Sectors

  Underweight (Upgrade Alert) Auto components stocks found a rare bit of relief this week on the back of news of a trade deal with Mexico and hopes that a similar deal can be made with Canada. Importantly, the scant details gleaned about Mexico are better than had been feared. Of particular note are the increase in regional value content from 62.5% previously to 75% and a 40-45% auto content made by workers earning at least $16 per hour requirement. Both of these should see a diversion of supply chain from overseas to domestic auto parts companies. This makes us reasonably optimistic on the industry's medium-term growth outlook. However, we caution that the situation is highly fluid and the details of final trade deal may be vastly different from the ones thus far released. Further, industry-operating metrics have been deteriorating; light vehicle sales have flat lined, consumer confidence (at least with respect to making a purchase of a new vehicle) has declined and vehicle pricing has fallen back into deflation. Bottom Line: we remain bearish on the S&P auto components index but are cognizant that NAFTA renegotiations could offer a solid tailwind to a beaten-up sector. Accordingly, we are putting this niche index on upgrade alert. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P auto components index are: BLBG: S5AUTC - APTV, BWA, GT.

Highlights The global 6-month credit impulse is likely to turn up in the fourth quarter. This warrants profit-taking in some pro-defensive equity sector, regional, and country allocation... ...for example, in the 35 percent outperformance of European healthcare versus banks in just seven months. But do not become aggressively pro-cyclical until the 10-year yield on the Italian BTP (now at 3.2) moves closer to 3... ...and the sum of the 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund and JGB (now at 3.4) also moves closer to 3. Chart Of The WeekThe Cycle Is About To Turn Feature One of the most common questions we get is, when will the cycle turn? And our response is always, which cycle? The cycle that most people focus on is the so-called business cycle, which describes multi-year economic expansions punctuated by recessions. However, the business cycle - to the extent that it is a cycle - is very irregular. Its upswings and downswings vary greatly in length (Chart I-2). This irregularity is one reason why economists are useless at calling the turns. Nevertheless, investors still obsess with calling the business cycle because they think this is the only cycle that drives the financial markets. Chart I-2The Business Cycle Is Very Irregular We disagree. Nature bestows us with a multitude of cycles with different periodicities: the daily tides, the monthly phases of the moon, the annual seasons, and the multi-year climate cycles. So it would be unnatural, and somewhat arrogant, to assume the economy and financial markets possess only one cycle. In fact, just as in nature, the economy and financial markets experience a multitude of cycles with different periodicities. There Is Not One Cycle In The Economy, There Are Many If you plotted yearly changes in temperature, you would get a flat line and you would think there were no seasons! The point being that you cannot see a yearly cycle if you look at yearly changes. To see the cyclicality of the seasons, you must plot 6-month changes in temperature. Likewise, you cannot see the shorter-term cycles in the economy and financial markets using analysis, such as yearly changes, designed to see longer-term cycles. Once you grasp this basic maths, the mini-cycles in the economy and financial markets will stare you in the face (Chart I-3), and a whole new world of investment opportunities will open up. Chart I-3The Mini-Cycle Is Very Regular As we advised on January 4: "Global growth experiences remarkably consistent - and therefore predictable - 'mini-cycles', with half-cycle lengths averaging eight months. As the current mini-upswing started in May 2017 we can infer that it is likely to end at some point in early 2018. So one surprise could be that global growth will lose steam in the first half of 2018 rather than in the second half, contrary to what the consensus is expecting... Pare back exposure to cyclicals and redeploy to defensives" The advice proved to be very prescient. The global economy did enter a mini-downswing sourced in the emerging markets (Charts I-4 - I-6). Chart I-4The U.S. Mini-Downswing Was Muted... Chart I-5...The Euro Area Mini-Downswing Was Also Muted... Chart I-6...But The China Mini-Downswing Was Severe Nevertheless, the global nature of financial markets meant that the German 10-year bund yield declined by 40 bps, while European healthcare equities outperformed banks by a mouth-watering 35 percent, and materials by 15 percent (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Some of these performances are as large as can be gained in a full business cycle begging the question: Why obsess with the impossible-to-predict business cycle when there are equally rich pickings in the easier-to-predict mini-cycle? Chart I-7Banks Vs. Healthcare Tracks The Mini-Cycle Chart I-8Materials Vs. Healthcare Tracks The Mini-Cycle Furthermore, if you get the equity sector calls right, you will get the equity regional and country calls right too. As cyclicals have underperformed, the less cyclically-exposed S&P500 has been the star performer of the major regional indexes. And cyclical-heavy stock markets like Italy's MIB have strongly underperformed defensive-heavy stock markets like Denmark's OMX (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Italy Vs. Denmark = Banks Vs. Healthcare It follows that the evolution of the global economic mini-cycle is pivotal in every investment decision (Box 1). BOX 1 The Theory Of Economic And Market Mini-Cycles The academic foundation of the global economic mini-cycles is a model called the Cobweb Theorem.1 When bond yields rise, interest rate sensitive sectors in the economy feel a headwind, but with a lag. Similarly, when bond yields decline, interest rate sensitive sectors feel a tailwind, but again with a lag. The lag occurs because credit demand leads credit supply by several months. As credit demand leads credit supply, the turning point in the price of credit (the bond yield) always leads the quantity of credit supplied (the credit impulse). The result is a perpetual mini-cycle oscillation in both economic variables. And because the quantity of credit supplied is a marginal driver of economic activity, this also creates mini-cycles in economic activity. These mini-cycles are remarkably regular with half-cycle lengths averaging around eight months and the regularity creates predictability. Moreover, as most investors are unaware of this predictability, the next turning point is not discounted in financial market prices - providing a compelling investment opportunity for those who do recognise the existence and predictability of these cycles. The Mini-Cycle Will Soon Turn Up The global 6-month credit impulse entered its current mini-downswing in January. Given that mini-downswings tend to last around eight months, we should expect the global economy to exit its mini-downswing in September, the escape valve being the recent decline in bond yields (Chart Of The Week). The caveat is that bond yields were slow to react to the mini-downswing and the decline in 10-year yields, averaging around 40 bps from the peak, has been pretty shallow. It follows that the next mini-upswing could be delayed to October/November, and be somewhat muted. Nevertheless, the surprise could be that global growth will stabilise in the fourth quarter of 2018, contrary to what the consensus is expecting. And this would suggest taking some of the most mouth-watering profits in pro-defensive equity sector, regional, and country allocation - for example, in the 35 percent outperformance of European healthcare versus banks (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Banks Have Severely Underperformed Healthcare Would we go a step further and become pro-cyclical? Not yet. One reason is that there is a limit to how far bond yields can rise before destabilising the very rich valuations of all risk-assets. This is captured in our 'rule of 4' which says that when the sum of the 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund, and Japanese government bond (JGB) exceeds 4 - which broadly equates to the global 10-year yield exceeding 2 percent - it is time to go underweight equities. With the sum now equal to 3.4, yields can rise by only 25-30 bps before hurting risk-assets. Another reason for circumspection is that the investment landscape is still scattered with a large number of landmines, one of which has its own rule of 4. The Other 'Rule Of 4': The Italian 10-Year Bond Yield When Italian bond prices decline, it erodes the value of Italian banks' €350 billion portfolio of BTPs and weakens the banks' balance sheets. Investors start to get nervous about a bank's solvency when equity capital no longer covers net non-performing loans (NPLs). On this basis, the largest Italian banks now have €160 billion of equity capital against €130 billion of net NPLs, implying excess capital of €30 billion (Chart I-11). It follows that the markets would start to worry about Italian banks' mark-to-market solvency if their bond valuations sustained a drop of around a tenth from the recent peak. We estimate this equates to the 10-year BTP yield breaching and remaining above 4 percent (Chart I-12).2 Chart I-11Italian Banks' Equity Capital Exceeds Net NPLs By 30 Bn Euro Chart I-12Italian Banks' Solvency Would Be In Question If The 10-Year Yield Breached 4% Today the 10-year BTP yield stands just shy of 3.2 percent, but it is about to enter a testing period. The Italian government must agree its 2019 budget by September and present a draft to the European Commission by mid-October. The budget must tread a fine line. Cutting the structural deficit to appease the Commission would diminish the credibility of the populist government. It would also be terrible economics, making it harder for Italy to escape its decade-long stagnation.3 On the other hand, locking horns with Brussels and aggressively increasing the structural deficit might panic the bond market. The optimal outcome would be to leave the structural deficit broadly where it is now. To sum up, the global 6-month credit impulse is likely to turn up in the fourth quarter, warranting some profit-taking in pro-defensive positions. But we do not advise aggressive pro-cyclical sector, regional, and country allocation until the 10-year yield on the Italian BTP (now at 3.2) - and the sum of the 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund and JGB (now at 3.4) - both move closer to 3. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'The Cobweb Theory And Market Cycles' published on January 11 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Assuming that the average maturity of Italian banks' BTPs is around 5 years. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'Monetarists Vs Keynesians: The 21st Century Battle' July 12 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal trading Model* In support of the preceding fundamental analysis, the outperformance of healthcare versus banks is technically extended. Its 130-day fractal dimension is at the lower bound which has reliably signalled previous trend exhaustions. On this basis we would position for a 10% reversal with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, long PLN/USD reached the end of its 65-day holding period comfortably in profit, and is now closed. This leaves six open positions. 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-13 * 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 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. Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

  Underweight Since downgrading the insurance group to underweight nearly two years ago, we have been on the lookout for signs the environment had at least moderated; this has not been the case. Pricing power has recently started to accelerate to the downside which, when combined with flattening demand in the key home & auto markets, bodes especially negatively for insurer profits (second & third panels). Critics of our bearish view on insurers may point out that rising interest rates (a key BCA theme for this year) should reinforce sagging stock prices. While there may be some partial offsetting profit benefit to higher rates, the correlation between the S&P insurance index and the UST yield has clearly broken down this year (bottom panel), indicating the market believes the negatives outweigh the positives; we concur, particularly as we enter the historically volatile hurricane season. Stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are BLBG: S5INSU - CB, AIG, MET, MMC, PRU, TRV, AFL, AON, ALL, PGR, WLTW, HIG, PFG, L, CINF, LNC, XL, AJG, UNM, TMK, RE, AIZ, BHF.  

Special Report

This Special Report examines the impact of a NAFTA cancelation on 21 level-three GICs industries. While the latest news on the NAFTA renegotiation with Mexico is positive as we go to press, there is still a non-negligible risk that the existing trilateral deal will not survive. The U.S.-Mexico bilateral deal is an "agreement in principle" and will take time to ratify. Meanwhile, a framework deal with Canada would leave many thorny issues to be resolved. President Trump can still revert to his tough tactics on Canada ahead of the U.S. mid-term elections. If the President does not gain major concessions that can be presented as "victories" to voters, he is likely to take an aggressive stand in order to fire up his political base. The probability of Trump triggering Article 2205 and threatening to walk away from the suspended U.S.-Canada free trade agreement is still not trivial, despite the deal with Mexico. By itself, the cancelation of NAFTA would not be devastating for any particular U.S. industry because the size of the tariff increases would be fairly small as long as all parties stick with MFN tariff levels. That said, the impact would not be trivial, especially for those industries that have extensive supply lines that run between the three countries involved (especially Autos). We approached the issue from four different perspectives; international supply chains, a model-based approach, and an analysis of foreign revenue exposure and input cost exposure. The broad conclusion is that there are no winners from a NAFTA cancelation for the U.S. manufacturing GICs industries. Pharmaceuticals, Health Care Equipment & Supplies, Personal Products and Construction Materials are lower on the risk scale, but cannot be considered beneficiaries of a NAFTA collapse. The remaining industries are all moderately-to-highly exposed. Considering the four perspectives as a group, the most vulnerable industries are Automobiles, Automobile Components, Metals & Mining, Food Products, Beverages, and Textiles & Apparel. Our U.S. equity sector specialists recommend overweight positions in Defense and Financials; while neither stands to benefit from a NAFTA abrogation, they should at least be relative outperformers. They recommend underweight positions on Auto Components, Steel and Electrical Components & Equipment as relative (and probably absolute) underperformers should NAFTA disappear. While the latest news on the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is positive as we go to press, there is still a non-negligible risk that President Trump could revert to his tough tactics ahead of the U.S. mid-term elections.1 Even if Canada signs on to a framework deal, a lot of thorny details will have to be worked out. A presidential proclamation triggering Article 2205 of the NAFTA agreement (as opposed to tweeting that the U.S. will withdraw) would initiate a six-month "exit" period. Trump could use this deadline, and the threat of canceling the underlying U.S.-Canada FTA, to put pressure on Canada (if not Mexico) to concede to U.S. demands, just as he could revoke his exit announcement anytime within the six-month period. While some market volatility would ensue upon any exit announcement, even a total withdrawal at the end of the six months would have a limited macro-economic impact as long as the U.S. continued to respect its WTO commitments and lifted tariffs only to Most Favored Nation (MFN) levels. Nonetheless, a modest tariff hike is not assured given the Administration's "America First" policy, its looming threat of Section 232 tariffs on auto imports, its warnings against the WTO itself, and the steep tariffs it has already imposed on Canada, including a 20% tariff on softwood lumber and the 300% tariff on Bombardier CSeries jets. Moreover, even a small rise in tariffs to MFN levels would have a significant negative impact on industries that are heavily integrated across borders. Our first report on the evolving U.S. trade situation analyzed the implications of the U.S.-China trade war for the 24 level two U.S. GICs equity sectors. This Special Report examines the impact of a NAFTA cancelation on 21 level three GICs industries (finer detail is required since NAFTA covers mostly goods industries). We find that there are no "winners" among the U.S. equity sectors because the negative impact would outweigh any positive effects. The hardest hit U.S. industries would be Autos, Metals & Mining, Food Products, Beverages, and Textiles and Apparel, but many others are heavily exposed to a failure of the free trade agreement. Out Of Time President Trump is seeking a new NAFTA deal ahead of the U.S. midterms in November. While this timing may yet prove too ambitious, the U.S. has made progress in recent bilateral negotiations with Mexico, raising the potential that Trump will be able to tout a new NAFTA framework deal by November 6. Yet, investors should be prepared for additional volatility. There are technical issues with the bilateral U.S.-Mexico deal that could delay ratification in Congress until mid-2019. The new Mexican Congress must ratify the deal by December 1 if outgoing President Enrique Peña Nieto is to sign off. Otherwise, the incoming Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador may still want to revise any deal he signs, prolonging the process. Meanwhile, it would be surprising if the Canadians signed onto a U.S.-Mexico deal they had no part in negotiating without insisting on any adjustments.2 The important point is that President Trump's economic and legal constraints on withdrawing from NAFTA have fallen even further with the Mexican deal. If Trump does not get major concessions that can be presented as "victories" to voters, he is likely to take an aggressive stand in order to fire up his political base, as a gray area of "continuing talks" will not inspire voters. This could mean imposing the threatened auto tariffs or threatening to cancel the existing trade agreements with Canada. Thus, the risk of Trump triggering Article 2205 is still not trivial. A bilateral Mexican trade deal is not the same as NAFTA. Announcing withdrawal automatically nullifies much of the 1993 NAFTA Implementation Act. Some provisions of NAFTA under this act may continue, but the bulk would cease to have effect, and the White House could refuse to enforce the rest. The potential saving grace for trade with Canada was that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), which took effect in 1989, was incorporated into NAFTA. The U.S. and Canada agreed to suspend CUSFTA's operation when NAFTA was created, but the suspension only lasts as long as NAFTA is in effect. However, Trump may walk away from both CUSFTA and NAFTA in the same proclamation. In that event, WTO rules for preferential trade would require the U.S. and Canada to raise tariffs on trade with each other to Most Favored Nation (MFN) levels. These tariff levels are shown in Charts II-1A and II-1B. The Charts also show the maximum tariff that could potentially be applied under WTO rules. The latter are much higher than the MFN levels, underscoring that the situation could get really ugly if a full trade war scenario somehow still emerged among these three trading partners. Chart II-1AU.S.: MFN Tariff Rates By GICS Industry (2017) Chart II-1BMexico & Canada: MFN Tariff Rates By GICS Industry (2017) Current tariffs are set at zero for virtually all of these GICs industries, which means that the MFN levels also indicate how much tariffs will rise at a minimum if NAFTA is cancelled. Tariffs would rise the most for Automobiles, Textiles & Apparel, and Food Products (especially agricultural products), and Beverages. U.S. tariffs under the WTO are not significantly higher than NAFTA's rates; the average MFN tariff in 2016 was 3½%, which compares to 4.1% for the average Canadian MFN tariff. Would MFN Tariffs Be Painful? An increase in tariff rates of 3-4 percentage points may seem like small potatoes. Nonetheless, even this could have an outsized impact on some industries because tariffs are levied on trade flows, not on production. A substantial amount of trade today is in intermediate goods due to well-integrated supply chains. Charts II-2A and II-2B present a measure of integration. Exports and imports are quite large relative to total production in some industries. The most integrated U.S. GICs sectors include Automobiles & Components, Materials, Capital Goods and Electrical & Optical Equipment. Higher tariffs would slam those intermediate goods that cross the border multiple times at different stages of production. For example, studies of particular automobile models have found that "parts and components may cross the NAFTA countries' borders as many as eight times before being installed in a final assembly in one of the three partner countries."3 Tariffs would apply each time these parts cross the border if NAFTA fails. Chart II-2AU.S./Canada Supply Chain Integration Chart II-2BU.S./Mexico Supply Chain Integration Appendix Tables II-1 to II-4 show bilateral trade by product between the U.S. and Canada, and the U.S. and Mexico. In 2017, the U.S. imported almost $300b in goods from Canada, and exported $282b to that country, resulting in a small U.S. bilateral trade deficit. The bilateral deficit with Mexico is larger, with $314b in U.S. imports and $243b in exports. The largest trade categories include motor vehicles, machinery, and petroleum products. Telecom equipment and food products also rank highly. As mentioned above, the impact of rising tariffs is outsized to the extent that a substantial portion of trade in North America is in intermediate goods. Box II-1 reviews the five main channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry. Box II-1 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 import tariffs 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). NAFTA also eliminated many non-tariff barriers, especially in service industries. Cancelling the agreement could thus see a return of these barriers to trade; (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. There would also be a loss of economies-of-scale and comparative advantage to the extent that firms are no longer able to use an "optimal" supply network that crosses borders, further raising the cost of doing business; (3) Foreign Direct Investment: Some U.S. imports emanate from U.S. multinationals' subsidiaries outside the U.S., or by foreign OEM suppliers for U.S. firms. NAFTA eliminated many national barriers to FDI, expanded basic protections for companies' FDI in other member nations, and established a dispute-settlement procedure. The Canadian and Mexican authorities could make life more difficult for those U.S. firms that have undertaken significant FDI in retaliation for NAFTA's cancellation; (4) Macro Effect: The end of NAFTA, especially if it were to lead to a trade war that results in tariffs in excess of the MFN levels, would take a toll on North American trade and reduce GDP growth across the three countries. 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. The macro effect would probably not be large to the extent that tariffs only rise to MFN levels; (5) Currency Effect: To the extent that a trade war pushes up the dollar relative to the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso, 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 that tariffs would rise for all three countries. Chart II-3 is a scatter chart of GICs industries that compares the average MFN tariff on U.S. imports to the average MFN tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports from the U.S. A U.S. industry may benefit if it garners significant import protection but does not face a higher tariff on its exports to the other two countries. Unfortunately, there are no industries that fall into the north-west portion of the chart. The opposite corner, signifying low import protection but high tariffs on exports, includes Beverages, Household Durables, Household Products, Personal Products and Machinery. Chart II-3Import And Export Tariffs Faced By U.S. GICS Industries Model-Based Approach The C.D. Howe Institute has employed a general equilibrium model to estimate the impact of a NAFTA failure at the industrial level.4 The model is able to capture the impact on trade conducted through foreign affiliates. The study captures the direct implications of higher tariffs, but also includes a negative shock to business investment that would stem from heightened uncertainty about the future of market access for cross-border trade. It also takes into consideration non-tariff barriers affecting services. Table II-1Impact Of NAFTA Cancellation By Industry As with most studies of this type, the Howe report finds that the level of GDP falls by a relatively small amount relative to the baseline in all three countries - i.e. there are no winners if NAFTA goes down. Moreover, the U.S. is not even able to reduce its external deficit. While the trade barriers trim U.S. imports from NAFTA parties by $60b, exports to Canada and Mexico fall by $62b. At the industry level, the model sums the impacts of the NAFTA shock on imports, exports and domestic market share to arrive at the estimated change in total shipments (Table II-1). It is possible that an industry will enjoy a boost to total shipments if a larger domestic market share outweighs the damage to exports. However, the vast majority of U.S. industries would suffer a decline in total shipments according to this study, because the estimated gain in domestic market share is simply not large enough. Beef, Pork & Poultry and Dairy would see a 1-2% drop in total shipments relative to the baseline forecast. Next on the list are textiles & apparel, food products and automotive products. Even some service industries suffer a small decline in business, due to indirect income effects. Foreign-Sourced Revenue And Input Cost Approach Another way to approach this issue is to identify the U.S. industries that garner the largest proportion of total revenues from Mexico and Canada. Unfortunately, few companies provide much country detail on where their foreign revenues are derived. Many simply split U.S. and non-U.S. revenues, or North American and non-North American revenues. Table II-2 presents the proportion of total revenues that is generated from operations outside the U.S. for the top five companies in the industry by market cap (in some cases the proportion that is generated outside of North America was used as a proxy for foreign- sourced revenues). While this approach is not perfect, it does provide a good indication of how exposed a U.S. industry is to Canada and Mexico. This is because any company that has "gone global" will very likely be doing substantial business in these two countries. Table II-2Foreign Revenue Exposure At the top of the list are the Metals & Mining, Personal Products, and Auto Component industries. Between 62% and 81% of revenues in these three industries is derived from foreign sources. Following that is Household Durables, Leisure Products, Chemicals and Tobacco. Indeed, all of the level three GICs industries we are analyzing are moderately-to-highly globally-oriented, with the sole exception of Construction Materials. Table II-3Import Tariff Exposure U.S. companies are also exposed to U.S. tariffs that boost 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 then 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 would be affected by a rise in tariffs to MFN levels. We then allocated the industries contained in the input/output tables to the 21 GICs level 3 industries we are considering, in order to obtain an import exposure ranking in S&P industry space (Table II-3). All 21 industries are significantly vulnerable to rising input costs, which is not surprising given that we are focusing on the manufacturing-based GICs industries and NAFTA focused on trade in goods. The vast majority of the industries could face a cost increase on 50% or more of their intermediate inputs to the production process. The Automobile industry is at the top of the list, with 72% of its intermediate inputs potentially affected by the shift up in tariffs (Automobile Components is down the list, at 56%). Containers & Packaging, Oil & Gas, Aerospace & Defense, Textiles and Food Products are also highly exposed to tariff increases. The automobile industry is a special case because of the safeguards built into NAFTA regarding rules-of-origin and the associated tracing list. The U.S. is seeking significant changes in both in order to tilt the playing field toward U.S. production, but this could severely undermine the intricate supply chain linking the three countries. Box II-2 provides more details. Box II-2 Automotive Production In NAFTA; Update Required We are focused on two key aspects to the renegotiation of the NAFTA rules that could have far reaching implications for automakers and the auto component maker supply base: the tracing list and country of origin rules. Regarding the first of these, the Trump administration has a legitimate gripe when it comes to automotive production. A tracing list was written in the early-1990's to define automotive components such that the rules of origin (ROO) could be easily met; anything not on the list is deemed originating in North America. As anyone who has driven a vehicle of early-1990's vintage and one of late-2010's vintage can attest, high tech components (largely not included on the tracing list) have grown exponentially as a percentage of the cost of the vehicle and, at least with respect to electronic and display components, are sourced mostly from overseas. Updating the tracing list would force auto makers to source a significantly greater amount of components domestically, almost certainly raising the cost of the vehicle and either hurting margins or hurting competitiveness through higher prices. The current NAFTA ROO require that 62.5% of the content of a vehicle must be sourced in North America, with no distinction between any of the member nations. The result of this legislation has been the creation of a highly integrated supply base that sees components move back and forth across borders through each stage of the manufacturing process. Early proposals from the Trump administration for a NAFTA rework included a country of origin provision for as much as 50% U.S. content. Such a provision would certainly cause a massive disruption in the automotive supply chain with components manufacturers forced to relocate or automakers electing to source overseas and pay the 2.5% MFN tariff on exports within North America. Either scenario presents a headwind to the tightly woven auto components base, underscoring BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy's underweight recommendation on the sector. The recently announced bilateral trade deal with Mexico raises the ROO content requirements to 75% from the 62.5% contemplated under NAFTA but, importantly, no country of origin provisions appear in the new deal. Still, given how quickly this is evolving, a final NAFTA deal could be significantly different. Chart II-4 presents a scatter diagram that compares import tariff exposure (horizontal axis) with foreign revenue exposure (vertical axis). The industries in the north-east corner of the diagram are the most exposed to NAFTA failure. The problem is that there are so many in this region that it is difficult to choose the top two or three, although Metals & Mining stands out from the rest. It is easier to identify the industries that face less risk in relative terms: Pharmaceuticals, Construction Materials, Health Care & Supplies, Leisure Products and, perhaps, Machinery. The rest rank highly in terms of both foreign revenue exposure and import tariff exposure. Chart II-4Foreign Revenue And Import Tariff Exposure Conclusions: By itself, a total cancelation of NAFTA would not be devastating for any particular U.S. industry because the size of the tariff increases would be fairly small as long as all parties stick with MFN tariff levels. That said, the impact would not be trivial, especially for those industries that have extensive supply lines that run between the three countries involved. The negative impact on GDP growth would likely be worse for Canada (and Mexico if its bilateral somehow fell through), but U.S. exporters would see some loss of business. We approached the issue from four different perspectives; international supply chains, a model-based approach, and an analysis of foreign revenue exposure and import tariff exposure. The broad conclusion is that there are no winners from a NAFTA cancelation for the U.S. manufacturing GICs industries. Pharmaceuticals, Health Care Equipment & Supplies, Personal Products and Construction Materials are lower on the risk scale, but cannot be considered beneficiaries of a NAFTA collapse. The remaining industries are all moderately-to-highly exposed. Considering the four perspectives as a group, the most vulnerable industries are Automobiles, Automobile Components, Metals & Mining, Food Products, Beverages, and Textiles & Apparel. Our U.S. equity sector specialists recommend overweight positions in Defense and Financials; while neither stands to benefit from a NAFTA abrogation, they should at least be relative outperformers. They recommend underweight positions on Auto Components, Steel and Electrical Components & Equipment as relative (and probably absolute) underperformers should NAFTA disappear. As we go to press, rapid developments are taking place in the NAFTA negotiations. The U.S. and Mexico have completed a bilateral agreement in principle and a Canadian team is looking into whether to sign onto the agreement by a U.S.-imposed August 31 deadline. This deadline would enable the current U.S. Congress to proceed to ratification before turning over its seats in January, though it is not a hard deadline. It is possible that the negotiations will conclude this week and the crisis will be averted. But the lack of constraints on President Trump's trade authority gives reason for pause. If Canada demurs, Trump could move to raise the cost through auto tariffs or announcements that he intends to withdraw from existing U.S.-Canada agreements in advance of November 6. While Mexico has now tentatively secured bilaterals with both countries through the new U.S. deal and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which includes Canada), it still stands to suffer if a trilateral agreement is not in place. Moreover it is technically possible that Canada's refusal to join the U.S.-Mexico bilateral could delay the latter's ratification well into next year. Therefore, we treat Mexico the same as Canada in our analysis, despite the fact that Mexican assets stand to benefit in relative terms from having a floor put under them by the Trump Administration's more constructive posture and this week's framework deal. If Trump does not pursue a hard line with Canada, then it will be an important sign that he is adjusting his trade policy to contain the degree of confrontation with the developed nations and allies and instead focus squarely on China, where we expect trade risks to increase in the coming months. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Matt Gertken Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Chris Bowes Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy APPENDIX TABLE II-1 U.S. Imports From Canada (2017) APPENDIX TABLE II-2 U.S. Exports To Canada (2017) APPENDIX TABLE II-3 U.S. Imports From Mexico (2017) APPENDIX TABLE II-4 U.S. Exports To Mexico (2017) 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO," dated June 28, 2018, and Weekly Report, "Are You 'Sick Of Winning' Yet?" dated June 20, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Working Together: Economic Ties Between the United States and Mexico. Christopher E. Wilson, November 2011. 4 The NAFTA Renegotiation: What if the U.S. Walks Away? The C.D. Howe Institute Working Paper. November 2017.

As the SPX and a slew of other indices have vaulted to fresh all-time highs, a deeper dive into profit margins is in order. While the S&P 500's profit margins are benefiting from the one-time fillip of lower corporate taxes in calendar 2018, it is important to remember that this is not affected by any massaging from CEOs/CFOs of the share count. In other words, given that "per share" cancel out of EPS/SPS, this margin number represents organic profit and revenue growth. The chart shows that SPX margins have recently slingshot to all-time highs. However, excluding tech they remain below the previous cycle's peak hit in mid-2007. While we are not fans of excluding sectors from our analysis, the magnitude and persistence of the tech sector's profit margin expansion is surprising. Tech sector profit margins are twice the SPX's margins, and tech stocks have been pulling SPX margins higher consistently for the past 8 years. The implication is that SPX EPS growth of 10% is likely in 2019, but the tech sector has to continue doing all the heavy lifting given the high profit and market cap weight in the SPX. Bottom Line: We remain neutral the broad tech sector and prefer the S&P software and S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals indexes (both are high-conviction overweights) to the early cyclical tech indexes, S&P semis and S&P semi equipment subgroups (both are underweight). For additional details, please look forward to reading in this coming Tuesday's Weekly Report.

Overweight As trade tensions have eased in recent weeks, we have seen a broad based recovery in trade-oriented stocks. One notable exception is the S&P containers & packaging index which has failed to rally with its peers. This is particularly surprising considering the global trade picture is nearly as good as it gets (second panel). Consumer spending on food & beverage has historically been the industry bellwether and the current message is exceptionally positive. In fact, an exploitable buying opportunity has emerged as the relative valuation of the S&P containers & packaging index and growth in consumer spending on food and beverage (advanced by 6 months), which usually move in lockstep have sharply diverged (bottom panel). Considering the former is at a decade-low, we expect a catch up phase to emerge via a valuation rerating; stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CONP - IP, WRK, BLL, PKG, SEE, AVY.

  Overweight (High Conviction) Our attention in the last several months has been focused on rising trade tensions and the threat they present to our bullish cyclical equity bent. One sector that has seen a particular increase in volatility resulting from the swinging trade sentiment is the S&P air freight index; the most recent iteration of positive news on trade has seen the index recover all of the losses it had suffered earlier this year. On the operating front, demand has been exceptionally strong, particularly from online sales as evidenced by the eye-popping results issued by Walmart and Amazon. This has kept industry pricing power in a solid uptrend, implying margins that can withstand the rising cost of fuel. Still, valuations have trailed earnings growth and the S&P air freight index is close to its cheapest relative value in a decade. We think this is unlikely to persist; we reiterate our high-conviction overweight recommendation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRF - UPS, FDX, CHRW, EXPD.  

Special Report

Highlights Globalization, technological progress, weak trade unions, high debt levels, and population aging are often cited as reasons for why inflation will remain dormant. None of these reasons are inherently deflationary, and in some contexts, they may actually turn out to be quite inflationary. The combination of a stronger dollar and rising EM stress means that U.S. Treasury yields are more likely to fall than rise during the coming months. Over the long haul, however, bond yields are going higher - potentially much higher - as inflation surprises on the upside. Long-term bond investors should maintain below-benchmark exposure to duration risk in their portfolios. Gold offers some protection against rising inflation. That said, the yellow metal is still quite expensive in real terms, which limits its appeal. Investors would be better off simply buying inflation-protected securities such as TIPS. Historically, stocks have not performed well in inflationary environments. A neutral allocation to global equities is appropriate at this juncture. Feature Will Structural Forces Limit Inflation? In Part 1 of this report, we argued that inflation could surprise materially on the upside over the coming years due to the growing conviction among policymakers that: The neutral real rate of interest is extremely low; The natural rate of unemployment has fallen significantly over time; There is an exploitable trade-off between higher inflation and lower unemployment; The presence of the zero lower-bound on nominal short-term interest rates implies that it is better to be too late than too early in tightening monetary policy. A common refrain in response to these arguments is that the structural features of today's economy are so deflationary that policymakers simply would be not able to lift inflation even if they wanted to. Four features are often cited: 1) globalization; 2) modern technologies such as automation and e-commerce; 3) the declining influence of trade unions; and 4) population aging, high debt levels, and other contributors to "secular stagnation." In this week's report, we discuss all four features in turn. In every case, we conclude that the purported deflationary forces are not nearly as strong as most observers believe. Inflation And Globalization Imagine two closed economies, identical in every way other than the fact the one economy is larger than the other. Would one expect inflation to be structurally higher in the smaller economy? Most people would probably say no. After all, if one economy has more workers and capital than another economy, it will be able to generate more output. But all those additional workers will also want to spend more, so it is not immediately obvious why inflation should differ in the two regions. Now let us change the terminology a bit. Suppose the larger economy refers to the world as a whole. What would happen to the balance between aggregate demand and supply if we were to shift from a setting where countries do not trade with one another to a globalized world where they do? As the initial example suggests, to a first approximation, the answer is nothing. Since one country's exports are another's imports, globally, net exports will always be zero. Thus, it stands to reason that simply moving from autarky to free trade will not, in itself, boost global aggregate demand. Could a move towards free trade increase aggregate supply? Yes. Global production will rise if countries can specialize in the production of goods in which they have a comparative advantage. Productivity will also benefit from the fact that a large global market will allow companies to better exploit economies of scale by spreading their fixed costs over a greater quantity of output. But here's the catch: More production also means more income, and more income means more spending. Thus, if globalization increases aggregate supply, it will also increase aggregate demand. And if both aggregate demand and aggregate supply increase by the same amount, there is no reason to think that inflation will change. Granted, it is possible that desired demand will rise more slowly than supply in response to increasing globalization, putting downward pressure on inflation and interest rates in the process. This could be the case, for example, if globalization increases the share of income going towards rich people. As Chart 1 shows, rich people tend to save more than poor people. Chart 1Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners If globalization has increased income inequality, it is possible that this has had a deflationary effect. However, for this effect to persist, the world has to become even more globalized. This does not seem to be happening. Global trade has been flat as a share of GDP for over a decade (Chart 2). The share of U.S. national income flowing to workers has also been rising in recent years as the labor market has tightened (Chart 3). Chart 2Global Trade Has Peaked Chart 3Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring ##br##Alongside Labor Market Tightening Globalization As An Inflationary Safety Valve The discussion above suggests that the often-heard argument that globalization is deflationary because it leads to an overabundance of production is not as straightforward as it seems. What about the argument that globalization is deflationary because it limits the ability of companies to raise prices? While this is a seemingly compelling argument, it runs square into the problem that profit margins are near record-high levels in many economies. Far from making companies more price-conscious, globalization has often created oligopolistic market structures. Granted, free trade can still provide a safety valve for countries suffering from excess demand. To see this, return to our earlier example of the large country versus the small country. Suppose that because of its well-diversified economy, the large country often encounters situations where one region is booming, while another is down in the dumps. When this happens, workers and capital will tend to flow to the thriving region, alleviating any capacity pressures there. The same adjustments often occur among countries. If desired spending exceeds a country's productive capacity, it can run a trade deficit with the rest of the world. Rather than the prices of goods and services needing to rise, excess demand can be satiated with more imports. However, for that realignment in demand to occur, exchange rates must adjust. In today's context, this means that the dollar may need to strengthen further. Notice that this dynamic only works if there is slack abroad. This is presently the case, but there is no assurance that this will always be so. The implication is that inflation could rise meaningfully as global spare capacity is absorbed. Technology And Inflation If the price of electronic goods is any guide, it would seem undeniable that technological innovation is a deflationary force. However, this belief involves a fallacy of composition. Above-average productivity gains in one sector of the economy will cause prices in that sector to decline relative to other prices. But falling prices will also boost real incomes, leading to more spending. It is possible that prices elsewhere in the economy will rise by enough to offset the decline in prices in the sector experiencing above-average productivity gains, so that the overall price level remains unchanged. Ultimately, whether inflation rises or falls in response to faster productivity growth depends on what policymakers do. Over the long haul, productivity growth will lead to higher real wages. However, real wages can go up either because the price level declines or because nominal wages rise. The extent to which one or the other happens depends on the stance of monetary policy. In any case, just as in our discussion of globalization, the whole narrative about how faster productivity growth is deflationary seems rather antiquated considering that productivity growth has been quite weak in most of the world for over a decade (Chart 4). Consistent with this, the price deflator for electronic goods has been falling a lot less rapidly in recent years than it has in the past (Chart 5). Chart 4Globally, Productivity Growth Has Been ##br##Falling For Over A Decade Chart 5Steadier Prices For Computer Hardware ##br##And Software In Recent Years Admittedly, it is possible to imagine a scenario where the pace of productivity growth slows but the nature of that growth changes in a more deflationary direction. However, evidence that this has happened is fairly thin. Take the so-called Amazon effect, which purports to show sizable deflationary consequences from the spread of e-commerce. As my colleague Mark McClellan has shown, outside of department stores, profit margins in the retail sector are well above their historic average (Chart 6).1 This calls into doubt claims that online shopping has undermined corporate pricing power. Recent productivity growth in the U.S. distribution sector has actually been slower than in the 1990s, a decade which produced large productivity gains stemming from the displacement of "mom and pop" stores with "big box" retailers such as Walmart and Costco. The Waning Power Of Unions The declining influence of trade unions is also often cited as a reason for why inflation will remain subdued. There are a number of empirical and conceptual problems with this argument. Empirically, unionization rates in the U.S. peaked in the mid-1950s, more than a decade before inflation began to accelerate. While the unionization rate continued to decline in the U.S. during the 1980s and 1990s, it remained elevated in Canada. Yet, this did not prevent Canadian inflation from falling as rapidly as it did in the United States (Chart 7). The widespread use of inflation-linked wage contracts in the 1970s appears mainly to have been a consequence of rising inflation rather than the cause of it (Chart 8). Chart 6Retail Sector Profit Margins Are Strong Chart 7Inflation Fell In Canada, Despite A ##br##High Unionization Rate Chart 8Higher Inflation Led To More Inflation-Indexed ##br##Wage Contracts, Not The Other Way Around Conceptually, the argument that strong unions tend to instigate price-wage spirals is highly suspect. Yes, firms may be forced to raise wages in response to union pressures, which could prompt them to increase prices, leading to demands for even higher wages, etc. However, the price level cannot increase on a sustained basis independent of other things such as the level of the money supply. Central banks must still play a decisive role. One can imagine a scenario where the presence of powerful trade unions creates a dual labor market, one with well-paid unionized workers and another with poorly-paid non-unionized workers. Governments may be tempted to run the economy hot to prop up the wages of non-unionized workers. On the flipside, one could also imagine a scenario where the absence of strong unions exacerbates income inequality, causing governments to pursue more demand-boosting macroeconomic policies. In either case, however, the ultimate cause of rising inflation would still be macroeconomic policy. Inflation And The Neutral Rate As the discussion so far illustrates, inflation is unlikely to rise unless policymakers let it happen. But what if the neutral rate of interest is so low that policymakers lose traction over monetary policy? In that case, central banks may not be able to bring inflation up even if they wanted to. This is not just an academic question. Japan has had near-zero interest rates for over two decades and this has not been enough to spur inflation. Chart 9Long-Term Inflation Expectations In The Euro Area ##br##Are Still Much Higher Than In Japan We do not disagree with the notion that the neutral rate of interest is lower today than it was in the past. However, magnitudes are important here. In thinking about the secular stagnation thesis, which underpins the rationale for why the neutral rate has fallen, one should distinguish between the "weak" form and the "strong" form versions of the thesis. The weak form says that the neutral nominal rate of interest is low but positive, whereas the strong form says that the neutral nominal rate is negative.2 While this may seem like a minor distinction, it has important policy and market implications. Under the strong form version of the thesis, central banks really do lose control of their most effective policy tool: the ability to change interest rates to keep the economy on an even keel. By definition, if the neutral nominal rate is deeply negative, then even a policy rate of zero would mean that monetary policy is too tight. Under such circumstances, an economy could easily succumb to a vicious circle where insufficient demand causes inflation to fall, leading to higher real rates and even less spending. Such a vicious circle is less probable when the weak form version of the secular stagnation thesis dominates. As long as the neutral nominal rate is positive, central banks can always choose a policy rate that is low enough to allow the economy to grow at an above-trend pace. If they keep the policy rate below neutral for an extended period of time, the economy will eventually overheat, generating higher inflation. The fact that the U.S. unemployment rate has managed to fall during the past few years, even as the Fed has been raising rates, strongly suggests that the weak form of the secular stagnation thesis is applicable to the United States. The euro area is a much tougher call, given the region's poor demographics and high debt levels. Nevertheless, at least so far, the euro area has one thing on its side: Long-term inflation expectations are still much higher than they are in Japan (Chart 9). Whereas a neutral real rate of zero implies a nominal rate of 1.8% in the euro area, it implies a much lower nominal rate of 0.5% in Japan. The Neutral Rate Will Likely Move Higher As we argued a few weeks ago, cyclically, the neutral real rate of interest has risen in the U.S., and to a lesser extent, the rest of the world.3 This has happened because deleveraging headwinds have abated, fiscal policy has turned more stimulative, asset values have risen, and faster wage growth has put more money into workers' pockets. Structurally, the neutral rate may also begin to creep higher as some of the very same long-term forces that have depressed the neutral rate in the past begin to push it up in the future. Demographics is a good example. For several decades, slower population growth has reduced the incentive for firms to expand capacity. Diminished investment spending has suppressed aggregate demand, leading to lower inflation. Population aging also pushed more people into their prime saving years - ages 30 to 50. By definition, more savings mean less spending. However, now that baby boomers are starting to retire en masse, they are moving from being savers to dissavers. Chart 10 shows that the "world support ratio" - effectively, the ratio of workers-to-consumers - has begun to fall for the first time in 40 years. As more people stop working, aggregate global savings will decline. The shortage of savings will put upward pressure on the neutral rate. Japan has been on the leading edge of this demographic transformation. The unemployment rate has fallen to a mere 2.4%, while the ratio of job openings-to-applicants has reached a 45-year high (Chart 11). The shackles that have kept Japan immersed in deflation for over two decades may be starting to break. Chart 10The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Is Now Falling Chart 11Japan: Labor Market Tightening May Spur Inflation Debt Deflation Or Debt Inflation? The distinction between the weak form of secular stagnation and the strong form is critical for thinking about debt issues. Rising debt tends to boost spending, but when debt reaches very high levels, spending normally suffers as borrowers concentrate on paying back loans. As such, high indebtedness generally implies a lower neutral real rate of interest. There is an important caveat, however. The presence of a lot of debt in the financial system also creates an incentive for policymakers to boost inflation in order to erode the real value of that debt. This is particularly the case when governments are the main borrowers. When the strong form version of secular stagnation prevails, generating inflation is difficult, if not impossible. In such a setting, debt deflation becomes the main concern. In contrast, when the weak form version of secular stagnation prevails, higher inflation is achievable. Debt inflation becomes an increasingly likely outcome. If we are in a period where countries such as Japan are transitioning from a strong form of secular stagnation to a weak form, inflation could begin to move rapidly higher. We are positioned for this by being short 20-year versus 5-years JGBs. Inflation As A Political Choice There is a school of thought that argues that high inflation in the 1970s and early 80s was an aberration; that the natural state of capitalism is deflation rather than inflation. We reject this view. The natural state of capitalism is ever-increasing output. Whether prices happen to rise or fall along the way depends on the choice of monetary regime. This is a political decision, not an economic one. Regimes based on the gold standard tend to have a deflationary bias, whereas regimes based on fiat money tend to have an inflationary one. The introduction of universal suffrage in the first few decades of the twentieth century made inflation politically more palatable than deflation (Chart 12). There is little mystery as to why that was the case. In every society, wealth is unevenly distributed. Creditors tend to be rich while debtors tend to be poor. Unexpected inflation hurts the former, but benefits the latter. Chart 12Universal Suffrage Made Inflation Politically ##br##More Palatable Than Deflation Once universal suffrage was introduced, a poor farmer did not need to worry quite as much about losing his land to the bank, since he could now vote for someone who would ensure that crop prices increased rather than decreased. In William Jennings Bryan's colorful words, the rich and powerful "shall no longer crucify mankind on a cross of gold." Today, populism is on the rise. Trumpist Republicans have clobbered mainstream Republicans in one primary election after another. The democrats are also shifting to the left, as the ousting of ten-term incumbent Joe Crowley by the firebrand socialist candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in June illustrates. And the U.S. is not alone. Italy now has an avowedly populist government. Other European nations may not be far behind. Meanwhile, a growing chorus of prominent economists have argued in favor of raising inflation targets on the grounds that a higher level of inflation would allow central banks to push real interest rates deeper into negative territory in the event of a severe economic downturn. We doubt that any central bank would proactively raise its inflation target in the current environment. However, one could imagine a situation where inflation begins to gallop higher because central banks find themselves behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. Confronted with the choice between engineering a painful recession and letting inflation stay elevated, it would not be too surprising in the current political context if some central banks chose the latter option. Investment Conclusions As we discussed last week, the combination of a stronger dollar and rising EM stress means that U.S. Treasury yields are more likely to fall than rise during the coming months.4 Over the long haul, however, bond yields are going higher - potentially much higher - as inflation surprises on the upside. Long-term bond investors should maintain below-benchmark exposure to duration risk in their portfolios. Gold offers some protection against inflation risk. However, the yellow metal is still quite expensive in real terms, which limits its appeal (Chart 13). Investors would be better off simply buying inflation-protected securities such as TIPS. Chart 13Gold Is Not Cheap Historically, equities have not performed well in inflationary environments. U.S. stocks are quite expensive these days (Chart 14). Analyst expectations are also far too rosy (Chart 15). Non-U.S. stocks are more attractively priced, but face a slew of near-term headwinds. A neutral allocation to global equities is appropriate at this juncture. Chart 14U.S. Stocks Are Expensive Chart 15Analysts Are Far Too Optimistic Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?" dated September 1, 2017. 2 To keep things simple, we are assuming that nominal interest rates cannot be negative. In practice, as we have seen over the past few years, the zero lower-bound constraint is rather fuzzy. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that interest rates can fall too far into negative territory before people begin to shift negative-yielding bank deposits into physical currency. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S. Housing Will Drive The Global Business Cycle... Again," dated July 6, 2018. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Hot Dollar, Cold Turkey," dated August 17, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

  Neutral U.S retailers have been surging recently as customers have been piling in faster than they have in a long time. Walmart reported results last week showing a 4.5% increase in same-store sales and a 40% increase in online sales; the stock responded by rising more than 9%. Target too reported exceptional results with the CEO commenting that the consumer environment was the strongest he had seen in his career. Overall, things are looking up for retailers as the consumer has been spending at an expanding pace for several years. Considering the savings rate remains elevated (second panel), the consumer probably has significant dry powder to maintain the trend. However, we remain nervous about margins; transportation costs are clearly rising and an economy at full capacity means increasing employment costs, which tend to hurt retailers earlier than most other sectors. This likely underlies why S&P hypermarkets EPS has fallen further behind the broad market (bottom panel). Tack on much higher volatility in Walmart's share price as investors whipsaw the stock based on the online sales performance and we see strong rationale to remain on the sidelines; stay neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HYPC - WMT, COST.    

Special Report

There is growing evidence that Trump and the U.S.A. are winning not only the war of words, but also the actual trade war, even though it is still early days. Chart 1 clearly depicts that the S&P 500 is having a stellar year compared with the rest of the world's bourses, leaving in the dust the MSCI All Country World Index. As trade policy uncertainty has skyrocketed to two-decade highs (only the 1993/4 Clinton era trade spat hit a higher mark),1 U.S. stocks have been primary beneficiaries. Even in absolute terms, the SPX is also enjoying a healthy and positive return year. Chart 1U.S. Is Winning The Trade War... Similarly, the U.S. dollar, boosted by rising interest rate differentials, has greatly benefited from increased trade rhetoric as the rest of the world bears the brunt of American trade protectionism (Chart 2). Granted, the U.S. profit backdrop remains upbeat, easily surpassing the rest of the world courtesy of the tax fillip for the current calendar year. But, even 10% EPS growth slated both for next year and 2020, at this later stage in the cycle is nothing less than rock-solid. Thus, relative EPS euphoria is a key pillar of the U.S. equity market's global dominance as, at the margin, global capital has flowed to the growth delta of the U.S. (Chart 3). Chart 2... And So Is The U.S. Dollar Chart 3EPS Also Explains The U.S. Outperformance In more detail, Chart 4 breaks down the MSCI ACWI performance in its major components and makes abundantly clear that the U.S. comes out on top, whereas both its DM and EM peers trail far behind. Keep in mind that the U.S. remains a mostly closed economy (70% PCE driven, top panel, Chart 5) and the ultimate consumer of the world, while Europe and Japan are open economies sporting trade surpluses and levered to net exports (bottom panel, Chart 5). This backdrop is also reflected in country equity composition with the U.S. being the most defensive index compared with its European and Japanese peers that are more cyclically exposed. Chart 4Rest Of The World Bears Brunt Of Trade War Chart 5U.S. Is A Closed Economy Nevertheless, U.S. stocks are not 100% insulated from the Administration's trade policy. Chart 6 shows a bifurcated deep cyclical equity market. Materials and industrials stocks have underperformed the SPX year-to-date as the appreciating greenback has dealt a blow both to the CRB raw industrials and base metals indexes. An exception is energy, which has ground higher as crude oil has up to now escaped the greenback's wrath, but may not do so indefinitely. Chart 6Bifurcated Deep Cyclical Market Tech has been the shining star, but it is also a risk that can bring the SPX down given its hefty 25% plus market capitalization weighting and the highest export exposure among GICS1 sectors at 60% of sales. The purpose of this Special Report is to delve deeper into the current Administration's increasing trade protectionism rhetoric and document if the equity market cares, using empirical evidence. A Unique Entry Into The U.S. National Archives Much hay has been made over Donald Trump's use of Twitter in the White House. Parsing 280 characters that are as likely to reveal a consequential new trade policy or fire a key staffer as they are to complain about news coverage has become sport for pundits and an endless source of fodder for the media. However, at BCA, we are focused on the wealth preservation of our clients. As such, it is incumbent upon us to perform an analysis of the market implications of these tweets in order to determine whether @realDonaldTrump is a source of investable strategies or merely noise. For the purposes of our analysis, we are examining only tweets relating to trade over the past six months (including those subsequently deleted). These should have the broadest stock market impact. They are plentiful, as summarized in Table 1. The Broad Market Does Not Care... Our analysis begins with the S&P 500's performance on the dates noted in Table 1. The result of the analysis (Table 2) is that there is no statistical correlation between the S&P 500's performance on those dates as the market both rose and fell relatively indiscriminately. In other words, the market does not appear to care what Donald Trump is tweeting with respect to trade. The absence of a confirming result is logical; somewhat less than 40% of the S&P 500's revenues are generated overseas, implying limited negative market repercussions from trade rhetoric. Further, the S&P 500 is far more international than the broad U.S. corporate sector. We thus glean two lessons from the analysis: trade rhetoric does not materially impact the stock market and has even less bearing on the health of corporate America. Table 1Trump Tweets About Trade Table 2S&P 500 Reaction To Trade Tweets ...Nor Do Sectors... Still, we presume there must be some market impact from trade rhetoric. Accordingly, we deepened our analysis to the relative performance of the 11 GICS1 sectors vis-à-vis the S&P 500 on the dates noted in Table 1. The results are presented in Table 3. Table 3GICS1 Reaction To Trade Tweets As with the broad market, there appears to be little correlation between internationally-geared indexes and negative trade tweets. S&P technology, the most international of the GICS1 sectors, underperformed in 75% of the iterations but only by an average of 0.1%, hardly significant enough to make a claim that the market was focused on the president's Twitter account. Further, S&P health care, a mostly trade-insulated index, underperformed the same number of times as S&P technology and by a greater amount. We therefore conclude that sectors do not materially react to trade tweets. ...But The International Champions Do Our last effort to find a correlation between Donald Trump's use of Twitter and the stock market's performance met with greater success. We assumed that the trade bellwether stocks would likely have a greater reaction function to negative trade tweets. We accordingly built an equal-weighted index of Apple, Boeing, Caterpillar, General Electric and 3M that we coined "The Internationals". The relative performance of this index is shown in Table 4. Table 4International Stocks Reaction To Trade Tweets The Internationals underperformed the S&P 500 in every iteration we tested. Most notable was on March 22, 2018 when the S&P 500 fell 2.5%, the Internationals underperformed even that low mark by 1.8%. The inference is that market implications of negative trade tweets are largely confined to these few international stocks. Considering their heft (these five stocks comprise 6.5% of the S&P 500's weight), they are largely responsible for weighing on the S&P 500 around trade rhetoric iterations. Conclusions: Rhetoric Matters Less Than Reality Chart 7U.S. Has The Upper Hand The upshot of our analysis is that, aside from a few notable international trade bellwethers, Donald Trump's trade rhetoric does not have material broad market implications. However, negative trade tweets pose a threat to a few of BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy portfolio recommendations, as we maintain high-conviction overweight ratings on the S&P 500 technology hardware, storage & peripherals and S&P 500 construction machinery & heavy trucks indexes. Apple and Caterpillar each represent more than 60% of the weight of these respective indexes. Nevertheless, we think the rhetoric is mostly noise and any impact will likely be transitory. Of much greater importance are the real world impact of tariffs and the potential earnings impact of a decline in global trade and especially a continuation in the U.S. dollar rally. The U.S. dollar appreciation remains the key risk to U.S. Equity Strategy's cyclically-oriented portfolio positioning. Meanwhile, we recently highlighted the U.S. equity sector implications of a mounting U.S./China trade war in a Special Report. In it, we identified service-oriented industries and defense stocks as relative winners should the dispute escalate - both BCA's Geopolitical Strategy and U.S. Equity Strategy are already bullish defense stocks2 - though few stocks would likely be absolute positive performers. Recent news of a new round of U.S. and China talks is a step in the right direction, but as likely to disappoint as to mark the peak of a protectionist cycle. Bottom Line: Empirical evidence suggests that Trump's trade rhetoric has yet to short-circuit the broad U.S. equity market, despite affecting a select few internationally exposed bellwether stocks. The rest of the world has borne the brunt of hawkish trade comments from the U.S. administration Chart 7 that has helped to put a solid bid under the U.S. dollar. We continue to expect an earnings led advance in the S&P 500 in the coming 9-12 months, but are closely monitoring the U.S. currency given the heightened EPS sensitivity. BCA Geopolitical Strategy Housekeeping On a separate housekeeping note, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy is closing its South Korean curve steepener trade for a gain of 0.2%. Instead, to play our constructive view on the Korean peninsula, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy will go long Korean equities relative to Emerging Markets. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com Chris Bowes, Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy chrisb@bcaresearch.com 1 In a similar effort to address the trade deficit with Japan, President Clinton threatened a combination of tariffs, quotas and sanctions on Japanese autos. The culmination was a broad agreement on automotive trade. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated January 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.