying slowdown in China's old economy. Investors should remain neutrally positioned towards Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio, and should favor low-beta sectors within the Chinese investable universe. Feature There have been several policy-related announcements over the past month in China. This has led many market participants to question whether China is in the process of entering full-blown stimulus mode, and if we are on the cusp of another upswing in Chinese economic activity. Our answer to both questions is, for now, no. China appears to merely be easing off the brake, rather than pressing hard on the accelerator. Given that export growth will certainly slow to some degree due to the imposition of import tariffs, and that an industrial sector slowdown was already underway in China prior to President Trump's protectionist actions, it is far from clear that any stimulus will be a net positive for the country's "old economy". In other words, stimulus may counteract an upcoming export shock, but we would need to see more evidence before concluding that it will lead to a renewed cyclical uptrend in China's economy. A Flurry Of Policy Announcements... Several policy actions, announcements, and signals have occurred over the past month: The RMB has fallen nearly 6% since mid-June, which we have argued has been at least partially policy-driven. As we highlighted in our June 27 report,1 the decline in CNY/USD has been large, has occurred very rapidly, and cannot be explained by its previous relationship with the U.S. dollar (Chart 1). The PBOC cut its reserve requirement ratio for both big and small banks at the end of June, following the cut in April (Chart 2). It also provided incentives for banks to buy speculative-rated corporate bonds, clarified that its new asset management rules would permit mutual funds to invest in non-standard assets, and recently injected 500 billion RMB of liquidity into the banking system via its medium-term lending facility (MLF). Chart 1An Enormous, At Least Partially Policy-Driven Move An Enormous, At Least Partially Policy-Driven Move An Enormous, At Least Partially Policy-Driven Move Chart 2A Second Cut To Bank Reserve Requirement Ratios A Second Cut To Bank Reserve Requirement Ratios A Second Cut To Bank Reserve Requirement Ratios The Ministry of Finance (MOF) signaled that it would speed up spending that was planned to occur later in the year, and the State Council signaled that it would accelerate the issuance of 1.4 trillion RMB in local government bonds to support infrastructure investment. It also green-lighted a comparatively small 6.5 billion RMB in tax cuts for corporate R&D. China's legislature released a draft version of proposed tax changes that would cut the rate paid for individuals. The flurry of policy announcements over the past month has given investors the impression that Beijing has turned the policy dial in the direction of supporting growth. We agree that China is easing at the margin, and that these policy announcements are important: without them, the Chinese economy would likely face a substantial deceleration that would risk a serious slowdown in global growth. ...That Will Not Cause A Material Re-Acceleration In The Economy But several observations suggest that the stimulus proposed so far falls short of a "big bang" response that would reverse both the looming export shock as well as the underlying slowdown in China's old economy: Fiscal Stimulus: Chart 3 shows that China's on-budget deficit expanded by 3 percentage points over an 18-month period from 2014 to 2016. An equivalent expansion today would imply a 2.6 trillion RMB rise in the budget deficit, meaning that the local government bond issuance announced on Monday is 40% smaller than the deficit expansion that occurred from 2014 to 2016. If the infrastructure projects financed by these bonds turn out to be multi-year initiatives tied to China's structural reform plans, the intensity of this round of fiscal stimulus will likely turn out to be less than half, or even a fraction, of what occurred previously. Fiscal Vs. Credit Expansion: While an increase in fiscal spending was important in catalyzing an economic recovery in 2014/2016, Chart 4 highlights that the expansion of credit was considerably larger. The chart shows on-budget fiscal spending and the change in adjusted total social financing (TSF) as a percent of GDP, and highlights that the latter dwarfs the former. By our calculations, adjusted TSF accelerated by 5 trillion RMB from 2015 to 2016, which from our perspective could only have been achieved by very aggressive monetary easing. Currency Depreciation: A simple framework that equates the equilibrium/required currency depreciation to the size of the tariffs imposed as a share of total exports to the U.S. suggests that a 6% decline in CNY/USD may be adequate at negating an export shock if the proposed tariffs stop after the recently proposed new round of 10% tariffs on $200 billion worth of goods. But first, this approach suggests that a further 6-7% decline may be needed if President Trump follows through with his threat to impose tariffs on all imports from China. Second, in either case the currency decline merely addresses the prospective export shock, not the underlying slowdown in China's old economy that has been occurring over the past year. Chart 3Bond-Financed Infrastructure Spending Unlikely To Match 2015's Fiscal Expansion Bond-Financed Infrastructure Spending Unlikely To Match 2015's Fiscal Expansion Bond-Financed Infrastructure Spending Unlikely To Match 2015's Fiscal Expansion Chart 4Three Years Ago, The Expansion In Credit Dwarfed That Of Fiscal Spending Three Years Ago, The Expansion In Credit Dwarfed That Of Fiscal Spending Three Years Ago, The Expansion In Credit Dwarfed That Of Fiscal Spending From our perspective, China's monetary policy actions have so far been the most convincingly stimulative developments in response to the threat to exports. We downplayed China's most recent reserve requirement ratio cut in our June 27 Weekly Report,1 and we acknowledge that this initial assessment was overly pessimistic. Chart 5 shows that the 3-month repo rate, China's de-facto policy rate, has broken meaningfully below the lower band that had prevailed since the beginning of 2017. This suggests that the targeted addition of liquidity, particularly to China's small banks, was at least somewhat effective at easing financial conditions. Chart 5The PBOC Has Successfully Lowered The 3-Month Repo Rate... The PBOC Has Successfully Lowered The 3-Month Repo Rate... The PBOC Has Successfully Lowered The 3-Month Repo Rate... Chart 6...But This Is Unlikely to Significantly Drop Average Lending Rates ...But This Is Unlikely to Significantly Drop Average Lending Rates ...But This Is Unlikely to Significantly Drop Average Lending Rates Still, we remain unconvinced that what has been announced so far is likely to generate an acceleration in credit growth even approaching what occurred three years ago. Chart 6 shows the weighted average lending rate in China, alongside a simple regression model for the rate based on the benchmark lending rate and the 3-month interbank repo rate (China's "old" and "de-facto new" policy rates, respectively). The chart highlights the likely minimal impact of the recent decline in the repo rate on the average lending rate. In fact, Chart 6 underscores an important point about China's stimulus in 2014-2016: a good portion of that episode's reflationary impact appears to have been caused by the PBOC's 170 bps cut to its benchmark lending rate, which has so far remained unchanged (without any hint from policymakers that it might be lowered). Finally, we are similarly underwhelmed by the PBOC's incentives to banks to buy "junk" corporate bonds: debt securities are a small (albeit fast growing) portion of China's total nonfinancial credit, and junk-rated bonds are a small fraction of that market. We thus see this announcement as an attempt to provide some marginal liquidity support for issuers of these bonds that have upcoming refinancing requirements, rather than a policy of any true macro significance. Conclusions And Investment Strategy Recommendations Two important insights emerge from our above analysis. The first is that the intensity and timing of the infrastructure projects alluded to by the State Council are important factors in determining the likely impact of increased government spending. We suspect that any boost to the economy over the coming year from infrastructure spending will be relatively small, but this will be an important element to monitor over the coming months. The second insight is that we would become considerably more constructive towards China's economy were the PBOC to cut its benchmark lending rate. This would be clear sign that the China is pressing on the accelerator, rather than attempting to simply "fine tune" the economy in the face of an external economic shock. For now, however, our view is that the stimulative measures that have been announced are not likely to lead to a renewed cyclical uptrend in China's economy. This implies that investors should remain neutrally positioned towards Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio, and should favor low-beta sectors within the Chinese investable universe. Chart 7 shows that the latter position, which we initiated on June 27, has risen almost 1% in relative terms over the past month, and we expect further gains over the remainder of the year. Finally, we noted in our July 5 Weekly Report that the selloff in Chinese domestic stocks was advanced,2 and that we would consider implementing a long MSCI China A Onshore index / short MSCI China index trade in response to a 5% rally in relative common currency performance. It is conceivable that "easing off the brake" will be enough for A-shares to rally non-trivially relative to investable stocks, given how much they have fallen since the beginning of the year. Chart 8 shows that A-shares have approached this threshold in response to recent stimulus announcements, but have yet to break through. We will be watching relative A-share performance closely over the coming weeks for a green light to initiate the position. Stay tuned! Chart 7Low-Beta Sectors Are Outperforming China's Investable Market Low-Beta Sectors Are Outperforming China's Investable Market Low-Beta Sectors Are Outperforming China's Investable Market Chart 8Conditions May Soon Warrant A Pair Trade Favoring Domestic Stocks Conditions May Soon Warrant A Pair Trade Favoring Domestic Stocks Conditions May Soon Warrant A Pair Trade Favoring Domestic Stocks Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Now What?", dated June 27, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Standing On One Leg", dated July 5, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Chart of the WeekTrade Fears Weighing On Ag Complex Trade Fears Weighing On Ag Complex Trade Fears Weighing On Ag Complex Bearish sentiment in ag markets is overdone. We believe prices have bottomed. But we are not yet ready to get bullish, given the elevated trade-policy uncertainty dominating markets at present. The evolution of grains and bean prices from here will depend on whether ongoing trade disputes between the U.S. and some of its largest ag markets are transitory or permanent (Chart of the Week). Highlights Energy: Overweight. We closed our Dec18 Brent $65 vs. $70/bbl call spread last week with a net gain of 80%. We remain long call spreads along the Brent forward curve in 2019, which are down an average 2.7%, and the SP GSCI, which is up 12.1%. Base Metals: Neutral. Aluminum prices are down ~ 1.6% in the past week, following indications from U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin sanctions against Russian aluminum supplier Rusal could be removed. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices recovered slightly over the past week, but remain under pressure, given continued strength in the broad trade-weighted USD and real U.S. interest rates. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge, nonetheless. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Fundamentals support higher grain and bean prices. However, trade-policy uncertainty - particularly re Sino - U.S. relations - will keep them under pressure (see below). Feature Weather-related uncertainty typically is center stage when it comes to forecasting ag prices during the growing season. This year, trade-policy uncertainty emanating from Washington will contend with weather risk as the dominant influence on prices. We do not expect ag-related trade policies to become more hostile. This means the path of ag prices will be contingent on whether the current trade disputes - primarily between the U.S. and China - are transient or permanent features of international trade. Given what we've seen already, we can expect American farmers will fare poorly in the ongoing trade spats. U.S. agricultural exports have been disproportionately hard hit by tariffs from their most important foreign consumer markets, levied in retaliation against U.S. tariffs (Chart 2). BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy analysts assign a high probability to the escalation of current tensions into a full-blown trade war.1 Nevertheless, we believe the negative sentiment in ag markets is overdone, and that there is not much further downside from here. It is unsurprising that agriculture is a natural first target in this trade dispute. More than a quarter of U.S. crops are exported, with the share rising above 50% in many cases (Chart 3). This provides foreign consumers with ammunition in the dispute. Furthermore, these exports account for a large chunk of global ag trade, in some cases making American exports price makers in the global market. Importantly, many farmers and farm-belt voters cast ballots for Donald Trump. Chart 2American Ags Hit Hard##BR##By Trade Barriers... Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals Chart 3...Because They Are Exposed##BR##To Foreign Markets Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals The USDA's plans announced earlier this week to spend as much as $12 billion between September and end of harvest to help soften the impact of tariff retaliations against U.S. farm states loyal to Trump are not unexpected. The measures will entail (1) direct payments to soybean, sorghum, cotton, corn, wheat, dairy and pork farmers, (2) the procurement and subsequent re-distribution of ag products to nutrition programs, and (3) working with the private sector to promote trade and develop new export markets.2 Trade Spats Hit Grain Markets Hard Grain markets have been especially hard hit in the cross-fire between the U.S. and some of its key trade partners (Table 1). China's retaliatory tariffs are especially consequential, due to its outsized role as a main ag demand market. Table 1Ags Caught In The Crossfire Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals All in all, the Thomson Reuters Equal Weight Grains & Oilseeds Index is down ~ 10% since end-May on the back of these tariffs. Soybeans lead the decline with a 17% loss. We have been foreshadowing this since the beginning of the year.3 Now that it's played out consistent with our previous expectations, it leaves us wondering "now what?" We see three potential scenarios unfolding in the ongoing trade skirmish: Scenario 1: The current tariffs remain in place with no significant increase in ag-relevant trade barriers.4 Scenario 2: The disputes peak soon, and de-escalate. In this scenario, tariffs imposed since the beginning of the year are reversed, ultimately leading to a free and now-fairer global trade order. Scenario 3: A complete breakdown in global trade. This scenario can take on a soft outcome whereby tariffs are increased, or to a more aggressive scenario, resulting in a seismic collapse in world trade agreements. The first two scenarios are clearly more optimistic. In Scenario 1, near-term downside to prices would be restrained, contingent on the responses of major ag consumers. We discuss their four main options and potential courses of action below. Scenario 2 is the most bullish, with price formation once again a function of supply-demand-inventory fundamentals. In this scenario, exogenous risks primarily stem from weather and U.S. financial variables. However, Scenario 3, in which a prolonged trade war pushes the global economy into a recession, would intensify the pain. This would lead to a contraction in the global flow of goods and services, reducing access to foreign markets. Additionally, it would hurt ag demand through the income channel. Consumption growth of ags is correlated with income growth. If the trade war bears down on incomes, it will reduce per-capita demand for ag commodities, which ultimately depresses prices. This is especially true in the case of lower income and emerging economies, where demand is more elastic. Impact Of Tariffs In face of higher costs brought on by U.S. tariffs, foreign buyers are essentially faced with four options: Reduce imports from the U.S., and opt to purchase more from other major producers; Reduce consumption of particular crops by substituting with others; Consume out of inventory, or Continue purchasing U.S. crops, but at a higher price. Chart 4Soybean Farmers Are Most Vulnerable Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals Given the heightened risks surrounding the Sino-American trade dispute, we analyze these possibilities with reference to China. In addition, since soybeans are the most vulnerable of the crops hit by the trade dispute, we focus on beans, arguing that in most cases similar courses of action can be taken for other crops (Chart 4). Chinese authorities have already communicated that they plan to use options 1 - 3, and, as such, have assessed the impact of these restrictions on Chinese buyers to be minimal. Furthermore, according to a comment earlier this month by Lu Xiaodong, deputy general manager of state stockpile Sinograin, China is capable of fully meeting its needs without importing soybeans from the U.S.5 The extent to which buyers are successful in doing so will ultimately determine the overall impact of the trade dispute on U.S. ag markets. We expect China's solution will be a mélange of these four options. Below we assess these possibilities. Option 1: Chinese Buyers Are Turning To Other Major Producers An oft-noted change in Chinese purchasing behavior in reference to U.S. soybeans has been cited as the rationale for the negative sentiment towards U.S. ags. While it is true that Chinese buyers have been shunning American beans, the conclusion fails to recognize a few key points (Chart 5). Chart 5U.S. Soybean Exports Down On Weak Sales To China Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals First, due to the difference in crop calendars - South American beans are harvested in spring while the U.S. crop is harvested in the fall - there is a clear seasonal pattern in China's purchasing behavior (Chart 6). Thus, greater Chinese imports of Brazilian soybeans are typical for this time of year. In addition, agricultural commodities are fungible, which means a reduction of China's imports of U.S. crops does not mean the U.S. crops will go to waste. While American crops are clearly trading at a disadvantage from the perspective of a Chinese buyer, there are still other foreign markets open to American ag exports. Now that these crops are selling at a discount, they have become much more competitive, incentivizing a shift in trade flows. This has already started - the U.S. has increased exports to consumers such as Egypt and Mexico, and even found soybeans buyers in Argentina and Brazil, both major producers of soybeans (Chart 7)! Chart 6Seasonality Is Partly To Blame Seasonality Is Partly To Blame Seasonality Is Partly To Blame Chart 7New Markets Opening Up For American Beans New Markets Opening Up For American Beans New Markets Opening Up For American Beans Option 2: China Will Adjust Its Feed Recipe China's decision to remove import tariffs on animal feed ingredients from Asian suppliers also highlights another policy route. To the extent possible, Chinese consumers will attempt to find substitutes for the now-more-costly U.S. imports. This includes supplies from alternative producers, and imports of substitute products. The potential from this option depends on the availability of close substitutes to replace ags exports affected by the Sino - U.S. trade dispute. In the case of soybeans, Chinese bean imports are crushed to produce meal and oil. The former is then used as a primary protein in livestock feed, while the latter is refined to be used in foods. Similarly, the majority of corn is also used as a critical ingredient in animal feed. As such, in face of higher costs, bean crushers will likely turn to meal from other protein substitutes such as rapeseed, peanuts and sunflower seeds. Nevertheless, soybean meal remains the optimal source of protein for livestock. Thus, while China will attempt to reduce its consumption of the tariff-laden U.S. ags, alternatives are not perfect substitutes. Consequently, this option does not completely eliminate the need for soybean imports. Option 3: Eat Into Ag Inventories Chart 8Chinese Stocks Will - Partially -##BR##Cushion The Blow Chinese Stocks Will - Partially - Cushion The Blow Chinese Stocks Will - Partially - Cushion The Blow Chinese ag inventories are relatively high and can cushion the blow to supply, at least temporarily (Chart 8). This means we may see a decline in Chinese stocks, on the back of drawdowns to fill in the gap left by lower imports from the U.S. While Beijing's stocks are notoriously large, there are reports that, in some cases, they are of low quality, and are unfit for human and animal consumption. Thus, this policy may appear more feasible on paper than in reality. Without accurate information regarding the size and quality of China's ag inventories, it is impossible to determine the potential of this option. Option 4: Absorb the Price Hike: Continue Importing - Now Pricier - U.S. Ags Chinese buyers likely will attempt to exhaust options 1 - 3 above, before resorting to purchasing now-pricier U.S. grains and beans. Nevertheless, it is inevitable - some U.S. ags will continue to flow to China. The relevant question - admittedly extremely difficult to quantify - is with regards to the magnitude of the impact. This essentially will depend on China's ability to use options 1 - 3, to avoid the now-higher import costs. While in the case of soybeans, U.S. exports have been shunned for now, the true test will come in the fall after the Brazilian harvest is over, and the market is flooded with the American crops. Furthermore, the 25% increase in costs due to the tariffs will, to some extent, be offset by the discount in the price of the American crops. Fundamentals Imply Higher Ag Prices While ag markets have taken several direct hits recently, we believe global fundamentals are not as bearish as current pricing conditions suggest. In the event there is a de-escalation of trade disputes - Scenario 2 above - prices will rebound to levels implied by fundamentals. While soybeans are expected to record a small surplus in the 2018 - 19 crop year, wheat and corn will be in a global deficit (Chart 9). Furthermore, global inventories - measured in stocks-to-use terms - are expected to come down. In the case of corn and soybeans, this will be the second consecutive annual decline (Chart 10). Chart 9Bullish Fundamentals On Back##BR##Of Corn And Wheat Deficits... Bullish Fundamentals On Back Of Corn And Wheat Deficits... Bullish Fundamentals On Back Of Corn And Wheat Deficits... Chart 10...And Falling##BR##Inventories ...And Falling Inventories ...And Falling Inventories In the corn market, the inventory drawdown is , to a large extent, driven by Chinese policy which is incentivizing the consumption of stocks by offering lower subsidies to corn farmers vs. soybeans, and through measures to encourage corn use for ethanol. This is expected to bring stocks down to levels last witnessed in the 1960s! On the other hand, U.S. soybean stocks are expected to continue increasing in line with lower demand for American beans by the world's largest soybean consumer (China). As always, weather is the biggest source of near term supply-side uncertainty. Wheat prices are supported by weather concerns in Europe - particularly the Black Sea region - which is damaging crops there. This is especially important given the expectation of a smaller crop there this year. Some Final Notes A couple of distinctions within the ags space reveals some ags are more vulnerable to the ongoing dispute than others. These are the number of sellers and the number of buyers in these markets. For instance, U.S. soybean exports have fewer foreign markets than corn, making them relatively more susceptible to downward price movements as supplies back up and are forced to find alternative markets. This is especially true since China is the single largest consumer of soybeans (Chart 11). Chart 11Global Wheat Market Relatively Insulated From Trade Frictions Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals On the other hand, the global wheat market resembles a perfectly competitive market. This means that there are many buyers and sellers, each with limited ability to influence prices. Given that both the U.S. and China are price takers in this market, wheat prices will be relatively more insulated from trade headwinds. As such, we favor wheat in the current environment. Bottom Line: American farmers will be the losers in the still-evolving Sino - American trade disputes, as barriers are imposed on their exports, rendering them uncompetitive for their most significant foreign consumer. However, this will open markets for other global producers - most notably Brazil, Argentina, and the Black Sea region - making farmers there the winners in this dispute. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled "The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis," dated July 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Factbox: USDA's $12 billion farmer relief package," dated July 24, 2018, available at reuters.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Reports titled "Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio," dated March 15, 2018, page 9 from "Oil Price Forecast Steady, But Risks Expand," dated March 22, 2018, and "Ag Price Volatility Will Pick Up," dated May 3, 2018. 4 Our colleagues at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team expect the trade dispute to intensify, especially before the mid-terms. However, tariffs already have been placed on most ag commodities we follow. This leaves little room for further risk from this direct channel, unless tariff rates are increased. 5 Please see "China does not need U.S. soybeans for state reserves: Sinograin official," dated June 12, 2018, available at reuters.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals

In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the U.S./Sino trade war for U.S. equity sectors. The threat that trade action poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations. Perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between China and the U.S. Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The USTR claims that it is being strategic in the Chinese goods it is targeting, focusing on companies that will benefit from the "Made In China 2025" initiative. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad import categories. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are apparel, footwear, toys and cellphones. Beijing is clearly targeting U.S. products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. Based on a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red and Swing States, China will likely lift tariffs in the next rounds on civilian aircraft, computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits. Supply chains within and between industries and firms mean that the impact of tariffs is much broader than the direct impact on exporters and importers. We measure the relative exposure of 24 GICs equity sectors to the trade war based on their proportion of foreign-sourced revenues and the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by U.S. tariffs. The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. China may also attempt to disrupt supply chains via non-tariff barriers, placing even more pressure on U.S. firms that have invested heavily in China. Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance are most exposed. U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war. Virtually all U.S. manufacturing industries will be negatively affected by an ongoing trade war, even defensive sectors such as Consumer Staples. The one exception is defense manufacturers, where we recommend overweight positions. Our analysis highlights that the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, and the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector is one of our favorites. The trade skirmish is transitioning to a full-on trade war. The U.S. has imposed a 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods, and has proposed a 10% levy on an additional $200 billion of imports by August 31. China retaliated with tariffs on $50 billion of imports from the U.S., but Trump has threatened tariffs on another $300 billion if China refuses to back down. That would add up to over $500 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, only slightly less than the total amount that China exported to the U.S. last year. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has emphasized that President Trump is unconstrained on trade policy, giving him leeway to be tougher than the market expects.1 This is especially the case with respect to China. There will be strong pushback from Congress and the U.S. business lobby if the Administration tries to cancel NAFTA. In contrast, Congress is also demanding that the Administration be tough on China because it plays well with voters. Trump is a prisoner of his own tough pre-election campaign rhetoric against China. The U.S. primary economic goal is not to equalize tariffs but to open market access.2 The strategic goal is much larger. The U.S. wants to see China's rate of technological development slow down. Washington will expect robust guarantees to protect intellectual property and proprietary technology before it dials down the pressure on Beijing. The threat that the trade war poses to the U.S. equity market is greater than in past confrontations, such as that between Japan and the U.S. in the late 1980s. First, stocks are more expensive today. Second, interest rates are much lower, limiting how much central banks can react to adverse shocks. Third, and perhaps most importantly, supply chains are much more extensive, globally and between China and the U.S. Nearly every major S&P 500 multinational corporation is in some way exposed to these supply chains. Chart II-1 shows that Automobile Components, Electrical Equipment, Materials, Capital Goods and Consumer Durables have the most extensive supply chain networks. The Global Value Chain Participation rate, constructed by the OECD, is a measure of cross-border value-added linkages.3 In this Special Report, we shed light on the implications of the trade war for U.S. equity sectors. Complex industrial interactions make it difficult to be precise in identifying the winners and losers of a trade war. Nonetheless, we can identify the industries most and least exposed to a further rise in tariff walls or non-tariff barriers to trade. We focus on the U.S./Sino trade dispute in this Special Report, leaving the implications of a potential trade war with Europe and the possible failure of NAFTA negotiations for future research. Chart II-1Measuring Global Supply Chains August 2018 August 2018 Trade Channels There are at least five channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry: The Direct Effect: This can be positive or negative. The impact is positive for those industries that do not export much but are provided relief from stiff import competition via higher import tariffs. The impact is negative for those firms facing higher tariffs on their exports, as well as for those firms facing higher costs for imported inputs to their production process. These firms would be forced to absorb some of the tariff via lower profit margins. Some industries will fall into both positive and negative camps. U.S. washing machines are a good example. Whirlpool's stock price jumped after President Trump announced an import tariff on washing machines, but it subsequently fell back when the Administration imposed an import tariff on steel and aluminum (that are used in the production of washing machines); Indirect Effect: The higher costs for imported goods are passed along the supply chain within an industry and to other industries that are not directly affected by rising tariffs. This will undermine profit margins in these indirectly-affected industries to the extent that they cannot fully pass along the higher input costs; Foreign Direct Investment: Some Chinese exports emanate from U.S. multinationals' subsidiaries in China, or by Chinese or foreign OEM suppliers for U.S. firms. Even though it would undermine China's economy to some extent, the Chinese authorities could make life more difficult for these firms in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. Macro Effect: A trade war would take a toll on global trade and reduce GDP growth globally. Besides the negative effect of uncertainty on business confidence and, thus, capital spending, rising prices for both consumer and capital goods will reduce the volume of spending in both cases. Moreover, corporate profits have a high beta with respect to economic activity. We would not rule out a U.S. recession in a worst-case scenario. Obviously, a recession or economic slowdown would inflict the most pain on the cyclical parts of the S&P 500 relative to the non-cyclicals, in typical fashion. Currency Effect: To the extent that a trade war pushes up the dollar relative to the other currencies, it would undermine export-oriented industries and benefit those that import. However, while we are bullish the dollar due to diverging monetary policy, the dollar may not benefit much from trade friction given retaliatory tariff increases by other countries. Some of the direct and indirect impact can be mitigated to the extent that importers facing higher prices for Chinese goods shift to similarly-priced foreign producers outside of China. Nonetheless, this adjustment will not be costless as there may be insufficient supply capacity outside of China, leading to upward pressure on prices globally. Targeted Sectors: (I) U.S. Tariffs On Chinese Goods As noted above, the U.S. has already imposed tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports and has published a list of another $200 billion of goods that are being considered for a 10% tariff in the second round of the trade war. The first round focused on intermediate and capital goods, while the second round includes consumer final demand categories such as furniture, air conditioners and refrigerators. The latter will show up as higher prices at retailers such as Wal Mart, having a direct and visible impact on U.S. households. Appendix Table II-A1 lists the goods that are on the first and second round lists, grouped according to the U.S. equity sectors in the S&P 500. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) claims that the Chinese items are being targeted strategically. It is focusing on companies that will benefit from China's structural policies, such as the "Made In China 2025" initiative that is designed to make the country a world leader in high-tech areas (see below). Table II-1 reveals the relative size of the broad categories of U.S. imports from China, based on trade categories. The top of the table is dominated by Motor Vehicles, Machinery, Telecommunication Equipment, Computers, Apparel & Footwear and other manufactured goods. The list of Chinese goods targeted in both the first and second rounds covers virtually all of the broad categories in Table II-1. The only major items left for the U.S. to hit are Apparel and Footwear, as well as two subcategories; Toys and Cellphones. These are all consumer demand categories. Table II-1U.S. Imports From China (January-May 2018) August 2018 August 2018 (II) Chinese Tariffs On U.S. Goods Total U.S. exports to China were less than $53 billion in the first five months of 2018, limiting the amount of direct retaliation that China can undertake (Table II-2). The list of individual U.S. products that China has targeted so far is long, but we have condensed it into the broad categories shown in Table II-3. The U.S. equity sectors that the new tariffs affect so far include Food, Beverage & Tobacco, Automobiles & Components, Materials and Energy. China has concentrated mainly on final goods in a politically strategic manner, such as Trump-supported rural areas and Harley Davidson bikes whose operations are based in Paul Ryan's home district in Wisconsin. Table II-2U.S. Exports To China (January-May 2018) August 2018 August 2018 Table II-3China Tariffs On U.S. Goods August 2018 August 2018 What will China target next? Chart II-2 shows exports to China as percent of total state exports, and Chart II-3 presents the value of products already tariffed by China as a percent of state exports. Other than Washington, the four states most targeted by Beijing are conservative: Alaska, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina. Chart II-2U.S. Exports To China By State August 2018 August 2018 Chart II-3Value Of U.S. Products Tariffed By China (By State) August 2018 August 2018 Beijing is clearly targeting products based on politics in order to exert as much pressure on the President's party as possible. To identify the next items to be targeted, we constructed a list of products that comprise the top-10 most exported goods of Red States (solidly conservative) and Swing States (competitive states that can go either to Republican or Democratic politicians). Appendix Tables II-A2 and II-A3 show this list of products, with those that have already been flagged by China for tariffs crossed out. Table II-4 shows the top-10 list of products that are not yet tariffed by China, but are distributed in a large proportion of Red and Swing states. What strikes us immediately is how important aircraft exports are to a large number of Swing and Red States. In total, 27 U.S. states export civilian aircraft, engines and parts to China. This is an obvious target of Beijing's retaliation. In addition, we believe that computer electronics, healthcare equipment, car engines, chemicals, wood pulp, telecommunication and integrated circuits are next. Table II-4Number Of U.S. States Exporting To China By Category August 2018 August 2018 Market Reaction Chart II-4 highlights how U.S. equity sectors performed during seven separate days when the S&P 500 suffered notable losses due to heightened fears of protectionism. Cyclical sectors such as Industrials and Materials fared worse during days of rising protectionist angst. Financials also generally underperformed, largely because such days saw a flattening of the yield curve. Tech, Health Care, Energy and Telecom performed broadly in line with the S&P 500. Consumer Staples outperformed the market, but still declined in absolute terms. Utilities and Real Estate were the only two sectors that saw absolute price gains. The market reaction seems sensible based on the industries caught in the cross-hairs of the trade action so far. At least some of the potential damage is already discounted in equity prices. Nonetheless, it is useful to take a closer look at the underlying factors that should determine the ultimate winners and losers from additional salvos in the trade war. Chart II-4S&P 500: Impact Of Trade-Related Events August 2018 August 2018 Determining The Winners And Losers The U.S. sectors that garner the largest proportion of total revenues from outside the U.S. are obviously the most exposed to a trade war. For the 24 level 2 GICS sectors in the S&P 500, Table II-5 presents the proportion of total revenues that is generated from operations outside the U.S. for the top five companies in the sector by market cap. Company reporting makes it difficult in some cases to identify the exact revenue amount coming from outside the U.S., as some companies regard "domestic" earnings as anything generated in North America. Nonetheless, we believe the data in Table II-5 provide a reasonably accurate picture. Table II-5Foreign Revenue Exposure (2017) August 2018 August 2018 Semiconductors, Tech Equipment, Materials, Food & Beverage, Software and Capital Goods are at the top of the list in terms of foreign-sourced revenues. Not surprisingly, service industries like Real Estate, Banking, Utilities and Telecommunications Services are at the bottom of the exposure list. U.S. companies are also exposed to U.S. tariffs that lift the price of imported inputs to the production process. This can occur directly when firm A imports a good from abroad, and indirectly, when firm A sells its intermediate good to firm B at a higher price, and then on to firm C. In order to capture the entire process, we used the information contained in the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Input/Output tables. We estimated the proportion of each industry's total inputs that are affected by already-implemented U.S. tariffs and those that are on the list for the next round of tariffs. These estimates, shown in Appendix Table II-A4 at a detailed industrial level, include both the direct and indirect effects of higher import costs. At the top of the list is Motor Vehicles and Parts, where Trump tariffs could affect more than 70% of the cost of all material inputs to the production process. Electrical Equipment, Machinery and other materials industries are also high on the list, together with Furniture, Computers & Electronic Parts and Construction. Unsurprisingly, service industries and Utilities are in the bottom half of the table.4 We then allocated all the industries in Appendix Table II-A4 to the 24 GICs level 2 sectors in the S&P 500, in order to obtain an import exposure ranking in S&P sector space (Table II-6). Table II-6U.S. Import Tariff Exposure August 2018 August 2018 Chart II-5 presents a scatter diagram that compares import tariff exposure (horizontal axis) with foreign revenue exposure (vertical axis). The industries clustered in the top-right of the diagram are the most exposed to a trade war. Chart II-5U.S. Industrial Exposure To A Trade War With China August 2018 August 2018 The Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment sector stands out by this metric, but the Technology & Hardware Equipment, Capital Goods, Materials, Consumer Durables & Apparel and Motor Vehicle sectors are also highly exposed to anti-trade policy action. Energy, Software, Banks and all other service sectors are much less exposed. Food, Beverage & Tobacco lies between the two extremes. Joint Ventures And FDI Table II-7Stock Of U.S. Direct ##br##Investment In China (2017) August 2018 August 2018 As mentioned above, most U.S. production taking place in China involves a joint venture. The Chinese authorities could attempt to disrupt the supply chain of a U.S. company by hindering production at companies that have ties to U.S. firms. Data on U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in China will be indicative of the industries that are most exposed to this form of retaliation. The stock of U.S. FDI in China totaled more than $107 billion last year (Table II-7). At the top of the table are Wholesale Trade, Chemicals, Transportation Equipment, Computers & Electronic Parts and Finance & Insurance. Apple is a good example of a U.S. company that is exposed to non-tariff retaliation, as the iPhone is assembled in China by Foxconn for shipment globally with mostly foreign sourced parts. Our Technology sector strategists argue that U.S. technology companies are particularly vulnerable to an escalating trade war (See Box II-1).5 BOX II-1 The Tech Sector The U.S. has applied tariffs on the raw materials of technology products rather than finished goods so far. At a minimum, this will penalize smaller U.S. tech firms which manufacture in the U.S. and provide an incentive to move production elsewhere. Worst case, the U.S. tariffs might lead to component shortages which could have a disproportionately negative impact, especially on smaller firms. Although it has not been proposed, U.S. tariffs on finished goods would be devastating to large tech companies such as Apple, which outsources its manufacturing to China. China appears determined to have a vibrant high technology sector. The "Made In China 2025" program, for example, combines ambitious goals in supercomputers, robotics, medical devices and smart cars, while setting domestic localization targets that would favor Chinese companies over foreigners. The ZTE sanctions and the potential for enhanced export controls have had a traumatic impact on China's understanding of its relatively weak position with respect to technology. As a result, because most high-tech products are available from non-U.S. sources, Chinese engineers will likely be encouraged to design with non-U.S. components; for example, selecting a Samsung instead of a Qualcomm processor for a smartphone. Similarly, China is a major buyer of semiconductor capital equipment as it follows through with plans to scale up its semiconductor industry. Most such equipment is also available from non-U.S. vendors, and it would be understandable if these suppliers are selected given the risk which would now be associated with selecting a U.S. supplier. The U.S. is targeting Chinese made resistors, capacitors, crystals, batteries, Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and semiconductors with a 25% tariff. For the most part these are simple, low cost devices, which are used by the billions in high-tech devices. Nonetheless, China could limit the export of these products to deliver maximum pain, leading to a potential shortage of qualified parts. A component shortage can have a devastating impact on production since the manufacturer may not have the ability to substitute a new part or qualify a new vendor. Since the product typically won't work unless all the right parts are installed, want of a dollar's worth of capacitors may delay shipping a $1,000 product. Thus, the economic and profit impact of a parts shortage in the U.S. could be quite severe. Conclusions: When it comes to absolute winners in case of a trade war, we believe there are three conditions that need to be met: Relatively high domestic input costs. Relatively high domestic consumption/sales; the true beneficiaries of a tariff are those industries who are allowed to either raise prices or displace foreign competitors, with the consumer typically bearing the cost. Relatively low direct exposure to global trade - international trade flows will certainly slow in a trade war. There are very few manufacturing industries that meet all of these criteria. Within manufacturing, one would typically expect the Consumer Staples and Discretionary sectors to be the best performers. However, roughly a third of the weight of Staples is in three stocks (PG, KO and PEP) that are massively dependent on foreign sales. Moreover, a similar weight of Discretionary is in two retailers (AMZN and HD) that are dependent on imports. As such, consumer indexes do not appear a safe harbor in a trade war. Nevertheless, if the trade war morphs into a recession then consumer staples (and other defensive safe-havens) will outperform, although they will still decrease in absolute terms. Transports are an industry that has relatively high domestic labor costs and an output that is consumed virtually entirely within domestic borders. However, their reliance on global trade flows - intermodal shipping is now more than half of all rail traffic - means they almost certainly lose from a prolonged trade dispute. There is one manufacturing industry that could be at least a relative winner and perhaps an absolute winner: defense. Defense manufacturers certainly satisfy the first two criteria above, though they do have reasonably heavy foreign exposure. However, we believe high switching costs and the lack of true global competitors mean that U.S. defense company foreign sales will be resilient. After all, a NATO nation does not simply switch out of F-35 jets for the Russian or Chinese equivalent. Further, if trade friction leads to rising military tension, defense stocks should outperform. Finally, the ongoing global arms race, space race and growing cybersecurity requirements all signal that these stocks are a secular growth story, as BCA has argued in the recent past.6 Still, as highlighted by the data presented above, the best shelter from a trade war can be found in services, particularly services that are insulated from trade. Financial Services appears a logical choice, especially the S&P Financial Exchanges & Data subsector (BLBG: S5FEXD - CME, SPGI, ICE, MCO, MSCI, CBOE, NDAQ). Another appealing - and defensive - sector is Health Care Services. With effectively no foreign exposure and a low beta, these stocks would outperform in the worst-case trade war-induced recession. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Marko Papic Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Chris Bowes Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 For more information, please see: "Global Value Chains (GVSs): United States." May 2013. OECD website. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Trade Wars And Technology," dated July 10, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Table II-1 Allocating U.S. Import Tariffs To U.S. GICS Sectors August 2018 August 2018 Appendix Table II-2 Exports By U.S. Red States August 2018 August 2018 Appendix Table II-3 Exports By U.S. Swing States August 2018 August 2018 Appendix Table II-4 Exposure Of U.S. Industries To U.S. Import Tariffs August 2018 August 2018