Economy

Highlights The USD remains supported by fundamentals, especially now that its late-2016 excesses have been purged. Solid U.S. growth contrasts with weaker growth in the rest of the world, which will incentivize further inflows into the U.S. dollar. Despite this positive cyclical view, the tactical outlook remains risky for dollar bulls. In the immediate term, the euro will benefit from easing Italian tensions and as well as from the dollar's correction, but its six-month outlook remains poor. The AUD could also rebound right now, but any such rally should be used to build further short positions. Feature After a furious rally from February to August, the dollar has been weakening since the middle of last month. Since July, we have been worried that the dollar could stage a bit of a correction,1 but we remained committed to the view that ultimately the greenback would rise further in 2018. It is now time to review whether this thesis still holds. BCA believes that the USD's correction could run through the fall, but that the final quarter of 2018 should still prove a rewarding period for dollar bulls. Ultimately, policy divergences will remain a crucial support for the dollar, especially as EM weakness continues to affect the distribution of growth across the globe. USD: Not Yet Extended The dollar ultimately follows the path implied by its fundamental drivers - whether they are interest rate spreads, growth and inflation differentials, relative equity prices, or even relative money-supply growth. However, the path taken by the USD around its drivers is rather wide, and the dollar regularly overshoots and undershoots the equilibrium implied by the aggregation of all these fundamentals (Chart I-1). Academics call this the "band of agnosticism." Chart I-1The Dollar To Follow Fundamentals Higher This cycle was no exception. BCA's Fundamentals Index for the dollar hooked up in 2011, a move associated with a turning point in the greenback itself. However, the dollar remained in undershoot territory for many years. Then suddenly, in 2014, the coiled spring was released and the dollar surged higher, moving above its "band of agnosticism" in 2015 - a moved exacerbated by the sudden rally that followed the election of Donald Trump in November 2016. Once the dollar had become over-loved, over-owned and expensive, it also became vulnerable. The pick-up in global growth that was so evident in 2017 caused a serious correction in this vulnerable currency. However, the selloff had a positive impact: U.S. growth, interest rates, equities and so on continued to move favorably, and the dollar is now positioned to rebound anew, having purged its most egregious excesses. The global economic backdrop is also positive for the dollar. For one, the theme of monetary divergences is still at play. Boosted by a healthy banking sector, healthy household balance sheets and an untimely fiscal stimulus of 1.7% of GDP, U.S. growth has hit 2.8%, well above potential. Moreover, growth has been above potential for eight years, and now U.S. capacity utilization is at its tightest level since the late 1980s. Historically, so large an absence of slack has been linked to higher U.S. interest rates (Chart I-2). Yet interest rate markets are pricing in roughly four increases over the next 24 months, even as Lael Brainard warned that the Federal Reserve could move beyond the hikes implied by its own forecast, the "dot plots." Chart I-2Tight Capacity Utilization Implies Higher U.S. Rates... The U.S. economy continues to fare well, as U.S. real interest rates remain 60 basis points below neutral rates and the yield curve has yet to invert. However, U.S. rates matter for the rest of the world as well. There, the picture is less pretty. EM dollar debt stands near record levels (Chart I-3). Hence, EM financial conditions have been hit by the combined assault of higher U.S. rates and an appreciating dollar. Nowhere is this clearer than when looking at the interplay between U.S. bond yields and the South African rand or AUD/JPY, a cross highly correlated to EM currencies. This cycle, rising U.S. bond yields have most often been associated with a rising ZAR or a rising AUD/JPY (Chart I-4). However, this time around, as was the case during the May 2013 Taper Tantrum, rising bond yields are linked to these pro-cyclical currency pairs falling. This suggests that rising yields are not reflecting global growth anymore, and are in fact restrictive for the rest of the world, even if they are not a problem for the U.S. Chart I-3... Which Will Hurt EM Economies Chart I-4Higher U.S. Rates Now Hurt Global Growth This inference is underpinned by the decline in BCA's U.S. Financial Liquidity Index, which heralds additional weakness in global growth and commodity prices (Chart I-5). Already we are seeing symptoms of the malaise. Japanese foreign machine tool orders are contracting, and BCA's Asian Leading Economic Indicator is in deep contraction (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Dollar Liquidity Is A Problem For Growth Chart I-6Signs That Global Growth Is Already Suffering A rising fed funds rate and falling ex-U.S. growth is likely to continue to support the dollar. The dollar loves nothing more than falling global growth. The U.S. economy has low exposure to global trade and to the global industrial sector, and therefore when global growth slows, the U.S. economy is relatively insulated from foreign shocks. This means that U.S. rates of return do not suffer as much as foreign ones. This is even truer in the rare instances when global growth slows while U.S. economic activity continues to power ahead, especially when artificially inflated by untimely fiscal stimulus. This is a characterization of the current environment. Hence, money will continue to flow into the U.S. economy on a two- to three-quarter horizon. In fact, portfolio flows into the U.S. remain well below the levels that prevailed during the previous decade (Chart I-7). The current account deficit is also smaller, hence, if net foreign portfolio flows can increase due to the attraction of higher U.S. rates of return, the U.S. balance of payments will move into a greater surplus, creating a strong underpinning for the dollar. This positive cyclical backdrop for the greenback is not without impediments. Most crucially are the short-term dynamics. Since July, we have been warning clients that a tactical correction in the dollar was likely. While EUR/USD has indeed rebounded, most other currencies have displayed rather tepid performances. This does not mean that the tactical risks to the dollar have abated. Quite the opposite, they are rising. As Chart I-8 illustrates, a large buildup in dollar longs has materialized, yet the G10 economic surprise index is making a trough. Moreover, the diffusion index of the BCA Global Leading Economic indicator is also stabilizing. Additionally, USD /CNY has failed to make new highs and the Turkish central bank just raised rates to 24% - which if Argentina is any guide is likely to provide only temporary relief for the TRY. This means that a period of risk-on sentiment in EM could emerge. Stretched dollar positioning, a temporary stabilization in global growth and EM inflows could precipitate a serious correction in the dollar. Chart I-7Dollar Favorable Flows Chart I-8Tactical Risks To The Dollar Bottom Line: The dollar is still supported by potent cyclical tailwinds. The U.S. economy is roaring and at full employment, yet global growth is suffering because global liquidity conditions are deteriorating. Higher rates of return in the U.S. will therefore attract additional capital, supporting the greenback in the process. Despite this positive cyclical backdrop, the short-term outlook is murkier. Speculators have aggressively bought the dollar, leaving them vulnerable to any positive surprises in global growth, even temporary ones. Fade The Euro Rebound The euro has benefited from the cool-off in Italian politics. The populist Five Star Movement / Lega Nord coalition is backing away from a budget confrontation with Brussels, as Giovanni Tria, Italy's minister of finance, wants a 2% budget deficit, while Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini is arguing for a 2.9% budget hole - well south of the 6% levels touted during the campaign. As a result, the spread between Italian BTPs and German bunds has fallen from 193 basis points at the beginning of the month to 150 basis points this week (Chart I-9). Since gyrations in Italian spreads reflect the evolution of the perceived probability that the euro area will fall apart, the fall in the spreads has implied a fall in the euro area-breakup risk premium. This has created a boon for the euro. Another support for the euro emerged yesterday. At his press conference, European Central Bank President Mario Draghi divulged that the ECB has curtailed its growth forecast for 2018 and 2019, but not its inflation forecast. In fact, Draghi went as far as mentioning that his confidence that euro area inflation would move back to target in the medium term has increased. There is no denying that the inflationary backdrop has improved as European wages and labor costs have indeed starting to recover (Chart I-10). However, the picture is not that straightforward. The lagged impact of the previous fall in euro area inflation relative to the U.S. is likely to continue to be felt in EUR/USD moving forward, as has been the case over the past 10 years (Chart I-11). Chart I-9The Euro Area Break Up Risk Premium Is Declining Chart I-10Rising Euro Area Labor Costs Chart I-11Relative Inflation Backdrop Is Still Euro Bearish This risk is compounded by developments in China. As we have often argued, the growth differential between the euro area and China can largely be explained by growth dynamics in China. As Chart I-12 illustrates, when Chinese monetary conditions tighten, or when China's marginal propensity to consume - as approximated by the gap between M1 and M2 - declines, this often leads to underperformance of European economic activity relative to the U.S. Chart I-12AChinese Economy Still Hurting Euro Area Vs U.S. (I) Chart I-12BChinese Economy Still Hurting Euro Area Vs U.S. (II) Today, Chinese monetary conditions have improved somewhat as the Chinese authorities try to combat the shock to the Chinese economy created by the growing trade war between the U.S. and China. However, Matt Gertken, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service's expert on Chinese policy, believes that Chinese policymakers do not intent to actually cause economic growth to pick up. Indeed, they are committed to reform and deleveraging, and only want to limit downside to the Chinese economy.2 Thus, the large growth gap between the U.S. and the euro area is here to stay. As markets absorb news of Chinese stimulus, EUR/USD could rebound toward 1.19, but we are inclined to fade such a rebound. For one, the growth and inflation gap between the U.S. and the euro area remains euro bearish. Additionaly BCA's Central Bank Monitor for the Fed clearly points toward the need to tighten U.S. monetary policy, while our indicator for the ECB points to the need to maintain an extremely loose policy setting in Europe (Chart I-13). With the euro still trading above its intermediate-term fair value estimate (Chart I-14), beyond any short-term rally the euro still possesses ample downside in the fourth quarter. As such, we would use the current rebound in the euro as an opportunity to buy the dollar once again. Chart I-13The U.S. Needs More Tightening, Europe Does Not Chart I-14The Euro Possesses Downside Bottom Line: Falling risk premia in Italy, a pick-up in European wages and signs of stimulus in China are creating some support under the euro. However, European growth and inflation are set to continue to lag well behind the U.S. as China's stimulus is not designed to reverse its deleveraging campaign and boost growth, but instead to limit downside to growth created by the U.S.-China trade war. Hence, we will use the current rebound in the euro and correction in the USD to buy the greenback again in the coming weeks. What's Going On Down Under? In recent months, the Australian economy has managed to generate some impressive numbers on the employment front. However, until recently this was not enough to prompt investors to push the AUD higher. In fact, as recently as Monday, AUD/USD was trading at 0.71. Investors are skeptical about the Australian economy's underlying strength. The NAB Business Confidence for the Next Period has weakened sharply, while mortgage approvals and house prices have also sagged. This suggests that new orders, employment and consumption could follow lower (Chart I-15). This represents a big problem for the Aussie, as our central bank monitor for the Reserve Bank of Australia is already in "easing required" territory (Chart I-16). The RBA will therefore not be able to hike rates any time soon, despite the fact that U.S. interest rates are currently in an uptrend. As such, interest rate differentials between Australia and the U.S. will continue to deteriorate. Chart I-15Australia Is Set To Slowdown Chart I-16China And Australia Are Joined At The Hip Moreover, Australia has been hit directly by the decline in Chinese industrial activity. As Chart I-17 illustrates, Australian exports are a direct function of China's Li-Keqiang index. This has two implications. First, the current rebound in the Li-Keqiang index suggests that investors could bid up the AUD with great alacrity if the USD were to correct further, a thesis we espouse. However, since we do not anticipate the rebound in the Li-Keqiang indicator to have much longevity, nor do we anticipate the greenback's correction to morph into a bear market, this also means that we would use any rebound in the AUD to sell more of it. Beyond China, EM at large still constitutes a risk for AUD/USD. Arthur Budaghyan, our Chief EM strategist, argues that the period of weakness in EM assets has further to run. Our views on the U.S. dollar, on declining global liquidity and on Chinese policy corroborate this assessment. If EM economies slow further, the still-elevated expected long-term growth rate in EM earnings could decline further as well. Since growth expectations on EM EPS are indicative of expected interest rates and terms-of-trade for Australia, this also suggests that the AUD could suffer significant downside in the coming quarters (Chart I-18). Finally, the AUD remains a pricey currency. AUD/USD continues to trade significantly above its purchasing-power-parity fair value, and the real trade-weighted AUD remains above its long-term average (Chart I-19). As such, the AUD does not possess the required valuation cushion to make it a buy in this challenging context. Chart I-17RBA ##br##Cannot Hike Chart I-18EM Has Yet To Be Fully Re-Rated, ##br##And So Does The AUD Chart I-19No Valuation Cushion##br## In The AUD Bottom Line: The Australian economy has posted some solid employment numbers, but the trends in business confidence and the housing market augur poorly. Australian monetary policy will have to remain very loose. Moreover, since China's stimulus is likely to be limited, any rebound in the AUD on the back of a dollar correction should be faded, especially as the Aussie does not offer any valuation cushion. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Time To Pause And Breathe", dated July 6, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "China: How Stimulating is The Stimulus?", dated August 24, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Recent data in the U.S. has been mixed: Average hourly earnings growth outperformed expectations significantly, coming in at 2.9%. Moreover, nonfarm payrolls also surprised to the upside, coming in at 201 thousand, but this was mitigated by large downward revisions to the previous two months. Additionally initial jobless claims surprised positively, coming in at 203 thousand. However, core inflation underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.2%. Finally, DXY has been flat for the past couple of weeks. We continue to be bullish on the dollar on a cyclical basis, as inflationary pressures will continue to accumulate in the U.S., causing the fed to hike more than expected, particularly in 2019. Moreover, high U.S. borrowing cost will likely weigh on global growth, giving an additional boost to the dollar, as the U.S. has a lower beta than other DM economies to the global economic cycle. Report Links: The Dollar And Risk Assets Are Beholden To China’s Stimulus - August 3, 2018 Rhetoric Is Not Always Policy - July 27, 2018 Time To Pause And Breathe - July 6, 2018 Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The Euro Recent data in the euro area has been negative: Both headline and core inflation surprised to the downside, coming in at 2% and 1% respectively. Moreover, industrial production yearly growth also surprised to the downside, coming in at -0.1%. Finally, retail sales yearly growth also underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.1%. EUR/USD has been flat the past two weeks. Yesterday, however the market rallied as the ECB confirmed that it expects to wind down its bond-buying program. Nevertheless, it also lowered growth forecast for this year and next. We continue to believe that the euro will have downside until the end of the year, as a policy and regulatory tightening in China will weigh on the global industrial cycle, to which Europe is highly levered. 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 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 The Yen Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Tokyo ex fresh food inflation outperformed expectations, coming in at 0.9%. Moreover, overall household spending yearly growth also surprised positively, coming in at 0.1%. However, labor cash earnings yearly growth underperformed expectations substantially, coming in at 1.5%. Finally, Markit Services PMI surprised to the downside, coming in at 51.5. USD/JPY has been flat the past couple of weeks. Overall, we are bullish on the yen against the euro and the commodity currencies, as the tightening in monetary policy in the U.S. as well as in China should create a risk off environment where safe heavens like the yen benefits and cyclical currencies suffer. Report Links: Rhetoric Is Not Always Policy - July 27, 2018 Updating Our Long-Term FX Fair Value Models - June 22, 2018 Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 British Pound Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Average hourly earnings yearly growth excluding and including bonuses both came in above expectations, at 2.9% and 2.6% respectively. Moreover, Markit Services PMI also outperformed expectations, coming in at 54.3. However, industrial production surprised to the downside, coming in at 0.9%. Finally, nationwide housing prices yearly growth also surprised negatively, coming in at 2%. GBP/USD has rallied by roughly 0.5% the past couple of weeks. We believe that the pound could have some short term upside, as positioning continues to be significantly bearish. That being said, we are bearish on the pound on a cyclical basis, particularly against the yen. At this moment, the pound does not appear to have much of a geopolitical risk premium embedded in its price. Thus, any turbulence in the Brexit negotiations could result in significant downside for the GBP. 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 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Australian Dollar Recent data in Australia has been mixed: Gross domestic product yearly growth came in above expectations, at 3.4%. However, building permits month-on-month growth surprised to the downside, coming in at -5.2%. Finally, the RBA Commodity Index SDR yearly growth surprised positive, coming in at 6.7%. After a bout of pronounced weakness, AUD/USD has been flat for the past couple of weeks. We believe that the Australian dollar has further downside particularly against the yen and the dollar. Australia's economy is very sensitive to the Chinese industrial cycle, as iron ore is Australia's main commodity export. However, the overleveraged industrial complex is precisely the economic sector where Chinese policymakers want to rein in credit excesses. This will curb industrial activity in China, and hurt the economies of commodity supplies like Australia. 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 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 New Zealand Dollar Recent data in New Zealand has been mixed: Retail sales and retail sales ex autos yearly growth both outperformed expectations, coming in at 1.1% and 1.4% respectively. Moreover, the trade balance also surprised to the upside, coming in at -4.4 billion dollars/ However, the terms of trade Index underperformed expectations, coming in at 0.6%. NZD/USD has fallen by roughly 0.8% against the dollar for the past couple of weeks. We continue to be bearish on kiwi on a cyclical basis. The combination of high U.S. rates and deleveraging in China will weigh on carry currencies like the NZD. Furthermore, we also hold a bearish view on a structural basis, given that the new government has vowed to curb immigration and add an unemployment mandate to the RBNZ, both developments which are negative for the currency. 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 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Canadian Dollar Recent data in Canada has been mixed: Both core and headline inflation outperformed expectations, coming in at 1.6% and 3% respectively. Moreover, manufacturing shipments month-on-month growth also outperformed expectations, coming in at 1.1%. However, retail sales month-on-month growth surprised to the downside, coming in at -0.2%. USD/CAD has been flat for the past couple of weeks. We are short this cross as a hedge to our dollar bullish view, as inflationary pressures in Canada remain strong. Moreover, the CAD will continue to outperform the AUD, as the divergence between Canada's and Australia's main export markets- China and the U.S. - will persist. 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 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Swiss Franc Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: Gross domestic product yearly growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 3.4%. The SVME PMI also surprised to the upside, coming in at 64.8. However, the KOF leading indicator surprised negatively, coming in at 100.3. Finally, real retail sales growth also underperformed expectations, coming in at -0.3%. EUR/CHF has risen by roughly 0.5% this past two weeks. We continue to be bearish on the franc on a long-term basis, as inflationary pressures in Switzerland are still too weak for the SNB to remove its accommodative monetary policy, or stop its currency intervention. That being said, the CHF could experience some short term upside if the sell-off in emerging markets continues. 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 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Norwegian Krone Recent data in Norway has been mixed: Both headline and core inflation outperform expectations, coming in at 3.4% and 1.9%. Moreover, the Labour Force survey also surprised to the upside, coming in at 3.9%. However, retail sales growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 0.7%. USD/NOK has fallen by nearly 2% over the last two weeks. We are bullish on the NOK against other commodity currencies like the AUD and the NZD. This is because oil will likely outperform within the commodity space. After all, Our commodity strategist have explained at length why political risk in Iraq and Venezuela could cause a shortage of supply in the oil markets, while Chinese deleveraging in the industrial sector will weigh on base metal demand. 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 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Swedish Krona Recent data in Sweden has been mixed: Retail sales yearly growth surprised to the downside, coming in at -1.2%. However, consumer confidence outperformed expectations, coming in at 102.6. The krona has been the best performing currency during the past two weeks, with USD/SEK falling by roughly 2% over this period. At the moment we continue to be bullish USD/SEK, as the krona is the most sensitive currency to the dollar's strength. However, on a longer term basis, we believe that inflationary pressures in Sweden will ultimately force the Riskbank to hike more than the market expects, providing support for the SEK. 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 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights The recent improvement in China's housing data has been mainly driven by the central bank's direct lending to the real estate sector. This improvement is unlikely to last, as the authorities are scaling down this form of financing. Structural imbalances remain acute in the Chinese real estate market, and the path of least resistance is still down. Diminishing direct financing from the central bank, low affordability, slowing rural-to-urban migration, the promotion of the housing rental market and the government's continuing emphasis on clamping down speculation will all lead to weaker property sales over the next 12 months. Both weakening sales and tightening funding sources for real estate developers point to declining growth of property starts and construction. This will be negative for construction-related commodity markets (steel, cement, copper, aluminum and glass) and construction-related machinery. Stay neutral Chinese versus global stocks and favor low-beta sectors within the Chinese investable universe. Avoid Chinese property developers, though favor large versus small. Feature Chart 1Property Sales And Starts: Will Recent Growth Acceleration Continue? BCA's China Investment Strategy service has argued for the better part of the past year that China's old economy has been in the midst of a benign, controlled slowdown. Since then, our leading indicators have continued to deteriorate, and now China is facing a potentially significant shock to its export sector due to U.S. policy. This has caused many investors to focus on domestic demand, and whether there are any meaningful signs of improvement that could act as a reflationary bridge for the economy to weather the looming external shock. We have argued that housing has stood out as the best potential candidate for a domestic demand upturn and, at first blush, recent data suggests that a material uptrend in activity may be in the cards1 (Chart 1). However, in this report, we argue that the central bank's direct lending to the real estate sector has been the major force behind the recent improvement in the housing data, and will be unwinding. Barring new policy measures, the improvement is unlikely to last. What Has Driven Housing Sales? Chart 2Chinese Housing Monetization Policy: The Main Driver Of Property Market Since 2015 The growth acceleration in both floor space sold and floor space started, shown in Chart 1, warrants scrutiny of the Chinese property market. Will housing sales and starts growth continue to accelerate as it did in 2013 and 2016, or are the most recent gains just a temporary rebound? To answer this question, one needs to understand China's pledged supplementary lending (PSL) scheme, which refers to China's central bank's direct lending to the real estate market. In this report, we also use "housing monetization policy" as an interchangeable term to the "PSL scheme." Our research suggests that the central bank's PSL injections have been the major determinant of sales and prices in the Chinese real estate market over the past three years (Chart 2). The People's Bank of China (PBoC) injected 698 billion RMB in 2015 and 971 billion RMB in 2016 in the form of PSL injections into the real estate market as part of its attempts to revive the property market. The massive fund injection boosted floor space sold from a deep contraction in 2015 to a 30% year-over-year growth rate in 2016. This burst in sales volume drove up already-elevated housing prices even higher. In 2017, the government shrank the PSL amount by 35% and implemented other tightening policies to cool down the domestic property market. As a result, both property price growth and floor space sold growth decelerated significantly. Both floor space started growth and floor space sold growth bottomed last October as PSL injections re-accelerated again in November 2017. The most recent acceleration was also mainly because of the front-loaded PSL injection program, which was ramped back up 4.8% year-on-year in the first five months of 2018. In general, it takes several months for PSL lending to make its way into final purchase of properties. Clearly the PSL program has been responsible for boosting housing sales in the past three years. So, how does the PSL scheme work, and will it continue to boost property sales going forward? PSL = Housing Monetization Chart 3 illustrates how the PSL scheme works. The government designed the policy in 2014 with two objectives in mind: supplying sufficient funds for slum area reconstruction (also called shantytown redevelopment) and de-stocking the housing market. The PSL facility allows the PBoC to lend funds earmarked for slum area reconstruction to the three policy banks (China Development Bank, Agricultural Development Bank of China and Export-Import Bank of China) at very low interest rates. These policy banks in turn lend directly to local governments (mainly in tier-2 and smaller cities). Chart 3How Does Chinese Housing Monetization Scheme work? From there, to buy the land from slum owners, the local government can adopt one of three approaches: Give cash directly to slum owners in exchange for their land, and then the owners can go to real estate developers to buy properties; Use the funds to pay property developers for their existing housing inventories, and then use the purchased properties to exchange the land with slum owners; A combination of 1 and 2. This policy has empowered the PBoC to be able to inject a significant amount of liquidity directly into the Chinese property market. Consequently, the PSL scheme has boosted floor space sold as well as facilitated floor space started by providing more funds to real estate developers. The PSL program has been the main reason why housing inventories have dropped since 2015. Our calculations indicate that about 20% of floor space sold (in volume terms) in 2017 was due to the PSL facility designed for slum area reconstruction (Chart 4). Various reports have also suggested that, for some cities with strong monetization policies, this ratio has reached over 50%. Deposits and advance payments of property sales, which closely correlates with floor space sold, is the major source of funds available for real estate investment (Chart 5). It has contributed 30-40% of total fund growth every year in the past three years. Chart 4Housing Monetization: The Main Driver For Property Sales Since 2015 Chart 5More Property Sales = More Fund Inflows To Property Developers Last year, in RMB terms, PSL injections were equivalent to 94% of the annual increase in deposits and advance payments. Looking forward, while we do not think the government will completely halt the PSL scheme, we do believe the monetization scale is set to diminish considerably over the next 12 months: First, since this past June, when the central bank signaled it would restrict the scale of monetization, the year-over-year growth of PSL injections has already declined three months in a row with 36% contraction for the period from June-August from a year ago. Chart 6Destocking Is At Late Stage Second, in the government's 2018-2020 slum area reconstruction plan, the authorities aim to reconstruct 15 million units of flats. This year's goal is 5.8 million units, leaving 9.2 million units for the two years of 2019 and 2020 combined. Assuming an equal split of 9.2 million flats over the next two years, this will imply that the number of flats for the slum area reconstruction will decline to 4.6 million units in 2019, a 20% drop from this year's 5.8 million units. Third, the monetization policy has already successfully reduced residential inventories by 42% from their peak, based on the government's measure of property inventories (defined as completed and waiting for sale) (Chart 6). Lastly, if there had been no PSL scheme, the Chinese housing market and economy would have been much weaker. In this aspect, the policy was beneficial. However, it has had unintended consequences: The country's property bubble has become even more inflated. Overall, our view is that the authorities are likely to scale down the scheme. Bottom Line: Recent improvement in the housing data - mainly driven by the government's PSL scheme - is unlikely to last. The scale of housing monetization (i.e., PSL injections) will diminish. Structural Imbalances With diminishing tailwinds from the housing PSL program, will any other drivers emerge to boost floor space sales and started growth? We are quite pessimistic. Structural imbalances remain acute in the Chinese real estate market, suggesting the path of least resistance for the market is still down. The outlook for property sales growth Beyond the prospect of diminishing housing monetization over the next 12 months, structural factors including falling affordability, slowing rural-to-urban migration, demographic changes, the promotion of the rental market and the government's continuing emphasis on clamping down on speculation will all lead to weaker property sales. House prices in China remain extremely high relative to disposable income. Using the NBS 70-city residential average price, our calculation shows that it will take an average two-income household 11 years of disposable income to buy a 90-square-meter (equivalent to 970 square feet) house at current prices, much higher than the same ratio in the U.S. (Chart 7). With respect to the ability to service mortgage payments, on a 90-square-meter house with a 20% down payment, our calculations show that annual interest costs account for nearly half of average household disposable income levels (again, assuming a two-income household) (Table 1). Chart 7Poor Affordability For Chinese Home Buyers Table 1House Price-To-Income Ratios And Affordability A joint report released by the central bank and the finance department shows that the number of delinquent mortgages on housing provident funds2 - loans that are much cheaper than market mortgage loans - rose by 35% year over year last year, validating the extremely poor affordability of Chinese properties. The pace of urbanization is slowing (Chart 8). The number of individuals moving from rural areas to cities as a percentage of the urban population is decreasing. Net migration as a share of the urban population has fallen to 2% today. Overall urban population growth has slowed below 3%. The Chinese population is aging rapidly. The proportion of citizens who are over the age of 65 has risen from 8% of the population in 2007 to 11.4% as of last year, larger than the 10 to 19-year-old age group, which accounts for only 10.5% of the total population. Given Chinese life expectancy is currently at about 76 years, over the next 10 to 15 years the former cohort will leave a large number of houses to the latter cohort, most of whom will get married with high demand for shelter but likely little need to buy due to inheritance. This also indicates the number of second-hand properties available for either rent or sale will rise. The government is currently aiming to develop the domestic rental market. For example, the authorities are encouraging the private sector to convert excess office and commercial buildings and/or use currently empty apartments for housing rentals. President Xi Jinping's mantra that "housing is for living in, not for speculation" - proclaimed in December 2016 - remains the focal point of the government's current policies. Chart 8China: Slowing Pace Of Urbanization Chart 9Tightening Funding Sources For Chinese Property Developers The outlook for property starts growth Falling growth of sold area and the authorities' current de-leveraging focus all point to declining growth of floor space started. Real estate developers need funds to invest in and develop new buildings. Their main source of funds includes deposits and advance payments from property sales, bank loans, foreign investment (i.e., foreign borrowings and foreign direct investment), self-raised (i.e., equity financing), and capital raised through bond issuance. The government's current deleveraging focus has led to a sharp drop in bank loans and foreign investment for domestic real estate developers (Chart 9). In such an environment, developers have been facing increasing difficulty raising funds through issuing bonds - bond issuance both on- and offshore have plunged this year. Diminishing housing monetization will also slow fund growth from property sales. Hence, weakening sales and tightening financing sources available for investment entail floor space starts growth should decelerate. There are several signs suggesting unsustainability of the recent growth acceleration in floor space started. Excluding land purchases, real estate investment has showed contraction across the board - from construction and installation to equipment purchases (Chart 10). Despite the strong growth of floor space started, this may indicate the strength of actual construction activity of recent new starts has actually been weak due to slowing pace of construction because of lack of funds. Otherwise, strong floor space started growth should coincide with robust growth in non-land real estate investment. For projects under construction, completed floor space has also been in deep contraction across the board - from residential to commercial, office and others (Chart 11). This again signals that property developers are slowing the pace of construction. This could also be due to deficient financing. For the first seven months of this year, seven provinces (Jiangsu, Shandong, Hunan, Guizhou, Guangdong, Chongqing, and Fujian), which account for only about 40% of total national floor space started, contributed 80% of floor space started year over year growth. There were still 11 provinces experiencing contraction in floor space started so far this year. This suggests the breadth of the latest improvement in sales has been weak. Chart 10Real Estate Investment Ex. Land: Falling Across Board Chart 11Property Completed: Falling Across Board Moreover, for all these seven provinces, only this year floor space started growth has surpassed floor space sold growth (Chart 12). Chart 12AProperty Starts Growth Looks Shaky Chart 12BProperty Starts Growth Looks Shaky This raises questions on the sustainability of the recent growth acceleration in floor space started. Our bet is that the lagging relationship between floor space started and floor space sold is still valid. If our projection of weaker demand materializes, floor space started growth will likely soon fall back. Bottom Line: Structural imbalances in the Chinese real estate market point to a downtrend in both floor space sold growth and floor space started growth. Investment Implications From a macro perspective, it is unlikely that housing will act as a significant reflationary offset for the economy without a notable reversal on several policies described above (and then a lag for flow-through to real economy). This suggests that the primary trend for Chinese stock prices and CNY-USD remains captive to the ongoing U.S./China trade war. Stay neutral on Chinese stocks versus global equities and favor low-beta sectors within the Chinese investable universe. In addition, we can also draw the following investment strategy conclusions: Construction-related commodity markets (steel, cement, copper, aluminum and glass) and construction-related machinery may have more downside (Chart 13). As Chinese property developers' stocks are facing rising downside risks, we suggest avoiding Chinese property developers. However, China may have intense consolidation in its real estate market, so some large property developers may outperform. The fundamentals in the U.S. housing market are much better than in China. While rising U.S. interest rates could be a headwind for U.S. homebuilders' share prices, they stand to resume their outperformance versus Chinese property developers (Chart 14). Chart 13Commodities Prices Still Face Downside Risks Chart 14Chinese Property Developers Equities: More Downside Ahead Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy EllenJ@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports "Is China's Housing Market Stabilizing?", dated February 8, 2018, "China: A Low-Conviction Overweight", dated May 2, 2018, "11 Charts To Watch", dated May 30, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The housing provident fund is a long-term housing savings plan made up of compulsory monthly deposits by both employers and employees. It aims to help middle and low-income workers meet their housing needs. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights A sovereign debt default in Argentina is unlikely in the next 12 months, the primary reason being IMF financing. The peso and the stock market appear close to two standard deviations cheap. Consequently, it makes sense to argue that financial market adjustments in Argentina are probably advanced, and investors should avoid temptation to become more bearish. However, we are not yet comfortable taking unhedged bets. For fixed income and currency investors, we recommend the following relative positions: short Brazilian / long Argentine sovereign credit, and long Argentine peso / short Brazilian real. Feature Chart I-1The Argentine Peso Is Cheap Argentine financial markets have plunged dramatically, and the question is whether the country is heading into another sovereign default. Argentina has defaulted eight times and devalued its currency many times in the past 60 years. Hence, odds of a government debt default cannot be dismissed lightly. This is also a valid question, given that Argentina's foreign currency public debt stands at $220 billion, and that after the latest currency devaluation, it is equal to 71 % of GDP. Total public (foreign and local currency) debt stands at 87% of GDP. Yet, our assessment is that a sovereign debt default is not likely in the next 12 months because of IMF financing. The latter will be ready to increase the size of its funding to Argentina's current government, if needed, for both political and economic reasons. The IMF has a good working relationship with Argentine President Mauricio Macri's government, which is packed with orthodox economists who share the IMF's philosophies. Besides, the U.S. administration will welcome IMF financial support for Argentina, as it will not want the latter country to request credit lines from China, like it did under its previous government. Given that a sovereign debt default is likely to be avoided in the next 12 months before Macri's current term expires, should investors buy Argentine financial assets? On one hand, the currency seems to have become quite cheap - Chart I-1 illustrates that the peso's real effective exchange rate has plunged close to 40% below its fair value. On the other hand, both the near-term domestic outlook and broader EM dynamics remain risky. What Went Wrong? Argentina's woes this year have been due to excessive reliance on foreign financing as well as tardy fiscal tightening. The government had been delaying crucial fiscal tightening due to political considerations. Further, it used its access to global capital markets last year to raise an immense amount of foreign funds to finance its ballooning fiscal deficit. In particular, portfolio net inflows amounted to $35 billion in 2017 amid the buying frenzy in emerging markets (Chart I-2). Meantime, net FDI inflows were meager. The outstanding amount of portfolio debt securities and portfolio equity investment owned by foreigners has risen sharply since Macri's government came to power in December 2015 (Chart I-3). The most recent data points on this chart are as of the end of March 2018. Hence, they do not incorporate security liquidations that have occurred by foreigners since that time. Chart I-2Argentina: Heavy Reliance On##br## Foreign Portfolio Flows Chart I-3Securities Holdings By Foreigners Have ##br##Surged Since Macri's Election In brief, Macri's government relied on plentiful global portfolio flows into EM to finance the country's large fiscal deficit in 2016 and 2017. As soon as foreign portfolio inflows into EM reversed, Argentina immediately began to feel the punch. Some commentators blame the central bank for excessive money printing, and have recommended Argentina dollarizing its economy: i.e., adopting the U.S dollar.1 These accusations and recommendations are misplaced and misguided. In the short term, commercial banks have expanded their loans aggressively in the past 18 months (Chart I-4). This is what has contributed to the peso's plunge. The central bank was late to hike interest rates accommodating this credit binge and the collapse in the exchange rate value was the price to be paid for this mistake. From a structural perspective, however, local currency broad money (M3) supply in Argentina is not excessive at all. It is equal to mere 24% of GDP, which is a very low ratio compared to Turkey's 52%, Brazil's 90% and China's 240% (Chart I-5). Therefore, there has structurally been no excessive money creation. Chart I-4Private Credit Boom This Year Chart I-5Money Supply Is Not Excessive In Argentina The currency meltdown can be attributed to persistent hyperinflation that makes residents reluctant to hold and save in pesos. Inflation is a structural problem in Argentina, and it is not due to excessive demand, but rather due to lack of supply. Structural supply deficiency - the inability of the economy to produce goods and services efficiently - is the primary reason for structurally high inflation and large current account deficits. Each time demand recovers in Argentina, it can only be satisfied by ballooning imports and a widening current account deficit since domestic production/supply is weak. Chronic supply deficiency can be cured by structural reforms, though it will take years to show progress. It cannot be solved by fiscal and monetary policies within a year or two. Painful Adjustments Are In The Making In near term, the currency will remain volatile but over the next six months, it will likely find a floor because of the following. First, the nation's foreign debt obligations (FDO) will drop from $68 billion this year to $40 billion in 2019 (Chart I-6, top panel). This will alleviate pressure on the balance of payments that has been severe this year. Therefore, the outlook for foreign funding should improve over the next year. The negotiated new tranche from the IMF of about $30-35 billion will cover a considerable portion of Argentina's foreign funding needs over the next 16 months. If more funding is required, the IMF will likely provide it as well. Second, in the past year the government has already been reducing its primary fiscal spending - i.e. excluding interest payments on public debt (Chart I-7). The crisis has forced Macri's government to slash public expenditures more aggressively. In recent weeks alone the government announced cuts in several government ministries and raised taxes on exports of agricultural goods. Overall, the primary deficit target for 2019 has been revised in from -1.3% of GDP to a balanced budget (Chart I-8). Chart I-6Argentina: Lower Foreign Debt ##br##Obligations Due Next Year Chart I-7Argentina: Government Spending Has##br## Been Substantially Curtailed Chart I-8Argentina: No Primary ##br##Fiscal Deficit In 2019 The key risk to this target is government revenues that may underwhelm because the economy is in a major recession. If this occurs, additional spending cuts are likely. This is bad for the economy, but if the government implements these expenditure cuts it will be positive for the currency and government creditors. Third, the current account and trade balances will improve in the next 12 months as the peso's plunge and higher interest rates are already crashing domestic demand and imports (Chart I-9). Imports of both consumer and capital goods are already plunging, and total imports will likely drop by at least 30-35% in the next 12 months (Chart I-10). Finally, given the peso's 50% plunge this year, inflation is set to surge. Based on the regression of inflation on the exchange rate, consumer price inflation could reach 55% by year end (Chart I-11). This will impair household purchasing power - erode their income in real terms - as the government will likely maintain the growth ceiling of 13% for minimum wages in 2018. The minimum wage serves as a benchmark for wage negotiations nationwide. In real terms, wage diminution will reinforce a contraction in consumer spending. Chart I-9Argentina: Current Account Balance ##br##Was Unsustainably Wide Chart I-10Argentina: Imports Are##br## Set To Plummet Chart I-11Argentina: Inflation Will Surge##br## To About 50% In a nutshell, the unfolding crash in domestic demand will cap inflation next year. Bottom Line: A dramatic domestic demand retrenchment (a major recession) along with lower foreign debt obligations in 2019 will reduce the country's foreign funding requirements next year. Besides, the IMF will likely disburse the remaining $35 billion in the next 16 months. It will, in our opinion, also be disposed to providing additional funding to avoid a public debt default in Argentina in the next 12 months at least. In this vein, investors should be asking whether the peso and asset prices have become sufficiently cheap to warrant bottom-fishing. What Is Priced In? There is little doubt that economic growth and corporate profits in Argentina will be disastrous in the months ahead. Nevertheless, financial markets have already crashed and investors should be looking to make a judgment on whether the peso, equities and sovereign credit are cheap enough to warrant bottom-fishing. We have the following observations: Currency: The peso is about 40% below its fair value, according to our valuation model (Chart 1 on page 1). This model is built using the real effective exchange rate (REER) based on consumer and producer prices. Previous episodes of devaluation drove the peso's REER 40-55% below its fair value. Hence, there still could be up to 15% of downside in the REER or in the peso's total return adjusted for carry. However, from a big-picture perspective, the peso may not be too far from bottoming in real inflation-adjusted terms. This does not mean that the nominal exchange rate will appreciate. It entails that the peso will bottom in real terms or adjusted for the carry (on a total return basis). Stocks: The aggregate Argentine equity index has plunged by 60% in dollar terms, and bank stocks have dropped by 75% in dollar terms. As a result, our cyclically adjusted P/E ratio has fallen to 5 for the overall bourse and to 3 for bank stocks (Chart I-12A & Chart I-12B). Chart I-12AOverall Equities Are Cheap... Chart I-12B... As Are Bank Stocks Yet there might be a tad more downside before these cyclically-adjusted P/E ratios reach two standard deviations below their fair value. Furthermore, if we were to compare the magnitude of the crash in Argentine share prices relative to the Asian crisis (specifically, Thailand and Korea), there seems to be further downside in Argentine equities (Chart I-13). Sovereign credit: Argentine sovereign credit spreads have reached 850 basis points (Chart I-14, top panel), which is 450 basis points wider than the spread for the aggregate EM benchmark (Chart I-14, bottom panel), but they are still well below their 2013 highs. Clearly valuations are not yet sufficiently attractive in the credit space to warrant bottom-fishing. However, assuming our call that the IMF will do everything to preclude a public debt default, at least in the next 12 months, sovereign credit spreads may not widen excessively from current levels. Chart I-13There Is More Downside When Compared With Asian Crisis Chart I-14Sovereign Credit Spreads: Absolute And Relative To EM Investment Conclusions The peso and stock market appear close to two standard deviations cheap. Consequently, it makes sense to argue that financial market adjustments in Argentina are probably advanced, and that investors should avoid the temptation to become more bearish. For investors who own the currency, stocks, or sovereign credit, and can withstand further volatility, it likely makes sense to stay the course. Even though the economy has entered yet another major recession, investors should keep in mind that financial markets are forward looking and may have already priced in a major economic contraction. In the equity space, we will wait before recommending a long position in the overall market or in bank stocks, as disastrous corporate profits could produce a final down leg in share prices. Our negative view on EM risk assets also argues for being patient. In the sovereign credit space, we are not yet comfortable taking a unhedged absolute bet, and continue to recommend maintaining the following relative position: short Brazilian / long Argentine sovereign credit (Chart I-15). Chart I-15Argentina Versus Brazil: Sovereign Credit Spreads Relative to Argentina, Brazil's financial markets are expensive at a time when Brazil's macro fundamentals and politics are problematic. We discussed our view on Brazil in detail in our July 27, 2018 Special Report,2 and will not repeat it here. Our recommendation - from January 16th 2017 - of buying Argentine long-dated local currency bonds has incurred large losses. We are closing this position and opening a new trade going long the peso to earn the high carry at the front end of the curve. The high carry could provide enough downside protection. Yet we do not have strong conviction as to whether the peso has reached an ultimate bottom. Therefore, we recommend a relative currency trade: long Argentine peso / short Brazilian real. This trade has a 35% positive carry, and certainly the selloff in the Argentine peso is far more advanced than that of the real. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to Wall Street Journal article entitled: Argentina Needs to Dollarize, dated September 10th 2018. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Brazil: Faceoff Time," dated July 27, 2018, available on page 18. South African Rand: Engulfed In A Downward Spiral? 13 September 2018 Chart II-1Risks Are To The Downside For The Rand From the beginning of 2016 to early 2018, the South African rand enjoyed various tailwinds: rising metal prices, an improving trade balance, strong foreign portfolio inflows and lastly, hopes that the new president Ramaphosa would implement structural reforms, in turn enhancing the country's structural backdrop. These tailwinds have turned into headwinds since early this year and seem likely to persist. Hence, we believe the rand will remain in a downward spiral for now. First and foremost, metal prices have been under serious downward pressure. Typically, they correlate with the South African rand. Chart II-1 illustrates our new indicator for the rand, which is calculated as the annual growth rate in metal prices minus South Africa's broad money (M3) impulse. When the indicator drops below zero, like it has done recently, the rand tends to sell-off. In short, the bear market in the rand is not yet over. The broad money impulse in this indicator serves as a proxy for underlying domestic demand, and hence, import growth. Also, we use the average of the Goldman Sachs industrial and precious metal price indexes for metal prices. The latter is used as a proxy for export growth. Worryingly, not only export prices are plummeting but export volumes are also weak and mining production is contracting (Chart II-2). As a result, the trade and current account deficits will widen again. Chart II-3 illustrates that the rand depreciates when the annual change in trade balance turns down. It will be difficult for South Africa to finance its widening trade and current account deficits given the poor global backdrop and the slowing fund flows to EM. Since 2013, foreign capital inflows have by and large been comprised of volatile portfolio inflows rather than stable foreign direct investments (Chart II-4). Presently, the gap between the two stands at its widest in history. Additionally, foreign ownership of domestic bonds remains extremely elevated. Our big picture view is that the liquidation in EM financial markets will persist and foreign investors in South African domestic bonds will be under pressure to reduce their holdings or hedge their currency risk exposure. Chart II-2Mining Output ##br##Is Shrinking Chart II-3Trade Balance Momentum Points ##br## To Currency Depreciation Chart II-4Excessive Reliance On ##br##Foreign Portfolio Inflows Politics served as a justification for investors to buy South African risk assets at the start of the year. We downplayed that optimism back then and still remain negative on politics today. Ramaphosa has recently endorsed a constitutional change that would allow the confiscation of land without compensation. Whether this policy will actually materialize and get implemented is impossible to know. That said, as outlined in our June 28 2017 Special Report entitled South Africa: Crisis of Expectations,3 our fundamental political analysis suggests that the median voter in South Africa will continue favoring populism. As such, populist policies are likely to continue being proposed to appease the ANC base, and some of them might be implemented. Constant pressure on the ANC from South Africa's far-left political party Economic Freedom Fighters, before next year's election, entails a very low likelihood that painful structural reforms will be enacted. As such, the productivity outlook will remain poor for now. On the fiscal front, there has been little to no improvement since Ramaphosa assumed office in February of this year (Chart II-5). In terms of valuation, South African risk assets are not particularly attractive at the moment. The rand is not very cheap (Chart II-6) and neither are equities (Chart II-7). Odds are that the rand will become as cheap as in 2015 based on its real effective exchange rate - before a bottom is reached. Chart II-5There Has Been No Improvement##br## In Fiscal Accounts Chart II-6The Rand Will Likely Get ##br##Cheaper Before It Bottoms Chart II-7South African Equities##br## Are Not Cheap Yet Putting all these factors together, the path of least resistance for South African risk assets is down. We recommend EM dedicated equity and fixed-income (both local currency and sovereign credit) investors to maintain an underweight allocation on South Africa. We also continue recommending shorting general retailer stocks. For currency traders, we suggest maintaining the following trades: short ZAR vs. USD and short ZAR vs. MXN. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy & Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights An inflation scare would initially take bond yields higher. But the higher bond yields would undermine the valuation support of global risk-assets worth several times the size of the global economy. Thereby, an inflation scare could unleash a potentially much larger disinflationary scare. And the subsequent decline in yields would exceed the original rise. Using the 10-year T-bond yield for our roadmap (because it is least impacted by the lower bound to yields) a short trip to the uplands of 3.5% would precede a longer journey down to 2%. Feature The global long bond yield has been trapped within a tight sideways channel for almost two years (Chart of the Week); the global equity market has also lacked any clear direction in recent quarters (Chart I-2). The result is that this year's defining feature for asset-class returns is that there is no defining feature! Global equities, bonds and cash have delivered near-identical returns.1 Chart Of The WeekThe Global Long Bond Yield ##br##Has Been Trapped Chart I-2World Equities Have Drifted ##br##Sideways This Year This is not to say that 2018 has been a dull year for investors. Far from it. But all the action has been underneath the main asset allocation decision, across sectors, regions and countries. For example, European healthcare has outperformed European banks by 35 percent; and developed market equities have outperformed emerging market equities by 15 percent (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Main Action Has Been Across Sectors... Chart I-4...And Across Regions Unshackling Bond Yields Might Be Difficult In the major developed economies, unemployment rates keep hitting new generational lows, implying that the main labour markets are tight. Yet policy interest rates range from a crisis-level negative 0.4 percent in the euro area to just 0.75 percent in the U.K. to a modest 2 percent in the U.S. This raises the potential for an inflation scare. At any moment, the bond market might panic that central banks are well behind the (Phillips) curve.2 The spike in bond yields would of course unleash a countervailing disinflationary feedback, by cooling credit growth and credit-sensitive sectors in the economy. But this feedback would take weeks or months to take effect and to show up in the economic data. Until then, it would liberate bond yields to reach higher ground. However, there would be a more powerful and immediate feedback which would keep the shackles on bond yields. That feedback would come not from the economy, but from the financial markets themselves. In Finance 101, all investment students learn that the valuations of risk-assets depend (inversely) on bond yields. But what is less well understood is that at very low bond yields this relationship becomes exponential. Approaching the lower bound of bond yields, bonds become doubly ugly. Not only do they offer feeble returns, but the bond returns take on an unattractive asymmetry. Specifically, you can no longer make a sudden large gain, but you can still suffer a sudden deep loss. In effect, bonds become much riskier investments.3 Confronted with this increased riskiness of bonds, 'risk-assets' becomes a misnomer because risk-assets are no longer riskier than bonds! This requires risk-asset returns to collapse to the feeble return offered by bonds with no additional 'risk-premium', giving their valuations an exponential uplift (Chart I-5). The big problem is that if bond yields normalise, the process goes into sharp reverse - the lofty valuations of risk-assets must decline as exponentially as they rose. Chart I-5At Low Bond Yields ##br##The Valuation Of Equities Changes Exponentially The global bond yield appears close to this crossover point at which risk-asset valuations become vulnerable to an exponential derating. In the past year, whenever the global bond yield has reached the upper limits of its recent range - defined by the sum of 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund, and JGB reaching 3.5 percent - the correlation between bond yields and equities has turned sharply negative (Chart I-6). And the subsequent sell-off in equities has eventually pegged back the rise in bond yields, effectively trapping them. Chart I-6At Higher Bond Yields The Correlation With Equity Prices Has Flipped From Positive To Negative But what would happen if there were an inflation scare? The answer depends on the relative sizes of the inflationary impulse compared with the disinflationary impulse that resulted from sharply lower risk-asset prices. If central banks were more concerned about the inflationary impulse, they would have to keep tightening - in which case, bond yields would be liberated to reach elevated territory. Conversely, if the bigger worry was the disinflationary impulse, central banks would quickly reverse course, and bond yields would return to the lowlands. We now explain why the disinflationary impulse from lower risk-asset prices would end up as the bigger worry. An Inflation Scare Would Be Disinflationary The current episode of elevated risk-asset valuations is not unprecedented, but there is a crucial difference. Previous episodes of elevated risk-asset valuations tended to be localised, either by geography or sector: 1990 was focussed in Japan; 2000 was focussed in the dot com related sectors; 2008 was focussed in the U.S. mortgage and credit markets and preceded the emerging market credit boom (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Emerging Market Boom Happened After 2008 By comparison, the post-2008 global experiment with quantitative easing, and zero and negative interest rate policy has boosted the valuations of all risk-assets across all geographies and all asset-classes - global equities (Chart I-8), global credit (Chart I-9), and global real estate. This makes it considerably more dangerous, because we estimate that the total value of global risk-assets is $400 trillion, equal to about five times the size of the global economy. Chart I-8Elevated Valuations On Global Equities Chart I-9Elevated Valuations On Global Credit Let's say you had an investment that was priced to generate 5 percent a year over the next decade. Now imagine that the valuation boost from ultra-accommodative monetary policy capitalises all of those future returns to today. For those future returns to drop to zero, today's price must surge by 63 percent.4 If you were prudent, you might amortise today's windfall to generate the original 5 percent a year over the next decade. But if you were imprudent, you might spend a large amount of the windfall today. Now let's imagine a valuation derating moves the investment's returns back to the future. For those that had prudently amortised the original windfall, nothing has really changed and future spending patterns would not be impacted. But not everybody is prudent. For those that had imprudently spent the original windfall, future spending would inevitably suffer a nasty recession. The key takeaway is that any inflationary impulse would - through higher bond yields - undermine the valuation support of global risk-assets worth several times the size of the global economy. Thereby, it could unleash a potentially much larger disinflationary impulse. A Roadmap For An Inflation Scare The high sensitivity of risk-asset valuations to bond yields is the genesis of our 'rule of 4' strategy for equity allocation, which is based on the sum of the 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund and JGB: Above 3.5 is the level to go to a neutral exposure to equities; above 4 is the level to go underweight. Today, our metric stands at exactly 3.5 (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The 'Rule Of 4' Is At 3.5 For bonds, this means that 4 on this metric is also a good level to buy a mixed portfolio of high-quality 10-year government bonds. The equivalent level for high-quality 30-year government bonds is 5.5 (using the sum of the three 30-year yields). To sum up, an inflation scare would initially take bond yields higher. But this would threaten to unleash a much larger disinflation scare, causing the subsequent decline in yields to exceed the original rise. Using the 10-year T-bond yield as an illustration - as it is least impacted by the lower bound to yields - this would suggest the following roadmap: a short trip to the uplands of 3.5% would precede a longer journey down to 2%. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 The global long bond yield is captured by the simple average of the 30-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund and Japanese government bond (JGB). The global equity market is captured by the MSCI All Country World Index in local currency terms. 2 The -0.4 percent refers to the ECB deposit rate. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Rule Of 4 For Equities And Bonds," August 2, 2018, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 4 5 percent compounded over ten years. Fractal Trading Model* This week’s recommended trade is an intra-commodity pair trade: short palladium/long copper. The profit target is 6% with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, short euro area energy versus financials was closed at the end of its 65 trading day holding period, albeit in loss. This leaves five open trades. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights U.S. Treasuries: EM market declines have, so far, shown no signs of impacting U.S. economic growth. The underlying acceleration of U.S. growth and inflation in the face of the EM turmoil suggests that bond investors should remain strategically underweight U.S. Treasuries with a below-benchmark duration stance. EM Contagion: The current EM turmoil has not yet spilled over into U.S. financial markets, as occurred during the 2013 and 2014/2015 EM selloffs, because the U.S. economy is in a much stronger position now. It will take a bigger tightening of U.S. financial conditions, likely through higher U.S. interest rates and a larger increase in the U.S. dollar, before U.S. risk assets suffer the type of decline that could trigger a pause in the Fed rate hike cycle. Feature Chart of the WeekBond Yields Following Inflation & QT, Not EM Have investors become too complacent? The selloff in emerging market (EM) assets is intensifying. The White House is threatening to slap tariffs on virtually all Chinese imports in the U.S. Accelerating wage and price inflation in the U.S. is keeping Fed rate hikes in play. The divergence between the strong U.S. economy and the rest of the world is growing wider, keeping the U.S. dollar elevated. Yet despite all that, non-EM markets show a surprising lack of concern over the EM volatility. U.S. equity indices remain close to all-time highs, while corporate bond spreads in the major developed markets are generally stable. Government bond yields remain well above levels implied by measures of economic sentiment like the global ZEW expectations index (Chart of the Week). For yields, the big issue remains, as always, the outlook for inflation and monetary policy. On that note, yields are being supported by inflation expectations, which have been boosted by faster realized inflation, tight labor markets and high oil prices. These trends are most pronounced in the U.S., where the Fed is not only hiking rates but also slowly reducing the size of its swollen balance sheet. This comes on top of the diminished pace of asset purchases by the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ), with the former still on track to end its net new buying of bonds at the end of the year. Against that backdrop of rising inflation and tightening global liquidity conditions, it is incorrect to solely make comparisons between today and the most recent period of EM weakness in 2014/15 that eventually spilled back violently into non-EM markets and caused the Fed to pause after only its first post-QE rate hike. The current backdrop also has similarities to the 2013 "Taper Tantrum", when the Fed surprised the markets by signaling that it was considering ending QE, triggering a spike in Treasury yields and a selloff in global risk assets. Chart 2China Remains The Key To Global Growth Then, global growth was accelerating and inflation expectations were at levels consistent with policymaker targets in the U.S. and Europe, yet central bank liquidity was slowing rapidly (mostly due to a contracting ECB balance sheet at a time when the Fed's balance sheet growth had already slowed). EM markets sold off alongside the rapid rise in U.S. Treasury yields during the Taper Tantrum. Yet with global growth accelerating and the U.S. dollar staying relatively stable, the EM selloff ended when the Fed delayed the start of the taper into 2014, providing a monetary boost to a global economy that did not need it. Today, realized inflation is even faster and central bank liquidity is again slowing rapidly. Yet market-based inflation expectations are still a bit below central bank targets, while non-U.S. growth expectations are slowing. Worries about the impact on the world economy from the brewing U.S.-China trade war are clearly weighing on the latter. The wild card will be how China responds to the tariff threat through policy stimulus. Already, China's policymakers have allowed some depreciation of the renminbi, along with some modest easing of monetary and fiscal policies, to counteract the growth threat from the Trump tariffs. BCA's China experts do not expect anything close to the massive 2015/16 package of fiscal/monetary stimulus, given the stated goal of President Xi Jinping to crack down on systemic financial risk.1 Yet the most recent figures on Chinese import growth, and higher-frequency data incorporated in the Li Keqiang index, are showing some reacceleration after the 2017 slowdown (Chart 2). At the same time, the most recent data point on the OECD's global leading economic indicator is potentially stabilizing (middle panel). A continuation of these trends could help reverse the cooling of non-U.S. growth seen so far in 2018 (bottom panel). Given all the uncertainties surrounding the U.S.-China trade battle, EM volatility and Chinese growth - at a time when global QE has turned into "QT", or "quantitative tightening", with an associated reduction in global capital flows - we continue to recommend only a neutral stance on global spread product, favoring U.S. corporates vs non-U.S. equivalents (especially avoiding EM credit). We also are maintaining our strategic recommended underweight stance on overall developed market duration, but favoring countries where monetary tightening will be more difficult to deliver (overweight U.K., Japan and Australia versus underweight U.S., euro area and Canada). A Quick Update On U.S. Treasuries: Stay Defensive Chart 3Stronger U.S. Growth = UST Underperformance The main U.S. data releases last week, the ISM surveys and the Payrolls report for August, came as a big surprise for the U.S. Treasury market. The headline ISM Manufacturing index hit a 17-year high of 61, led by increases in both the growth and inflation sub-components of the index (Chart 3), while the U.S. economy added another 200k jobs. The big shock came from the wage data in the Payrolls report, with Average Hourly Earnings rising by 0.4% in August, pushing the year-over-year growth rate to 2.9%, the highest since 2009. The Treasury market responded to data as expected, with the 10-year yield rising back to 2.94%. One of our favorite chart relationships shows the ISM Manufacturing index as a leading indicator of the momentum (12-month change) of core CPI inflation in the U.S. (Chart 4). The recent acceleration of U.S. core inflation can be explained as a lagged response to the U.S. economic growth acceleration since the start of 2016. If the relationship in this chart holds up, the current levels of the ISM are consistent with core CPI inflation accelerating to the 2.5-3% range next year. That outcome would keep the Fed on its planned rate hike path in 2019. At the moment, the market pricing of Fed rate expectations in the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve remains below the latest FOMC projections for the funds rate for the next two years (Chart 5). The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate, which now sits at 2.1%, is still priced below the 2.3-2.5% levels that, in the past, have been consistent with inflation expectations staying well-anchored around the Fed's 2% inflation target. A combination of accelerating U.S. growth, faster wages, and a market that has not fully discounted the likely outcome for inflation and the funds rate is not a bullish one for U.S. Treasuries. We acknowledge that there could be a short-term flight-to-quality bid for Treasuries if the EM turbulence becomes more violent and finally spills over into the U.S. markets (likely through a rapid rise in the U.S. dollar). Yet without any signs of a meaningful slowing of U.S. growth or inflation, such a move would prove to be a short-lived trading opportunity rather than a true change in the rising trend for bond yields. Chart 4U.S. Inflation Acceleration Will Continue Chart 5Market Still Underpricing Fed Rate Hikes Bottom Line: EM market declines have, so far, shown no signs of impacting U.S. economic growth. The underlying acceleration of U.S. growth and inflation in the face of the EM turmoil suggests that bond investors should remain strategically underweight U.S. Treasuries with a below-benchmark duration stance. EM Turmoil, Then & Now, In Charts As discussed earlier, we see signs today of both of the most recent EM selloffs in 2013 and 2014/15 that were fueled by rising U.S. interest rates and a higher U.S. dollar. In the sets of charts beginning on Page 7 we present "cycle-on-cycle" analyses of several economic and financial indicators during those episodes, as well as this year. The charts are set up so that the blue lines represent the current EM selloff and the dotted lines in each panel represent how the same data series responded in 2013 (top panel of each chart) and 2014/15 (bottom panel of each chart). The vertical line represents the date of the trough in the U.S. dollar for each episode, which occurred in February 2018 for the current cycle. By looking at these charts, we can see how the current backdrop is evolving versus those prior episodes. The goal is to try to determine where things are similar, and different, to EM market declines in recent history. We are focusing on the areas where we believe there is the greatest concern over the potential spillovers from the current bout of EM stress - U.S. economic growth, Chinese economic growth and U.S. financial markets. We present the charts in a rapid "chartbook" format, with our overall conclusions at the end. Leading Economic Indicators: The OECD's leading economic indicator for the U.S. (Chart 6A) is currently off the high seen at the beginning of the year, following a path similar to 2014/15, but the latest data point has ticked higher. More importantly, the level is higher than at the same point in the 2013 and 2014/15 cycles. Meanwhile, the OECD (ex-U.S.) global leading economic indicator (Chart 6B) is following the depressed path of the 2014/15 episode, rather than the acceleration seen during the 2013 Taper Tantrum. Chart 6AU.S. Leading Indicator Following 2014/15 Path Chart 6BGlobal Leading Indicator Following 2014/15 Path U.S. Dollar: The rising dollar of 2018 (Chart 7A) looks more like the 2014/15 episode in terms of magnitude, although the greenback is at a lower level than during that earlier cycle (note that all lines are indexed to 100 at the date of the trough in the dollar at the vertical line). In 2013, the increase in the dollar was fairly mild, even with U.S. bond yields soaring higher, due to fact that non-U.S. growth was improving at the time. Chart 7AU.S. Dollar Following 2014/15 Path...So Far Chart 7BU.S. Investment Grade Returns Matching 2014/15 Path U.S. Corporate Bonds: The path of excess returns for U.S. investment grade corporate debt (Chart 7B) is tracking extremely tightly to the 2014/15 experience, with larger losses compared to this similar point during the Taper Tantrum. EM Equities & Credit: The widening in USD-denominated EM sovereign credit spreads in 2018 (Chart 8A) is in line with the 2014/15 cycle and has already surpassed the 2013 episode. The decline in EM equities (Chart 8B) has been worse than both prior EM selloffs. Chart 8AEM Equities Worse Than Both 2013 & 2014/15 Chart 8BEM Spreads Matching 2014/15 Path U.S. Interest Rates: Our 12-month fed funds discounter, which measures the amount of Fed rate hikes expected by the market over the next year, is higher than the 2014/15 episode and much higher than 2013 (Chart 9A). 10-year Treasury yields are at the same level as occurred at this point during the Taper Tantrum, and well above the levels seen in 2014/15 (Chart 9B). Chart 9AMore Fed Hikes Expected Than 2013 & 2014/15 Chart 9BUST Yields Following 2013 Path U.S. Labor Markets: Perhaps the biggest difference between the current backdrop and the prior EM selloffs is state of the U.S. labor market. The unemployment rate of 3.9% is much lower than the 5.6% rate seen during the 2014/15 cycle and the 7.6% level seen at this point during the Taper Tantrum (Chart 10A). That is translating to a faster pace of U.S. wage growth, measured by the annual percentage change in Average Hourly Earnings, than in either of the previous episodes of USD strength and EM turmoil (Chart 10B). Chart 10AMuch Lower U.S. Unemployment In 2018... Chart 10B...With Faster U.S. Wage Growth U.S. Inflation: Realized U.S. inflation, using core CPI, is higher now than in either of the previous episodes (Chart 11A). That can also been seen in the ISM Prices Paid index, which is far above the levels seen in both 2013 and 2014/15 (Chart 11B). Chart 11AHigher U.S. Inflation In 2018... Chart 11B...With Greater Inflation Pressures U.S. Economy: We can obviously show many charts here, but we think the most relevant are those related to signs that non-U.S. market turmoil and slowing growth is spilling back into the U.S. On that note, we show the ISM New Orders index in Chart 12A and the annual growth rate of total U.S. exports in Chart 12B. The New Orders index today is as strong as it was at this point during the Taper Tantrum, and much healthier compared to 2014/15 when New Orders were falling sharply. U.S. export growth is faster than both prior episodes, especially 2014/15 when exports contracted outright. Chart 12AStronger ISM New Orders In 2018... Chart 12B...With Healthier Export Demand China Economy: Again, we could use any number of data series in these charts, but we are keeping it simple and choosing indicators that show the impact of Chinese growth on the world economy. Chinese nominal GDP growth, currently at 9.8%, is the same as it was at this point in the 2013 cycle but much faster than during the 2014/15 period (Chart 13A). Importantly, however, China nominal GDP growth is decelerating now as it was in both of the prior episodes. Chinese annual import growth, up 19% in RMB terms, is faster now than in both prior periods of EM stress, especially compared to the contraction seen during the 2014/15 episode (Chart 13B). Chart 13AFaster, But Still Slowing, China GDP Growth Chart 13BStronger China Import Growth In 2018 U.S. Corporate Profits: Here is perhaps the biggest difference between today and the previous EM stress episodes. The annual growth in earnings-per-share for the S&P 500 rose to 18% in the 2nd quarter of this year, far above the zero growth rate seen at this point of the 2013 and 2014/15 cycles (Chart 14A). A big reason for the difference is the impact of the Trump corporate tax cuts this year, which has boosted operating margins well beyond levels seen in the prior two episodes (Chart 14B). Chart 14AFaster U.S. Profit Growth In 2018... Chart 14B...With Wider Margins Thanks To Tax Cuts EM Growth: An aggregate of EM Purchasing Managers Indices (PMIs) shows that the current bout of softer EM growth looks similar to the slowdowns in 2013 and 2014/15 (Chart 15A). In both prior cases, the PMIs eventually fell below 50, signifying economic contraction. In the 2013 episode, however, the PMI rebounded around the same point in the cycle as we are at today. Chart 15AEM Growth Slowing Similar To 2013 & 2014/15 Chart 15BU.S. Financial Conditions Tightening Like 2014/15 U.S. Financial Conditions: U.S. financial conditions are tighter now than the level seen at this point in the 2013 cycle and are as tight as witnessed at this point in the 2014/15 period (Chart 15B). After looking through all these charts, we can come up with the following conclusions: Chart 16Is It All Just "Q.T."? EM financial stress today is worse than 2013 and 2014/15 The U.S. economy is stronger today than in 2013 and 2014/15 U.S. external demand and corporate profits are both more robust today than in 2013 and 2014/15 U.S. inflation pressures are greater today than in 2013 and 2014/15 China's economy today, while slowing, is still growing faster than in 2013 and 2014/15 EM economic growth is slowing at the same pace as in 2013 and 2014/15. In terms of "benchmarking" where we are now compared to the previous two EM big EM selloffs, the fact that U.S. and Chinese economic growth is stronger today, and U.S. inflation is faster today, are the most important differences. This may even explain why U.S. markets are not reacting more negatively to the growing protectionist threats from the White house. Against this backdrop, it will require higher U.S. interest rates and a much stronger dollar before U.S. equities and credit markets finally suffer a serious pullback. In the end, though, the fact that U.S. and Chinese growth is better today does not suggest that a cautious investment stance is unwarranted. For the best correlation can be seen in our final chart (Chart 16), which shows the growth rate of the major developed market central bank balance sheets as a leading indicator of EM equity returns and developed market credit returns (and as a coincident indicator of government bond yields). If one were to only look at this chart, the weaker returns from global risk assets in 2018 can be fully explained by "quantitative tightening" and the resulting pullback in risk-seeking global capital flows compared the 2016/17. Bottom Line: The current EM turmoil has not yet spilled over into U.S. financial markets, as occurred during the 2013 and 204/15 EM selloffs, because the U.S. economy is in a much stronger position now. It will take a bigger tightening of U.S. financial conditions, likely through higher U.S. interest rates and a larger increase in the U.S. dollar, before U.S. risk assets suffer the type of decline that could trigger a pause in the Fed rate hike cycle. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy/China Investment Strategy Special Report, "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?", dated August 8th 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com and cis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

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

Highlights The U.S. has outperformed most major stock markets over the past few years largely because U.S. earnings have increased more rapidly than earnings abroad. U.S. companies will continue to deliver superior earnings growth during the remainder of this year. However, profit growth is likely to slow in 2019 owing to a larger wage bill, a stronger dollar, and a sluggish global economy. The efficacy of buybacks in boosting earnings-per-share is waning due to soaring valuations and rising interest rates. For the time being, asset allocators should maintain a neutral weighting to global equities, while favoring developed market stocks over emerging markets and overweighting defensive sectors relative to cyclical ones. Within the developed market equity space, the U.S. will outperform over the coming months in dollar terms, but will trade broadly in line with Europe and Japan in local-currency terms. Longer term, odds are high that earnings growth in the rest of the world will catch up with that of the U.S. Feature There Is No Mystery As To Why U.S. Stocks Have Outperformed The stock market is influenced by many variables, but in the end, the one that matters most is earnings. The U.S. has outperformed most major stock markets during the past few years largely because U.S. earnings have increased more rapidly than earnings abroad. Stronger earnings growth, in turn, has caused investors to assign a higher earnings multiple to the U.S. in comparison to other regions. This has given U.S. stocks a further lift (Chart 1). Differences in sector weights have helped flatter overall U.S. earnings to some extent. Globally, earnings in the tech and health care sectors have grown much more quickly than earnings in the financials and materials sectors (Chart 2). The former sectors have large weights in U.S. indices, while the latter are overrepresented in overseas indices (Table 1). Still, our analysis suggests that most of the outperformance of U.S. firms can be explained by their superior earnings growth within sectors (Chart 3). Chart 1U.S. Stocks Have Outperformed ##br##Thanks To Faster Earnings Growth Chart 2Global Earnings Sector Breakdown Table 1Tech And Health Care Stocks Are Heavily Weighted In The U.S., While Financials ##br##And Materials Are Overrepresented In Markets Outside The U.S. Chart 3AU.S. Earnings Have Risen Faster ##br##Within Each Equity Sector (I) Chart 3BU.S. Earnings Have Risen Faster ##br##Within Each Equity Sector (II) We do not expect U.S. corporate earnings growth to slow sharply this year. In fact, our margin proxy points to a slight increase in profit margins in the second half of the year (Chart 4). Nevertheless, there are four reasons why U.S. earnings growth will decelerate in 2019 and beyond: Wage growth is likely to pick up. Chart 5 shows that there is an almost perfect correlation between profit margins and the ratio of selling prices-to-unit labor costs. A variety of surveys suggest that U.S. firms are struggling to find qualified workers (Chart 6). This is confirmed both by the most recent Fed Beige Book and by firms' Q2 earnings conference calls. A stronger dollar will eat into earnings. A reasonable rule of thumb is that every 5% appreciation in the broad trade-weighted dollar reduces S&P 500 earnings by 1% over the course of the ensuing 12-to-18 months. The broad trade-weighted dollar has risen 6.2% so far this year and we expect further strength in the months ahead. Global growth will weaken further. The U.S. is increasingly running out of spare capacity, which is limiting domestic growth prospects. Emerging markets are struggling, with the crises in Turkey and Argentina likely to spread to bigger players such as Brazil and South Africa. A major Chinese stimulus package would help reboot global growth, but concerns about high debt levels, overcapacity, and an overheated housing market will limit the response. The policy environment will become more challenging. Corporate tax cuts helped boost earnings earlier this year. However, the regulatory landscape is likely to turn less benign over the next few years. The tech sector is facing increased scrutiny.1 New EU privacy rules came into effect in May, which will limit the ability of internet companies to harvest personal data. The Trump Administration is also increasingly targeting social media companies for allegedly suppressing conservative voices. In addition, our geopolitical strategists expect U.S.-China trade tensions to remain elevated, with the U.S. likely to impose tariffs on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. Meanwhile, a trade deal with Canada is no slam dunk. President Trump has even reiterated that he would be willing to exit the World Trade Organization. Chart 4Margins Could Rise A Bit More ##br##In The Near Term Chart 5Higher Wage Growth Will Undermine Profit Margins Chart 6U.S. Firms Are Having Difficulty ##br##Finding Qualified Workers Diminishing Returns From Buybacks U.S. companies are on track to spend a record amount of money buying back shares in 2018, with tech companies accounting for about 40% of all shares repurchased. While this may seem very bullish for stocks, one should keep in mind that the prior peak in share buybacks occurred in 2007. Companies are not particularly adept at timing the stock market, even when it is their own shares they are purchasing. Moreover, U.S. stock market capitalization has doubled since 2007. As a share of market cap, today's pace of buybacks is high, but not exceptionally so (Chart 7). To state the obvious, the more expensive stocks get, the more money it takes to purchase the same number of shares. U.S. equity valuations are quite stretched by historic standards (Chart 8). On a price-to-sales basis, U.S. stocks are now as expensive as they were in 2000. Our estimate of the U.S. equity risk premium - calculated as the difference between the cyclically-adjusted earnings yield and the average expected short-term real interest rate over the next decade - is well below its historic average (Chart 9). Chart 7Buybacks As A Share Of Market Cap: Fairly Muted Chart 8U.S. Equities Are Trading At Lofty Valuations Chart 9The U.S. Equity Risk Premium Is Well Below Its Historic Average It is also important to remember that share repurchases will only boost EPS if the interest rate that companies receive on their cash balances is below their earnings yield. To see this, consider a simple example where the earnings yield and the interest rate are the same. Specifically, suppose that a company has a market cap of $1 billion, $20 million in earnings, and earns 2% on its cash holdings. If the company buys back $100 million in shares, its share count will decline by 10%, but the interest payments that it receives will fall by $2 million, pushing profits down by 10% from $20 million to $18 million. The net result is no change in EPS. As U.S. interest rates continue to increase, companies will see ever-smaller benefits to their bottom lines from share buybacks. Where's The Earnings Growth Going To Come From? The foregoing discussion raises another point, which is that buybacks, by their very nature, leave companies with less cash to invest in future growth. This issue is quite relevant for the current environment. Analysts today expect the average S&P 500 company to grow earnings at an annual rate of 16.6% over the next 3-to-5 years (Chart 10). This is wildly optimistic. It is six points higher than the long-term earnings growth rate they expected just three years ago. Indeed, it is only topped by the euphoric projection of 18.7% reached in 2000 - just before the stock market came crashing down. Apparently, on Wall Street, companies can have their cake and eat it too. Chart 10Analyst Expectations Are Too Optimistic Creative Accounting? Earnings are earnings, correct? Actually, no. What constitutes earnings has changed over the years. Up until the 1990s, companies generally reported GAAP earnings - earnings based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Over the past two decades, however, companies have moved towards reporting so-called "pro forma" or "operating" earnings. Unlike GAAP earnings, there is no codified set of rules governing the definition of operating earnings. Conceptually, companies are supposed to exclude both one-off losses and gains when calculating operating earnings in order to give shareholders a better sense of the underlying trend in profits. In practice, they tend to exclude the former much more often than the latter. This problem has gotten worse over time, so much so that an apples-to-apples comparison now requires that we reduce earnings today by about 15% in order to compare them with earnings in the early 1980s (Chart 11). More ominously, it is possible that even GAAP earnings are currently overstated. Chart 12 shows that EBITDA profit margins, which are generally more difficult to fudge, have fallen over the past decade, while operating margins have risen. Economy-wide profit margins, as measured in the national accounts, have also increased much more slowly than S&P 500 operating margins (Chart 13). Chart 11A Bull Market In Creative Accounting? Chart 12S&P 500 Operating Margins Have Risen Much More Than EBITDA Margins Chart 13Profit Margins, As Measured In The National Accounts, Have Fallen Relative To S&P 500 Margins This raises the risk that we will see more earning restatements - or at the very least, earnings disappointments - in the years ahead as companies run out of magic asterisks to pull out of their bag of accounting tricks. Investment Conclusions Corporate earnings are highly correlated with the state of the business cycle (Chart 14). We do not expect the U.S. to enter a recession at least until 2020. Thus, it is doubtful that U.S. earnings will suffer a sharp decline before then. Nevertheless, as this report argues, earnings growth is likely to decelerate early next year. Investors have a lot riding on the assumption that earnings growth will hold up. U.S. households owned nearly $30 trillion of equities in Q1 of 2018, or 25% of total household assets, the highest level since 2000 (Chart 15). The monthly asset allocation survey published by the Association of Individual Investors (AAII) shows that stocks comprised 68.5% of investors' portfolios in August (Chart 16). While this is below the peak of 77% reached in March 2000, it is still more than seven points above the post-1987 average of 61%, putting it in the 84th percentile of the historic distribution. Chart 14Earnings Are Highly Correlated ##br##With The Business Cycle Chart 15Households Are Loaded Up On Stocks Which... Chart 16...Comprise A Big Chunk Of Their Portfolios If earnings growth slows significantly, investors could end up deciding to cut their exposure to the stock market. Since for every buyer there must be a seller, the only way for investors to collectively reduce the value of their equity holdings is if share prices decline. U.S. equities account for 55% of global stock market capitalization (Chart 17). Thus, if U.S. earnings begin to stagnate, this will limit the upside for global equity indices. Chart 17U.S. Equities Account For More Than Half Of Global Stock Market Capitalization Chart 18Earnings In Other Regions Will Eventually Catch Up With The U.S. Does this mean that investors should look for greener pastures abroad? Not yet. We expect the dollar to strengthen and global growth to slow further over the coming months. This will put downward pressure on cyclical stocks, which are overrepresented in foreign indices. For the time being, asset allocators should maintain a neutral weighting to global equities, favoring developed market stocks over emerging markets. Within the DM space, the U.S. will outperform in dollar terms, but will trade broadly in line with Europe and Japan in local-currency terms. Longer term, we are more sanguine about the prospects for non-U.S. stocks. The outperformance of U.S. equities over the past decade follows a decade of underperformance. In fact, EPS in Europe and emerging markets actually grew more rapidly between 1990 and 2007 than in the United States (Chart 18). Historically, the relative growth of earnings across different regions follows multi-year cycles, and there is no reason to think that this will change. As such, it is likely that earnings growth in the rest of the world will begin to outstrip the U.S. once the problems plaguing emerging markets have been flushed out. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy, "Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG?" dated August 1, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights Cable is cheap on a PPP basis. However, the discount does not reflect a geopolitical risk premium; it reflects the dollar's general expensiveness. In fact, when the British productivity picture is taken into account, the trade-weighted pound's discount appears rather modest. Our model specifically designed to capture the geopolitical risk premia in GBP/USD and EUR/GBP shows that investors are currently pricing in a very rosy political outlook in the U.K., and near certainty that a soft Brexit will materialize. We are not willing to bet that the path toward a soft Brexit will be easy. As a result, we would expect that if the GBP experiences any rebounds, they will prove short-lived, especially as the outlook for global growth outside the U.S. remains murky. Feature This fall will be a tumultuous time for the pound, as the Brexit process goes into full swing ahead of March 2019. While there remain many possible paths that the U.K.'s relationship with the rest of the EU could ultimately take, ranging from a complete reset of the relationship (i.e. a hard Brexit) to no Brexit at all, another unknown needs to be tackled: Is the GBP priced to adequately compensate investors for such heightened uncertainty? In this week's piece, we develop a simple model to try to ascertain whether geopolitical risk premium is currently present in the pound. We conclude that even though the pound seems cheap enough to compensate investors for the high degree of uncertainty surrounding the U.K.'s long-term economic outlook, this picture is deceiving. As a result, BCA remains concerned about the pound's cyclical outlook, especially against the euro. Is The Pound That Cheap? At first glance, it seems obvious that the pound is very cheap. Cable currently trades at a prodigious 20% discount to it purchasing power parity (PPP) estimate (Chart I-1). Such bargain-basement levels must be a reflection of the economic risks surrounding Brexit. Well, perhaps not. First, the pound may be trading at a large discount against the dollar, but the euro also trades well below its PPP fair value. In fact, when using PPP models, it is hard to dissociate the cheapness of the pound from the expensiveness of the U.S. dollar against its trading partners (Chart I-2). Thus, PPP models are not enough to gauge whether or not the pound is adequately compensating investors for inherent geopolitical risk. Chart I-1Is The Pound Cheap... Chart I-2U.S. Dollar And PPP ...Or Is The Dollar Expensive? Second, when one uses a slightly more sophisticated valuation approach, the discount of the pound seems much more muted than when one looks at PPP alone. Based on our proprietary long-term fair value model, the trade-weighted pound exhibits a much more muted discount of only 3% - well within the historical norm (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Pound: A Much Smaller Discount On A Trade-Weighted Basis What explains this disconnect is the U.K.'s poor productivity performance. In the world of exchange rate determination, there is a phenomenon called the Penn effect. It is an empirical observation - one not fully understood under a theoretical lens1 - which shows that countries with higher levels of productivity growth than their trading partners tend to experience an appreciation in their real exchange rates. As Chart I-4 illustrates, the U.K. is on the wrong side of this phenomenon, as its relative productivity has been falling in comparison to its trading partners. This factor has played an important role in dragging down the pound's fair value. This poor productivity performance has also had another pernicious effect: unit labor costs in the U.K. have risen much more sharply than in the majority of its important trading partners (Chart I-5). This hurts the pound's competitiveness and suggests that a simple PPP model based purely on producer prices might be missing the mark for the true fair value of the British currency - further supporting the message of our proprietary long-term valuation model. Chart I-4Negative Penn Effect For The Pound Chart I-5The U.K. Is Uncompetitive Even when these adjustments are taken into account, our model might still be missing the mark due to a very significant problem: All fair value models for the pound are now based on a potentially unrepresentative sample, one where the U.K. was part of the EU. Thus, another exercise is needed to evaluate the pound's geopolitical risk premium. Bottom Line: Based on simple PPP models, cable looks cheap and therefore may already embed a large geopolitical risk premium. However, this conclusion is misleading. A large share of the pound's undervaluation is not GBP-specific and instead simply mirrors the USD's premium to its fair value. Additionally, the U.K.'s poor productivity performance relative to its trading partners already provides an economic justification for a cheap pound. Thus, we need a different exercise to zero in on the degree of geopolitical discount present in the pound. Zeroing In On The Geopolitical Risk In order to assess the degree of political risk priced into the pound, one needs to isolate this risk. The problem is that the traditional variables used to explain exchange rate movements were also greatly affected by the shock following the Brexit vote in June 2016. For example, looking at the behavior of British gilts, the Footsie, consumer confidence or business confidence, one can see very abnormal moves occurring in conjunction with large fluctuations in the pound during the summer of 2016 (Chart I-6). Thus, if one were to regress the pound on these variables, one would not have observed a risk premium, even though the market was clearly very concerned with the geopolitical outlook for the U.K. Chart I-6ATraditional Variables Are Of Little Use To Isolate A Geopolitical Risk Premium (I) Chart I-6BTraditional Variables Are Of Little Use To Isolate A Geopolitical Risk Premium (II) We therefore decided to try to explain the pound's normal behavior using variables that did not experience large abnormal moves in the direct aftermath of the British referendum. Moreover, we wanted to keep the model simple, as simplicity permits us to better understand the pound's deviation from its predicted value. Practically, we settled on the following specification: for GBP/USD, we regressed the pair versus the dollar index and the British leading economic indicator. For EUR/GBP, we regressed the cross against the trade-weighted euro and the U.K. LEI. The reason for using the trade-weighted dollar and euro as explanatory variables is simple: it helps us isolate the pound's movements from the impact of fluctuations in the other leg of the pair. Using the U.K. LEI helps incorporate the immediate outlooks for U.K. growth and U.K. monetary policy into the pound's movement. The remaining error term was mostly a reflection of geopolitical risks. To make sure the exercise was robust, we then tested the out-of-sample performance of the model. Reassuringly, the GBP/USD and EUR/GBP models showed great predictive power out-of-sample (see Appendix), while remaining significant and explaining 80% and 65% of the pairs' variations, respectively. The results of the models are shown in Chart I-7, and they are startling. While the pound did show a geopolitical discount in the second half of 2016 (as evidenced by the abnormally large discount from our fundamental-based model), today the pound's pricing shows an absence of geopolitical risk premium, both against the dollar and against the euro. This corroborates the message from the uncertainty index computed by Baker Bloom and Davis, which shows a very low level of economic policy uncertainty based on language in the press (Chart I-8). Chart I-7ALittle Risk Premium In The Pound (I) Chart I-7BLittle Risk Premium In The Pound (II) This is particularly salient when compared to the euro, where the geopolitical risk premium is currently exaggerated. As Chart I-9 illustrates, the probability of a euro area breakup in the next five years priced into the bond market is at its highest level since the heyday of the euro area crisis in 2011 and 2012. However, this risk is currently overstated as investors have been frightened by the recent Italian elections. Yet, after a tumultuous beginning, the populist Five Star Movement / Lega Nord coalition is backing away from a budget confrontation with Brussels. Giovanni Tria, Italy's minister of finance, wants a 2% budget deficit while Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini is arguing for a 2.9% budget hole - well south of the 6% levels touted during the campaign. Italians realize that life outside the euro area will not be a land of milk and honey. Chart I-8British Political Uncertainty Has Collapsed Chart I-9Investors Are Worries About The Euro Area Instead, the pound's cheapness reflects the weakness in the British LEI. This is a consequence of the deterioration in global economic activity. As Chart I-10 shows, the trade-weighted pound has been more sensitive to EM gyrations than the euro or the dollar. This is because total trade represents a stunning 40% of U.K. GDP, versus 37% for the euro area or 28% for the U.S. The U.K. is therefore highly sensitive to global economic conditions. Moreover, the tightening in global liquidity conditions that has contributed to the deterioration of the global growth outlook is itself particularly negative for the pound. The U.K. runs a current account deficit of 4% of GDP, and as FDI inflows into Great Britain have collapsed, the U.K. now runs a basic balance-of-payments deficit (Chart I-11). As such, it is highly dependent on global liquidity flows to finance its current account deficit. As a result, the recent weakness in the pound is more a function of global economic conditions than Brexit itself. Chart I-10The Pound Has Fallen Because of EM Risks... Chart I-11...And As Global Liquidity Has Tightened Bottom Line: After developing a more precise method for evaluating the size of the geopolitical risk premium embedded in the pound, we arrived at an interesting conclusion: There is currently no evidence of a risk premium at all. Instead, the pound's weakness reflects the expensiveness of the dollar, weakening global growth and deteriorating global liquidity conditions. In fact, it is the euro that currently suffers from an exaggerated geopolitical risk premium, as euro area bonds currently incorporate too-large of a break-up risk premium. Investment Implications Taking into account the thin risk premium embedded in the pound against both the dollar and the euro, the GBP does not have much maneuvering room through the fall season. The problem for the pound is that the 5% net disapproval of Brexit among the British public remains smaller than the cohort of British voters who remain undecided (Chart I-12). This means that domestic politics in the U.K. could remain a source of surprise, especially as Prime Minister Theresa May's polling remains tenuous (Chart I-13). This raises the risk that Hard Brexiters end up controlling 10 Downing Street - despite their status as a minority within Conservative MPs. This also raises the risk that Jeremy Corbyn, whose popularity is rising, could end up as British Prime Minister (Chart I-14). Both of these outcomes are worrisome. The pound is currently pricing in neither the risk of a hard Brexit, nor the risk of the U.K. being controlled by the most leftist government of any G10 nation since the election of Francois Mitterrand in France in 1981. Chart I-12More Undecided Voters Than ##br##Net Brexit Detractors Chart I-13A Risk To ##br##U.K. Stability... Chart I-14...Especially With Mitterand 2.0 ##br##Lurking In The Shadows Moreover, while Germany and EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier seem amenable to keeping the window of negotiations open for the ultimate form of Brexit during the transition period, it remains to be seen what kind of concessions London is willing to make on the free movement of people required to be granted access to the common market in goods. Additionally, the Northern Ireland border remains an unresolved issue. These factors increase the chances that negotiations with the EU will remain difficult. Hence, the implementation of the Chequers White Paper is far from certain, yet the pound currently seems to be priced for an absolute soft Brexit. With the global economic outlook already justifying a lower pound, especially versus the dollar, it therefore seems that the pound today is too risky an investment. It is true that positioning and sentiment in cable are currently very depressed, raising the risk of a short-term rebound (Chart I-15), especially if the EU meeting in Salzburg in two weeks shows an acquiescent EU. However, this will not remove Britain's domestic political problems. Hence, we would be inclined to fade any such rebound. Finally, it is unlikely that the Bank of England will be of much help to the pound either. The British LEI continues to slow, which not only drags the fair value of the pound lower, but also limits how fast the BoE can raise interest rates. Moreover, while British inflation surged as imported goods prices skyrocketed after the GBP plummeted in 2016, domestic prices have remained well behaved (Chart I-16). Thus, as the pass-through to inflation of the previous pound weakness dissipates, British inflation will decelerate further, limiting the upside for interest rates in the process. This combination is only made more binding for the BoE as the government is expected to exert some drag on growth as the British fiscal thrust will subtract 0.4%, 0.2%, and 0.2% to growth in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively (Chart I-17). Chart I-15There Is Room For A ##br##Countertrend GBP Rally Chart I-16Little Domestic ##br##Price Pressures Chart I-17Fiscal Drag ##br##Not Over On a six- to nine-month basis, it makes most sense to short the pound against the dollar and the yen, as slowing global growth hurts the pound but also hurts the euro while benefiting the greenback and the yen. However, on a longer-term basis, we would expect the break-up risk premium in the euro area to dissipate, which will boost the cheap euro in the process. This means that on investment horizons beyond one year, being long EUR/GBP still makes sense. Bottom Line: Since this year's pound weakness did not represent a swelling of the GBP's geopolitical risk premium but instead has been a reflection of poor global growth and liquidity, any hiccups in British politics could inflict considerable pain on cable. While the EU negotiations may progress positively, domestic British politics remain a big source of risk that investors are not being compensated to take on. As such, we are inclined to fade any rally in the pound. While the pound could weaken most against the dollar and the yen through the fall months, the longer-term outlook looks riskier against the euro. To be clear, the confidence interval around these views remains wide, as the British political situation remains very fluid. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Juan Manuel Correa, Senior Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Associate ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com 1 The Balassa-Samuelson effect has been cited as a potential explanation for this observation, but it still does not fully satisfy many theorists. Appendix Chart II-1Out-Of-Sample Testing Of Model (I) Chart II-2Out-Of-Sample Testing Of Model (II) Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades