Economy

Highlights July jobs report friendly for risk assets. Q2 earnings and July ISM confirm bullish profit environment. The Fed acknowledges softer inflation, but remains determined to tighten policy. 1H economic growth is just enough for the Fed. Housing weakness in Q2 is not a concern. Feature Chart 1Labor Market Conditions Favor Risk Assets The July jobs report suggests that the environment of solid economic growth and still muted wage pressures remains in place, a positive backdrop for equity markets. The report showed that the economy added 209,000 jobs in July, well above the consensus forecast of 178,000. Prior months were also revised higher by 2,000 pushing the 3-month moving average up to 195,000 jobs per month. Monthly job gains thus far in 2017 are nearly identical to the 187,000 jobs per month averaged in 2016. Despite an uptick in the participation rate to 62.9% from 62.8%, the unemployment rate dipped by 0.1% to 4.3%. At two decimal points, the dip in the jobless rate was from 4.36% to 4.35%. Although the monthly increase ticked up to 0.3%, the annual increase in average hourly earnings was flat at 2.5% for the fourth consecutive month (Chart 1). Nonetheless, the reacceleration in the 3-month change in average hourly earnings from 1.9% in January 2017 to 2.8% in July supports the Fed's view on inflation. Bottom Line: The July employment report paints a fairly stable picture of the U.S. economy. Job gains are continuing at a pace consistent with the 2% GDP growth rate of recent years. Meanwhile, wage gains remain modest and consistent with muted inflation. We still expect the Fed to announce the process of running down its balance sheet at the September FOMC meeting. The next rate hike will likely come at the December FOMC meeting, if inflation rebounds in the second half of the year. Steady growth, low inflation and a gentle Fed should continue to underpin U.S. risk assets. Q2 Earnings Update: Margin Expansion In Place EPS and sales growth in Q2 are running well ahead of consensus expectations as forecasted in our July 3 preview. Moreover, the counter trend rally in profit margins is still in place. More than 80% of companies have reported results so far with 73% of companies beating consensus EPS projections, just above the long-term average of 70% (Chart 2). Furthermore, 68% have posted Q2 revenues that exceeded expectations. The surprise factor for Q2 stands at 6% for EPS and 1% for sales. We anticipate the secular mean-reversion of margins to ultimately re-assert itself in the S&P data, perhaps beginning early in 2018. Nonetheless, over the nearer term, results thus far imply that Q2 will see another quarter of margin expansion. Average earnings growth (Q2 2017 versus Q2 2016) is strong at 12% with revenue growth at just 5%. The BCA Earnings model predicts EPS growth to hit roughly 24% later this year on a 4-quarter moving total basis, before moderating in 2018 (Chart 3). Measured on this basis, S&P 500 EPS growth in Q2 would be 20%, compared with 13% in Q1. Chart 2Positive Earnings Surprises Continue Chart 3Strong EPS Growth Ahead Importantly, the strength in earnings and revenues is broadly based (Table 1). Earnings per share are higher in Q2 2017 versus Q2 2016 in all 11 sectors. Results are particularly strong in energy, technology and financials. Energy revenues surged by 15.7% in Q2 versus a year ago. Sales gains in technology (8.2%), materials (7.2%) and utilities (5.7%) are notable. Since the start of 2017, the trajectory of EPS estimates for 2017 and 2018 (Chart 4) has been encouraging. The forecast for 2017 is 12%, up from 11% at the outset of the Q2 reporting season and unchanged from the start of the year. The 2018 estimate (11%) is also little changed from estimates made in January 2017. In a typical year, earnings estimates tend to move lower as the year progresses. Table 1S&P 500:##BR##Q2 2017 Results* Chart 4Stability In '17 & '18 EPS##BR##Estimates Supports U.S. Equities BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy service noted1 that the lagged effect from a softening U.S. dollar will also likely underpin EPS in the back half of the year. We are surprised that mentions of the greenback are absent from Q2 conference calls; the domestic market appears front of mind for both investors and management teams. We are inclined to see fading concerns about the dollar from the next Beige Book (due in early September) as evidence in favor of our colleagues' view. The July reading of the ISM manufacturing Index supports our case for accelerating profits in the second half of 2017. From the perspective of risks to our stance, industrial production (IP) has historically been a good proxy for sales of S&P 500 companies (Chart 5); and a rollover in the 12-month change in IP would challenge our constructive view towards earnings. However, strong readings on the ISM, which tracks IP, suggest that IP should accelerate in the next six months (Chart 5, panel 1). Chart 5Favorable Macro Backdrop For Earnings And Sales At 56.3 in July, the ISM has rebounded from its recent low of 47.9 in 2015, but ticked down from the 57.8 reading in June. For many investors, the risk is that the index has peaked and will soon roll over. While a decline is certainly possible given that the index is already elevated, the leading components of the ISM, including the new orders index and the new orders-to-inventory ratio, indicate that the ISM will remain above 50 in the months ahead (Chart 6). Moreover, the new export orders component of the ISM has also surged. The implication is that foreign demand (rather than domestic consumer or business spending) is leading the U.S. manufacturing sector. Consistent with this perspective, the 3- and 12-month changes in the industrial production indices in advanced economies outside the U.S. have outpaced domestic growth (Chart 7). Chart 6IP Poised To Accelerate##BR##And Support EPS Growth Chart 7U.S. IP Growth Still##BR##Other Developed Markets Bottom Line: EPS growth will continue to accelerate through the end of 2017 and into early 2018, aided by a period of margin expansion and decent top-line growth. The elevated level of ISM sets the stage for EPS growth to gather momentum in the second half of 2017. Firm readings on ISM indicate that our bullish profit story for 2017 is still intact, supporting an overweight stance towards stocks versus bonds. Fed Still On Track The July FOMC statement supports our view that the Fed will announce plans to shrink its balance sheet at the September FOMC meeting and hold off until December for the next rate hike. Policymakers upgraded their views of the labor market and downgraded their assessments of inflation. The reference to job gains moderating was dropped; instead, the Fed noted that employment growth has been robust. On inflation, the Fed stated that it is "running below" 2%, as opposed to "somewhat below" 2% in the June statement. These are only small tweaks and do not suggest any deviation from the Fed's plan to raise rates one more time this year as per its latest "dot plot" published in June. We still see the next rate hike in December if inflation begins to turn higher and shows signs of heading towards the 2% target. While the Fed is on the sidelines regarding rate hikes until the final meeting of 2017, it is creeping closer to begin shrinking its balance sheet. The July FOMC statement announced that the balance sheet normalization process will begin "relatively soon." The Fed had previously stated that the process would commence "this year." We view this shift in language as a signal that the balance sheet announcement will be made at the September meeting. Hesitation on tapering by the ECB, persistently weak readings on U.S. inflation or a tightening of U.S. financial conditions, would also give the Fed reason to reassess its plan. Bottom Line: Slight variations in the FOMC's statement indicate that rates are on hold at least until December. This will give the Fed time to determine whether inflation is moving back to its target and to assess the market impact of shrinking its balance sheet. 1H GDP: Just Enough U.S. GDP grew by 2.6% in Q2, following a revised 1.2% advance in Q1 (Chart 8). Given the potential distortions to the quarterly data from residual seasonality issues, an average of the first two quarters gives a better reading on the underlying trend in the economy. In the first half of this year, growth averaged 1.9%. On a year-over-year basis, the economy grew by 2.1%, and while that is only in line with the Fed's 2.1% forecast for 2017, it is above the central bank's view of 1.8% GDP growth in the "longer run." In addition, the NY Fed's Nowcast for Q3 is 2.0% and the Atlanta Fed's GDP now reading for Q3 is 3.7%. Moreover, in years when Q1 GDP is weak, 2H growth is faster than 1H growth 70% of the time.2 Quarterly GDP has averaged 2.2% since the current expansion started in the second half of 2009. Chart 8GDP Growth Remains Below Average, But Above Fed's Long Run Target Looking beyond the quarterly fluctuations, the U.S. economy has been relatively stable at about 2% growth for nearly 10 years. This advance has been sufficient to lower unemployment, with trend GDP growth slowing due to weak productivity gains and demographics. However, the expansion has not yet led to a material acceleration in wage growth or inflation. Inflation, a lagging indicator, warrants more attention from investors. BCA's Global Investment Strategy,3 team recently argued that both cyclical and structural forces will boost inflation in the next year and far into the next decade. In making this assessment, it was noted that inflation typically does not peak until well after a recession has begun and does not bottom until well after it has ended. The implication is that inflation could stay subdued for the next 12 months as the labor market slowly overheats, before moving higher in the second half of 2018. This also suggests that the central bank already may be behind the curve on raising rates. The implication for investors is to stay below-benchmark overall portfolio duration and favor corporate credit over government bonds over the rest of 2017. Bottom Line: Despite historically weak readings on economic growth, the U.S. economy is advancing quickly enough to reduce slack and ultimately, push up inflation. We agree with the Fed that gradual increases will forestall more aggressive hikes later in the cycle. Strong Housing Sector Dips In Q2 We expect housing to continue to add to GDP growth in 2017 and beyond. Housing - as measured by residential fixed investment - subtracted 0.27% from GDP growth in Q2 2017. However, since early 2011, the sector has contributed to growth in 20 of 25 quarters. Moreover, the Q2 decline appears to be a one off, with all of the weakness coming in "other structures," which measures broker commissions, manufactured housing and home improvement. The more economically sensitive single-family sector added 0.31% to GDP in Q2. There are few signs of the severe imbalances in housing and housing-related debt that sparked the 2007-2009 global financial crisis. Chart 9 shows that housing investment is running behind other long "slow burn" recoveries.4 These recoveries lasted well beyond the point at which the economy hit full employment, and inflationary pressures were also slower to emerge. The housing sector's lag is not surprising given the bloated inventory of vacant, unsold and foreclosed homes that needed to be absorbed in the early part of this recovery. Chart 10 shows the overhang has disappeared. Moreover, recent anecdotal reports suggest that the limited supply of homes in areas where people want to live is hurting sales. Chart 9We Are In A "Slow Burn" Expansion Chart 10Solid Housing Fundamentals In Place Other positive factors for housing include: A rise in FICO scores, which indicates that more renters now qualify for loans and could move from a rental unit to a single family house. We highlighted this factor in a recent Special Report on housing.5 Housing affordability: although off its all-time high, it remains favorable and the cost of owning remains cheap relative to renting. The rate of home ownership is now well below its long-term average (Chart 10, panel 2). If the pre-Lehman bubble in the homeownership rate has been unwound, it removes a headwind for construction activity because renting favors multi-family construction that produces less GDP per unit compared with single-family homes. The supply of foreclosed homes on the market is almost nil. While this may not directly impact home construction and GDP directly, it supports higher home prices. Lending standards have not eased much in this cycle, and accordingly, have not been a net plus for the housing market. Nonetheless, more selective mortgage lending by banks in this cycle stands in sharp contrast to the lax lending in the last cycle, with the net result being better credit quality for bank mortgage portfolios and less systemic risk in the banking sector. This is an area the Fed is paying close attention to in this cycle.6 That said, with lending standards tight, there is room for them to loosen and provide an additional boost to housing in the future. Household formation is still recovering from a period in which young adults stayed home with their parents for longer than normal for economic reasons. Although mild by historical standards, the tightening labor market and cyclical rebound in disposable incomes have allowed millennials to move out of their parents' basements, which has boosted housing demand (Chart 11). Chart 12 estimates the remaining pent up demand for housing, based on the deviation from its 1990-2007 trend in the ratio of the number of households to the total population. A closing of the remaining gap implies an extra 540,000 housing units. The equilibrium number of housing starts needed to cover underlying population growth, plus the units lost to scrappage, is estimated at about 1.4 million annually. If the household formation 'catch up' occurs during the next two years, adding another 250,000 units per year, then total demand could be 1.6 to 1.7 million in each of the next two years. This compares with the July housing starts level of 1.2 million. If starts rise smoothly from today's level to 1.7 million at the end of 2018, then the housing sector will contribute about 0.25 percentage points and 0.52 percentage point to real GDP growth in 2017 and 2018, respectively (Chart 13). Chart 11Household Formation##BR##Following Incomes Higher Chart 12A Catch Up In Housing Construction##BR##Will Occur If This Gap Narrows Chart 13Housing Catch Up##BR##Will Boost GDP Growth The implication for the economy is that this already-aged expansion phase could persist for a couple of more years as long as it is not hit by an adverse shock and inflationary pressures remain muted, which would allow the Fed to proceed slowly. Bottom Line: Housing starts remain well below the equilibrium level implied by underlying household formation and a "catch up" phase could stoke the current "slow burn" expansion in the coming years. Residential investment will continue to add to GDP growth in 2017 and beyond, and keep economic growth on track to hit the Fed's modest target. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Growth Trumps Liquidity", dated July 31, 2017, available at uses.bcarearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Waiting For The Turn", dated June 26, 2017, available at usis.bcarearch.com. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "A Secular Bottom In Inflation", dated July 28, 2017, available at gis.bcarearch.com. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, dated November 24, 2016, available at bca.bcarearch.com. 5 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "U.S. Housing: What Comes Next?", dated March 27, 2017, available at usis.bcarearch.com. 6 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate", dated July 24, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The bottom in the dollar will have to wait for clearer signs that U.S. inflation has hit a trough. DXY is unlikely to punch below its May 2016 low. We examine balance of payments dynamics across the G10. This analysis shows that while the euro has long-term upside, it is too early to bet on any move above 1.20. The Japanese balance of payment dynamics will deteriorate as the BoJ keeps pressing on the gas pedal. Markets will have to price out rate hikes from the U.K. Feature Our most recent attempt at selling EUR/USD ended promptly in failure, as the euro is currently supported by a perfect storm of factors, making the timing of a reversal of its powerful bull run a tricky exercise. On the one hand, European politics continue to enjoy a re-rating among investors. As 2017 began, observers were worried that France was about to fall under the control of populists - euro-skeptic politicians like Marine Le Pen. This could well have spelled the end of the euro. Instead, the French electorate delivered a pro-market outcome with Emmanuel Macron clinching the keys to the Elysée Palace, and his centrist, pro-reform party now controlling Parliament. Meanwhile, German politics remain steady, and the Italian political risk has been pushed back to 2018. On the other hand, investors started the year expecting a hyperactive Trump presidency that would deliver de-regulation and tax reforms. Instead, the U.S. has a Twitterer-in-Chief and a chaotic White House that has been able to only achieve political paralysis. While political developments have grabbed the most headlines, economics have played an even more crucial role. Most importantly, inflation dynamics have been at the crux of the euro's rally. Namely, U.S. inflation has been a big source of disappointment, as the core PCE deflator has fallen from 1.9% in late 2016 to 1.5% today - a move away from the Federal Reserve's 2% target. As a result, the dollar and interest rates have moved away from discounting the Fed's path as implied by the "dot plot" (Chart I-1). However, our work on capacity utilization and financial conditions highlights that the U.S. inflation slowdown has been a reflection of the lagged impact of massive financial tightening in late 2014, and subsequent deceleration in economic activity. In fact, improvements in both capacity utilization and financial conditions witnessed since then point to a turnaround in inflation this fall (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Downward Move In Inflation Rate Expectations Chart I-2U.S. Inflation To Trough Soon What should investors do in the meantime? The market will only believe the Fed's hiking intensions once inflation rears its head again. After so many false starts and disappointments, signs that inflation might be coming will not be enough, as narratives of a near-permanent state of zero percent inflation are taking hold of the general discourse. Because investors have purged their excess dollar longs and are now heavily positioned for a euro rally, the dollar downside is currently limited, and a significant breach below the May 5, 2016 low in the DXY is unlikely. However, the dollar-rebound camp will have to wait for clear evidence that U.S. inflation is exiting its doldrums. This is a story for the fall. A Look At Balance-Of-Payments Dynamics The U.S. Chart I-3U.S. Balance Of Payments The U.S. current account deficit has been hovering below -2% of GDP for most of the post-great-financial-crisis period, and therefore has played little to no role in explaining the dollar's moves since 2011. However, the U.S. basic balance (current account plus net foreign direct investments) registered a sharp improvement in 2015 on the back of a surge in net FDI into the U.S. Despite a small pullback in the past 18 months, the U.S. basic balance remains consistent with levels recorded during the dollar bull market of the 1990s (Chart I-3). Portfolio flows in the U.S. have moved back into positive territory after a period of net outflows in 2015 and 2016. Yet, the total amount of net portfolio flows remains very low by historical standards, suggesting investors have not wagered aggressively on the U.S. economy's outperformance. Together, the aggregate U.S. balance-of-payment paints a neutral picture for the U.S. The deep imbalances in the current account and basic balance that prevailed prior to the financial crisis have been purged, but portfolio flows into the U.S. do not show any excessive optimism. In fact, the recent period of dollar weakness will likely help the U.S. balance of payments: It should support the trade balance, and make FDI and portfolio flows more attractive going forward as easing U.S. financial conditions help economic activity and asset returns. The Euro Area Chart I-4Euro Area Balance Of Payments Since the euro area crisis, the region's current account has surged to a very large surplus of 3.5% of GDP (Chart I-4). This mostly reflects a large correction of imbalances in peripheral nations. Countries like Spain and Italy have seen their own current account balances morph from deficits of 10.2% of GDP and 3.8% of GDP in 2008 and 2011, respectively, to surpluses of 1.9% of GDP and 2.7% of GDP today. The large contraction in imports on the back of moribund domestic demand has been the key driver of this phenomenon. The euro area remains an exporter of FDIs, experiencing near-constant outflows since 2004. As a result, the euro area's basic balance has not experienced as pronounced an improvement as the current account. It is still nonetheless in surplus - something that did not prevent EUR/USD from experiencing a 25% decline from June 2014 to March 2015. Net portfolio flows in the euro area have moved into deeply negative territory, reflecting massive outflows from the bond market. European investors have also been avid buyers of foreign equities, despite the recent increase in foreign buying of euro area stocks. In aggregate, we would interpret the current balance-of-payments dynamic in Europe as potentially supportive of the euro down the line. Aggregate portfolio flows are so depressed that there is a greater likelihood they will improve than deteriorate. However, while the basic balance and portfolio flows bottomed in 2000, the euro was not able to rally durably until 2002. Together, this suggests the euro is unlikely to re-test parity this cycle, but could remain capped below 1.20 for a few more quarters. Japan Chart I-5Japan Balance Of Payments Thanks to large investment income emanating from a net international investment position of 62% of GDP, Japan sports a current account surplus 2.5% of GDP greater than its trade balance. However, as the country continues to export capital abroad, it still carries a 3.1%-of-GDP deficit in terms of net FDI. This means that the Japanese basic balance of payments remains around 0% of GDP (Chart I-5). Meanwhile, net portfolio flows into Japan have improved greatly in 2017, explaining the yen's strength this year. While we see more upside for equity inflows into Japan, the efforts by the Bank of Japan to suppress JGB yields are likely to result into continued outflows on the fixed-income front. Since BCA is calling for higher global bond yields, fixed income portfolio outflows are likely to grow bigger, making the recent improvement in the Japanese balance of payments a fleeting phenomenon. This will weigh on the yen. We continue to expect the JPY to be one of the worst-performing currencies over the next 12-18 months. The U.K. Chart I-6U.K. Balance Of Payments Financing the U.K.'s current account deficit of 4% of GDP has taken center stage in the wake of the Brexit vote last year. However, while the trade-weighted pound has depreciated 12% since then, the British basic balance of payments has improved and moved back into positive territory. Net FDI inflows lie behind this stunning development. FDI into the U.K. has been surging since 2016 (Chart I-6). However, the recent slowdown in M&A deals into the U.K. points to a potential end for this GBP support. The key costs of controlling the free movement of people in the U.K. - a demand of Brexit voters - will be the loss of passporting rights for the financial services sector. Since this sector has been the biggest magnet for FDI in the U.K., net FDI could soon become a drag on the basic balance of payments. In contrast to FDI, net portfolio flows into the U.K. have followed the anticipated post-Brexit script, falling from 5% of GDP in Q2 2016 to zero earlier this year. This development was the biggest contributor to the pound's weakness last year. Going forward, the case for the Bank of England to turn hawkish is likely to dissipate as the inflation pass-through from the weak pound dissipates (see below). For the pound to rally further, a continued expansion in global liquidity will be necessary. However, we anticipate global liquidity to deteriorate for the remainder of 2017 as the Fed begins the runoff of its balance sheet, and the PBoC keeps tightening the screws on the bubbly Chinese real estate market. Hence, we would position ourselves for pound weakness against the USD in the second half of 2017. Canada Chart I-7Canada Balance Of Payments Canada runs a current account deficit of 3% of GDP. This is not a new development. Canada has been running a current account deficit since 2009 (Chart I-7), as weakness in the CAD from 2011 to 2016 was counterbalanced by weak export growth to the U.S. and poor oil prices. From a balance-of-payment perspective, the capacity of the CAD to rally may be limited. A surge in FDI to boost the basic balance of payments is unlikely. In 2001, the Canadian dollar was much cheaper than at present, and the impact of the tech bubble was still influencing M&A inflows into the country. In 2008, oil was trading near US$150/bbl. Today, Canada is a high-cost oil producer in a world of cheap oil, making Canadian oil plays unattractive, at least much more so than in 2007-2008. Additionally, net portfolio inflows into the country are already at near-record high levels, explaining the strong performance of the CAD since January 2016. However, going forward, oil prices are unlikely to double once more, and the combination of elevated Canadian indebtedness along with bubbly house prices and rising interest rates will create headwinds for the Canadian economy. Such an outcome would hurt expected returns on Canadian assets, and thus portfolio flows. However, if the hole in Canadian banks' balance sheets proves much bigger than BCA anticipates, this could prompt a repatriation of funds held abroad by banks - assets that currently equal nearly 50% of their balance sheets, temporarily helping the CAD. Australia Chart I-8Australia Balance Of Payments While the Australian trade balance has moved back in positive territory, the current account remains in deficit, burdened with negative international incomes associated with a negative net international investment position of -60% of GDP. Yet, because the current account has nonetheless improved, the Australian basic balance of payments is back in positive territory, as net FDI inflows have remained steady around 4% of GDP (Chart I-8). From a balance-of-payments perspective, the Australian dollar looks good. The current account balance is likely to remain well supported as the capex needs of Western Australia have decreased - exerting downward pressure on imports - but new mines are coming online and generating revenues and exports. Meanwhile, portfolio flows in Australia are quite depressed, suggesting some long-term upside as investors seem to be underweight Australian assets. That being said, the Aussie is currently trading at 12% above its long-term fair value. Moreover, any tightening in global liquidity thanks to the Fed and the PBoC could increase the cost of financing Australia's large negative net international investment position, and cause a last down leg in metals prices and the AUD. New Zealand Chart I-9New Zealand Balance Of Payments New Zealand's current account has been stable at around -3% of GDP since 2010. While New Zealand has been a constant magnet for FDI (Chart I-9), the positive balance in this account has not been able to lift the national basic balance of payments above the zero line. Interestingly, despite still-higher interest rates offered by New Zealand compared to the rest of the G10, the kiwi has been experiencing net portfolio outflows so far this year, potentially explaining why NZD/USD has not been able to break out like AUD/USD. Balance-of-payment dynamics looks supportive for the AUD relative to the NZD, as Australia runs a positive basic balance while New Zealand does not. Additionally, while Australian portfolio flows are very depressed, New Zealand's could suffer more downside. Mitigating these positives for AUD/NZD, the New Zealand economy is much stronger than that of Australia, and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand is in much better position to increase rates than the Reserve Bank of Australia is.1 Switzerland Chart I-10Switzerland Balance Of Payments The Swiss franc may be expensive relative to its purchasing power parity, and it may also be contributing to the country's strong deflationary tendencies, but it does not seem to be hampering its international competitiveness. The Swiss trade balance is at a massive 6% of GDP. Additionally, thanks to the international income generated by Switzerland's gigantic net international investment position of 127% of GDP, the country runs an incredible current account surplus of around 11% of GDP (Chart I-10). Being a nation with a steady current account surplus, Switzerland re-exports much capital abroad, generating a nearly permanent deficit in its net FDI account. However, this deficit is not enough to generate a basic balance-of-payments deficit. Instead, the BBoP still stands at 6% of GDP, creating a long-term support for the CHF. In terms of portfolio flows, Switzerland has historically run a deficit, reflecting its status as a capital exporter. Only at the height of the euro area crisis did Switzerland experience net portfolio inflows. Today, portfolio flows continue to leave the country, albeit at a slower pace than before the euro area crisis. Over the next 12 months, the CHF is likely to experience continued downside against both the euro and the USD, as the Swiss National Bank remains steadfast in its fight against domestic deflationary forces. However, from a long-term perspective, Switzerland will continue to run a balance-of-payments surplus that will support the structural upward trend in the real trade-weighted CHF. Sweden Chart I-11Sweden Balance Of Payments The Swedish trade balance recently moved into deficit territory, but the nation's current account remains in a healthy surplus of more than 4% of GDP, reflecting large amounts foreign income extracted by Sweden's thanks to its large amount of assets held abroad - a legacy of decades of current account surpluses. The net FDI balance has recently moved into positive territory, as Sweden possesses some of the strongest long-term economic fundamentals in Western Europe. Thanks to this development, the basic balance of the largest Nordic economy is at its highest level in eight years (Chart I-11), representing a long-term positive for the cheap SEK. Finally, portfolio flows into Sweden are at a neutral level. However, we expect the Riksbank to begin increasing rates early next year, putting it well ahead of its European peers. This should result in growing inflows into the country, supporting the SEK, at least against the EUR and the GBP. Norway Chart I-12Norway Balance Of Payments Due to the collapse in oil prices since 2014, the Norwegian trade surplus has melted from a gargantuan 15% of GDP to a more modest 5% of GDP (Chart I-12). However, falling oil prices and North-Sea production have also resulted in a collapse of FDIs into the country. Because of these developments, the Norwegian basic balance of payments has fallen into deficit for the first time in more than 20 years. This combination could explain why the NOK has been trading at its deepest discount to long-term fair value in decades. Ultimately, the constantly positive BBoP has historically been one of the key drivers of the krone. Without this support, since the Norges Bank stands among the most dovish central banks in the G10, the NOK does need a greater-than-normal discount. Norway too has historically experienced net portfolio outflows, also a consequence of its massive current account surplus. Thus, we do not read today's relatively small portfolio outflows as a positive. Instead, they simply reflect the deterioration in the current account and basic balance. Putting it all together, while balance-of-payment dynamics do explain why the NOK is trading at a historically large discount to fair value, we remain positive on this currency relative to the euro. When all is said and done, even accounting for these exceptional factors, the NOK is too cheap. Additionally, BCA does expect oil prices to move back toward US$60/bbl, which should help move the basic balance back into positive territory. Bottom Line: Balance-of-payment dynamics rarely have much impact on G10 currencies in the short run. However, in the long run, they can become paramount. Using this framework, while the USD could experience some upside in the next 12 months or so, any such upside is likely to mark the last hurrah of the bull market: the U.S. balance of payments is relatively neutral, but Europe's is currently excessively handicapped by extremely depressed portfolio flows. This latter situation is likely to be reversed in the coming years. The yen balance-of-payment dynamics will become increasingly tenuous if the BoJ continues on its current policy path. Among commodity currencies, the AUD has the best long-term profile in terms of balance-of-payment dynamics. Finally, the SNB faces a Herculean task: While it is currently keeping the CHF at bay in order to alleviate deflationary tendencies in Switzerland, the country's perennially strong balance of payment will ultimately prove too great a hurdle to overcome. The CHF could overtake the yen as the true risk-off currency of the world in future. BoE Is Stuck With Low Rates For Now In our January 13 Special Report titled, "GBP: Dismal Expectations,"2 we discussed why fears of any calamity that Brexit could bring to the British economy was overdone, and thus why buying the pound was an attractive opportunity. So far, our view has been validated, as cable has rallied by almost 8%. However, although we stand by our analysis on a cyclical horizon, a tactical selloff in the pound may be due. At the beginning of the year, the U.K. economy outperformed almost every forecast. Since then, expectations have risen along with the pound, but the British economy has shifted from star performer to disappointment (Chart I-13). For example, house price growth has collapsed to levels not seen since the euro area crisis (Chart I-14, top panel). Furthermore, the rapid rise in inflation has also caused a contraction in real disposable income comparable to that of 2012 (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Chart I-13Shift In U.K. Surprises Chart I-14Cracks In The U.K. Rate expectations have become too lofty. After the 2016 collapse in the pound, both headline and core inflation rose above the BoE's target. Consequently, rate expectations spiked, particularly after three MPC members voted for hikes. But can this rate of inflation continue? Looking at individual components of inflation, it is clear that the pound selloff was an important culprit behind the inflation surge. Thus, as the pass-through from the currency dissipates, inflation will also subside (Chart I-15). Falling inflation and weaker growth are already forcing the BoE to retreat from its relative hawkishness. Yesterday, as the "Old Lady" curtailed both its growth and wage forecast for 2017 and 2018, only two members voted for a hike. Political dynamics have also supported cable so far this year. Today, the U.K. policy uncertainty index is at par with that of the U.S. as the Trump White House continues to be in disarray, and the outlook for tax reform and/or infrastructure spending looks grim (Chart I-16). But the U.S. is not the country engaging in its most contentious and significant treaty negotiation in 50 years. Instead, the U.K. is this country, with a weakened government at its helm following its recent electoral debacle. Thus, we would expect a reversal of the currently pro-pound relative political uncertainty indexes, as Brexit negotiations heat up in the coming quarters. Chart I-15U.K. Inflation Is Peaking Chart I-16Does Trump Really Trump Brexit? While policy and political considerations are likely to hurt the pound this fall, for GBP/USD to correct, a fall in the euro will be needed as well. In the meantime, investors may look to continue to buy EUR/GBP. Since July 7th, we have been anticipating this cross to hit the 0.93 level. This analysis confirms this view. Bottom Line: The U.K. economy should be able to weather its exit from the European Union. This should help the pound on a cyclical horizon. However, the pound has become overbought and interest rate expectations are too elevated, as the market has forgotten that a price still has to be paid for Brexit. GBP/USD is too dependent on the EUR/USD dynamics to short cable outright right now. As such, investors may keep buying EUR/GBP for now, and look to sell GBP/USD near 1.33. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Juan Manuel Correa, Research Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy and Global Alpha Sector Strategy Special Report titled, "Who Hikes Next?", dated June 30, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report titled "GBP: Dismal Expectations", dated January 13, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The U.S. has shown some signs of strength this week, however the data remains mixed: Both headline PCE and core PCE beat expectations, coming in at 1.4% and 1.5% respectively; While the headline ISM manufacturing number weakened, the Price Paid component rebounded to 62. Initial jobless claims beat expectations by 2,000; however, continuing claims underperformed; Factory orders improved on a monthly basis. While the U.S. is still in an inflation slump, we believe that inflation is close to bottoming out. The depreciation in the greenback and the rally in risk assets have greatly eased financial conditions, creating support for the economy. This should push the greenback up as the markets begin to reprice Fed hikes. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Look Ahead, Not Back - June 9, 2017 Capacity Explosion = Inflation Implosion - June 2, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Euro appreciation has continued. While the general tone of data remains strong, some leading indicators are showing early cracks: Unemployment, a lagging indicator, decreased to 9.1%, outperforming expectations; Headline inflation remained steady at 1.3%, however core inflation increased to 1.2%; GDP numbers came in as expected, growing at a 0.6% quarterly rate, and a 2.1% annual rate; However, German and EMU Markit Manufacturing PMIs both underperformed expectations. Momentum is on the euro's side, which traded above 1.19 on Wednesday. The euro area owes much of its economic growth to the 25% depreciation since mid-2014. While data has surprised to the upside, the ECB remains the central bank of the peripheries, where inflation has failed to emerge as strongly. Rate differentials will weigh on the euro towards the end of the year, but momentum could continue to push the euro up in the coming weeks. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Japanese data came in positive: Overall household spending yearly growth came in above expectations at 2.3% Japan's job-to-applicants ratio came in at 1.51. Above expectations and growing from the previous month. The unemployment rate fell to 2.8%, coming in below expectations of 3%. These two last data points are important, as they show that the Japanese labor market is getting increasingly tight. However, as evidenced by the last 2 years, inflation will not be able to rise sustainably without a depreciating yen, even if the labor market is tight. Thus, the recent selloff in USD/JPY will only incentivize authorities to remain very accommodative while other central banks are exiting maximum accommodation, reinforcing our negative cyclical view on the yen. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Data in the U.K. was mixed this week: Both Markit Manufacturing and Markit Services PMI beat expectations coming in at 55.1 and 53.8 respectively. However both consumer credit and mortgage approvals fell from the previous month and underperformed expectations. Up to yesterday the pound had gained almost 2% during the week, however following the interest rate decision by the BoE, the pound fell by roughly 1%. The reason for this fall, was that the BoE is becoming less hawkish. Not only did the number of MPC members voting for a hike decrease from 3 to 2, but the bank also lowered its forecast for growth and wages. We believe this will start a trend toward a less hawkish BoE, which will weigh on the pound on the short term. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction - April 21, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Momentum is showing signs of topping out. The MACD is rolling over, and is converging with the Signal line; and the RSI is weakening from deeply overbought levels. This week, AUD has displayed broad-based weaknesses. Despite one key blotch, data relevant to Australia has been good: TD Securities Inflation increased at a 2.7% rate in July; Chinese Caixin Manufacturing PMI came out better than expected at 51.1; Building permits increased at a striking 10.9% monthly rate. They contracted at a 2.3% yearly pace, a sharp improvement over the the previous month's 18.7% contraction. However, the trade balance underperformed missed expectations by a large margin, coming in at AUD856mn, compared to the expected AUD1,800mn. The recent RBA statement highlighted that the recent appreciation in the Australian dollar "is expected to contribute to subdued price pressures", and "is weighing on the outlook for output and employment". This could add substantial pressure on the AUD in the near future. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Even as the dollar has fallen, the kiwi has depreciated by almost 1.4% this week, as New Zealand data has come in weak: Both the ANZ Activity outlook and the ANZ business confidence came in below the previous month reading at 40.3% and 19.4 respectively. The participation rate came below expectations at 70%. Meanwhile employment also came below expectations contracting by 0.2% Month-on-Month. Overall we continue to be bearish on commodity currencies in general and the kiwi in particular. Recently, the Chinese authorities have been getting tougher on credit excesses. This could be the trigger for a risk off period in emerging markets, which wouldweigh on the NZD. That being said, we are more bearish on AUD/NZD, as the kiwi economy is on much stronger footing than the Australian one. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The CAD has displayed some considerable broad-based weakness this week following weak data releases: Industrial Product Price contracted monthly by 1% in June; The Raw Material Price Index also contracted, at 3.7%; However, the Markit Manufacturing PMI saw an increase to 55.5 from 54.7. Markets have priced in a 75% probability of a hike by the end of this year by the BoC, compared to 42% for the Fed. Although we agree with the market's perception of the BoC, we disagree that the probability of the Fed hiking is this low. We therefore believe the CAD could correct further in the upcoming weeks. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been positive: The KOF leading indicator came at 106.8, beating expectations. Real retail sales grew by 1.5% year on year, increasing from last month number and beating expectations. The SVME Purchasing Manager Index came in very strong at 60.9, beating expectations and also increasing from last month's reading. While data was positive, EUR/CHF went vertical this week, rising by more than 3%. At this point EUR/CHF is the most overbought it has been in more than 4 years, and at least a small correction seems overdue. The SNB will be satisfied with a depreciating currency, as this dramatic fall should help ease deflationary pressures in the alpine country. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data has been mixed in Norway: The Labor forced survey, which measures unemployment, came in at 4.3% outperforming expectations of 4.5%. The above data point was confirmed by the registered unemployment reading, which also outperformed expectations, coming in at 2.8%. However retail sales contracted by 0.6% month-on-month. Even as the dollar continues to fall, USD/NOK has stayed relatively flat this week. Curiously this has also happened amid rising oil prices. Overall, we expect USD/NOK to rally in the fall, as the Norwegian economy remains tepid, and inflation is not likely to rise above target any time soon, while investors are still underestimating the Fed's will to push interest rates higher. That being said, we are bearish on EUR/NOK, as this cross trades as a mirror image of oil, and the OPEC deal should continue to remove excess supply from the market and push prices higher. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Sweden has been generating substantial inflationary pressures, and increasing economy activity is likely to support these pressures, hence the Riksbank's recent hawkishness. With China tightening policy, SEK strength could be a story of rate differentials going forward, appreciating against EUR, AUD, NZD and NOK, as the Riksbank is likely to become increasingly nervous in the face of rising inflationary pressures. However, as the market currently underprices the risk of a more hawkish Fed, the picture for USD/SEK is less clear. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights The neutral real rate of interest, R*, is low in most economies, and will only rise gradually over the coming years. Currency movements tend to dampen differences in neutral rates across countries. The fact that R* is higher in the U.S. will limit further downside risk for the dollar. While a variety of structural forces will cap the increase in the neutral real rate, the neutral nominal rate could rise more briskly as inflation picks up. As such, investors should reduce duration risk and increase exposure to inflation-linked securities. We are closing our long GBP/JPY trade for a gain of 9.9% and opening a new trade going short EUR/GBP. EUR/USD will trade in a range of $1.10-to-$1.20 over the next 6-to-9 months before moving lower in the second half of next year. Feature Where Is Neutral? As the global economy continues to recover, central banks are increasingly turning to the question of how to best normalize monetary policy. A key issue in this debate concerns the level of the neutral real rate of interest, commonly referred to as R*. If central banks raise rates too far above the neutral rate, growth could stall. If they don't raise rates enough, inflation could accelerate. The concept of the neutral rate is somewhat difficult to grasp, and we apologize in advance that this report is more abstract than what we are normally accustomed to writing. However, we think that readers who stick with the logic of the piece will be well rewarded with the practical implications that it provides. A Conceptual Framework In thinking about the neutral rate, it is worthwhile to recall the familiar macro identity which states that the difference between what a country saves and what it invests is equal to its current account balance.1 Since one country's current account surplus is another's deficit, globally, the current account balance must equal zero. This, in turn, implies that globally, savings must equal investment. What happens when desired global savings exceed desired investment? The answer is that interest rates will fall.2 Lower rates will incentivize firms to undertake more investment projects, while discouraging household savings. Investment will rise and savings will decline by just enough to ensure that the global savings-investment identity is satisfied. The discussion above aptly captures what happened to the global economy after the financial crisis. The desire of households to boost savings and firms to cut capital spending led to a sharp and sustained drop in the neutral rate. Those who understood this point back in 2010, when the 10-year Treasury yield briefly hit 4%, made a lot of money by being long bonds when most others were fretting about the inflationary effects of QE and large government budget deficits. The Exchange Rate As A Mitigating Force The ability of countries to export their excess savings abroad by running current account surpluses implies that the neutral rate has a large global component. To appreciate this point, consider a simple thought experiment. Suppose the global trading system completely breaks down and every country ends up with a trade balance of zero. For the sake of argument, let us ignore the immense economic dislocations that this would cause and focus simply on the arithmetic impact that this would have on aggregate demand. The U.S. trade deficit currently stands at $567 billion (3% of GDP). Getting rid of it would add about six million jobs. This would likely cause the economy to overheat, forcing the Fed to raise rates. In contrast, the German economy would fall into a deep recession if its €224 billion (7.1% of GDP) trade surplus vanished. The ECB would not be able to raise rates for years. Thus, in the absence of trade, the neutral rate would be higher in the U.S. and lower in the euro area. This simple thought experiment illustrates why the neutral rate partly depends on the value of a country's currency.3 If a country's currency strengthens, all things equal, its neutral rate will fall. The extent to which the currency appreciates will depend on how long the forces causing neutral rates to diverge across countries are expected to persist. In general, if the forces are more structural than cyclical in nature, currencies will adjust to a greater degree (Chart 1).4 Chart 1The Longer The Interest Rate Gap Persists, The Bigger The Exchange Rate Overshoot The discussion above helps make sense of currency movements over the past three years. A key reason the dollar began to strengthen against the euro in the second half of 2014 is that investors became convinced that the neutral rate in the U.S. would exceed that of the euro area for a very long period of time. The rally in the euro this year largely reflects a reappraisal of that view. Stronger euro area growth has convinced many investors that the neutral rate in the region may not be as low as previously imagined. The Outlook For The Neutral Rate The savings-investment balance provides a useful framework for thinking about how the neutral rate will evolve over the coming years. With this framework in mind, let us consider the various forces affecting the neutral rate and how they might change over time. The Debt Supercycle Today, almost 60% of Americans want to save more money according to a recent Gallop poll; before the financial crisis, that number was less than 50% (Chart 2). A slower pace of debt accumulation implies less spending and more desired savings. It is possible that households will become more willing to take on debt as the memories of the Great Recession fade. However, a return to the reckless lending standards of the pre-crisis period is unlikely. Thus, while the end of the deleveraging cycle in the U.S. will push up R*, it will remain low by historic standards. Globally, efforts to reduce leverage have been more halting. In fact, in many emerging markets, debt levels are higher today than in 2008 (Chart 3). This will weigh on R*. Chart 2Return To Thrift Chart 3EM Debt At All-Time Highs The "Amazonification" Of The Economy Chart 4Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners Technological progress is nothing new, but unlike past inventions which typically replaced man with machine, many of today's innovations appear to be reducing the need for both labor and physical capital.5 Companies like Amazon are laying waste to America's retail sector. Uber and Airbnb are providing ways to use the existing stock of capital more efficiently. Fewer shopping malls, taxis, and hotels means less investment, and less investment means a lower neutral rate. Inequality One of the distinguishing features of the "Amazon economy" is that it is dominated by a few winner-take-all firms. This has generated huge payoffs for their owners, but paltry returns for everyone else. While this is not the only trend fueling income inequality, it has certainly exacerbated it. Rising inequality redistributes income from households that tend to live paycheck-to-paycheck to those who save a lot (Chart 4). This increases aggregate desired savings, leading to a lower neutral rate. However, rising inequality may also generate a political backlash. Donald Trump's ability to take over the Republican party was partly driven by the disillusionment of Republican voters over the GOP's pro-business positions on issues such as immigration and trade. Historically, populism has been associated with larger budget deficits. To the extent that budget deficits soak up savings, they lead to a higher neutral rate. Rising populism could also lead to stronger calls for anti-trust policies. Our sense is that we are slowly moving in this direction. Slower Population Growth Demographic shifts can be tricky to assess because they affect savings and investment in offsetting ways and over different time horizons (Chart 5). A decrease in the growth rate of the population will reduce the incentive to expand capacity. Less investment means a lower neutral rate. Slower population growth may also lead to higher savings for a while, as a larger fraction of the population enters its peak saving years (ages 30-to-50). This also means a lower neutral rate. Eventually, however, aging will push more of the population into retirement, increasing the number of people who are dissaving rather than saving. Rising government spending on health care and pensions could also lead to larger fiscal deficits, further depleting national savings. We may be approaching this outcome. Chart 6 shows that the global "support ratio" - defined as the number of workers relative to the number of consumers - has peaked globally and will start falling sharply over the coming years. Chart 5An Aging Population Eventually Pushes Up Interest Rates Chart 6The Ratio Of Workers To Consumers Have Peaked Slower Productivity Growth As with population growth, slower productivity growth is likely to depress R* at first, but could raise R* over time (Chart 7). Initially, slower productivity growth will prompt firms to curb investment spending. It could also lead to less consumer spending, as households react to the prospect of smaller gains in real incomes. All this implies a lower neutral rate. Eventually, however, chronically weak income growth is likely to deplete national savings, leading to a higher neutral rate. The U.S. and a number of other economies may be getting increasingly close to that inflection point (Chart 8). Chart 7A Decline In Productivity Growth Is Deflationary In The Short Run, But Inflationary In The Long Run Chart 8Weak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps Lower Commodity Prices Swings in commodity prices may also generate offsetting pressures on the neutral rate that manifest themselves over different time horizons. At the outset, lower commodity prices tend to depress investment spending in the resource sector. This implies a lower neutral rate. Over time, however, lower commodity prices may generate new investment opportunities in downstream industries that use fuel as an input. Lower commodity prices also put money into the pockets of poorer households who are likely to spend it. This raises the neutral rate. Investment Implications Given the conflicting forces affecting R*, it is difficult to have much certainty over how it will evolve. Our best guess is that R* will increase over the next few years, as the scars from the financial crisis recede, deleveraging headwinds abate, fiscal deficits in some economies widen, and population aging and lower productivity growth make more of a dent in national savings. However, the rise in R* is likely to be gradual and from what is currently a very low base. Where we do have greater conviction is on two points: First, the neutral nominal rate will rise more quickly than the neutral real rate, as inflation picks up in most economies. As discussed last week, central banks have a strong incentive to try to engineer more inflation in situations where the economy needs a low real rate to maintain full employment.6 Getting inflation up has been a struggle ever since the financial crisis began, but now that spare capacity around the world is dissipating, central banks are likely to gain more traction over monetary policy. As such, investors should reduce duration risk and increase exposure to inflation-linked securities. Second, the forces pushing down R* outside the U.S. will remain more pronounced than those in the U.S. This, in turn, will provide some support to the beleaguered U.S. dollar. Investors, in particular, may be getting too optimistic about the ability of the ECB to engineer a full-fledged tightening cycle. The euro area is further behind the U.S. in the deleveraging process, suggesting that desired private-sector savings will remain higher there. The overall stance of fiscal policy is also much tighter in the euro area. The IMF estimates that the euro area's structural primary budget surplus currently stands at 0.7% of GDP, compared to a deficit of 1.9% in the U.S. Thus, fiscal policy is currently adding 2.6% of GDP more to aggregate demand in the U.S. than in the euro area. The Fund expects this relative contribution to increase to nearly 4% of GDP by the end of the decade (Chart 9). Furthermore, investment spending has more scope to fall in the euro area. According to the OECD, gross fixed capital formation is actually higher in the euro area than in the U.S. as a share of GDP, despite the fact that potential GDP growth is slower in the euro area (Chart 10). Chart 9Fiscal Policy Is More Stimulative In The U.S. Chart 10Euro Area Investment Spending: Higher Than In The U.S. The appreciation of the euro has led to a tightening in euro area financial conditions in recent weeks, whereas U.S. financial conditions have continued to ease (Chart 11). This will cause relative growth to shift back in favor of the U.S. later this year. Chart 11Diverging Financial Conditions##br## Favor U.S. Over The Euro Area Chart 12The Neutral Rate Is Lowest In The Euro Area The 30-year U.S. Treasury yield is currently 95 basis points higher than the 30-year GDP-weighted euro area government bond yield. This gap in yields does not strike us as being especially large considering that both the neutral rate and long-term inflation expectations are lower in the euro area. We expect EUR/USD to trade in a range of $1.10-to-$1.20 over the next 6-to-9 months before moving lower in the second half of 2018, by which time the Fed will be forced to pick up the pace of rate hikes. The resurgent euro has approached all-time highs against the pound, abetted by a somewhat more dovish-than-expected BoE meeting this week. Yet, with U.K. inflation above target and the unemployment rate at the lowest level since 1975, the Bank of England may need to deliver more than the mere 36 basis points in rate hikes the market is expecting over the next two years. Holston, Laubach and Williams estimate that R* is 1.6 percentage points higher in the U.K. than in the euro area (Chart 12). As such, the balance of risks now favor a stronger pound over a cyclical horizon of 12 months. With that in mind, we are closing our long GBP/JPY trade for a gain of 9.9% and opening a new short EUR/GBP position (Note: The returns of all closed trades are displayed at the back of this report). Peter Berezin, Global Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 The difference between what a country saves and what it invests is also equal to the difference between what it earns and what it spends. To see this, note that S=Y-C-G where S is national savings, Y is national income, C is personal consumption, and G is government spending. Hence, the identity S-I=CA can be re-written as Y-(C+G+I)=CA where CA is the current account balance. 2 An obvious question is what happens if desired savings exceed desired investment, but interest rates are already equal to zero. In that case, income will contract. Workers will lose their jobs, making it impossible for them to save. Firms will suffer lower profits or even incur losses in the face of flagging demand. Governments will see tax revenues dry up and spending on welfare programs escalate. This means that household, corporate, and government savings will all decline. Of course, since firms are likely to reduce investment in response to slower growth, this could usher in a vicious cycle where falling demand leads to higher unemployment and even less spending - in other words, a recession or even a depression. 3 Suppose, for example, that the interest rate in Country A were to rise above that of Country B for a period of say, ten years. Country A's currency would appreciate. This would reduce net exports in Country A, leading to a decline in aggregate demand. This, in turn, would prevent the neutral rate in Country A from rising as much as it otherwise would. On the flipside, the cheapening of Country B's currency would push up its neutral rate. 4 In the extreme case where the structural forces are expected to last forever, currencies will adjust to the point where the neutral rate across countries is equalized. Intuitively, this must happen because it is impossible for currency-hedged, risk-adjusted interest rates to be lower in one country than in another for an indefinite amount of time. 5 From a neoclassical economics perspective, one might imagine a "production function" that includes labor, physical capital, and digital capital. Many of today's innovations are raising the return on digital capital relative to those on labor and physical capital. This generates outsized rewards to the owners of this particular form of capital (i.e., internet companies), while potentially undercutting the income of workers and owners of physical capital. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “A Secular Bottom In Inflation,” dated July 28, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Investors are becoming less concerned about China's growth outlook, but there is no sign of euphoria. Monitor three risk factors that could disrupt the positive growth outlook and the bull market in Chinese stocks. For now, the risks appear reasonably contained, and the lack of a complacency in the marketplace means it is too early to bet against the herd. Remain positive and stay invested. Feature The latest purchasing managers surveys released early this week confirm that the Chinese economy remains buoyant. The manufacturing and service PMIs from both official and private sources remain comfortably in expansionary territory, and there are no signs of a material deterioration from the readings of the sub-indices. Improving growth also appears to be reflected in the stock market. Chinese investable equities have rallied by over 30% so far this year, beating the major global and EM benchmarks (Chart 1). Despite the improvement in the growth numbers and the rally in stock prices, there is no sign of euphoria among investors with respect to China. On the contrary, Chinese stocks' multiples are still among the lowest of the major global bourses (Chart 2). Importantly, ETFs investing in Chinese assets are still witnessing net redemptions: China-focused ETFs listed in the U.S. and Hong Kong have been witnessing constant net capital outflows since 2013 (Chart 3). Even in the first half of this year, these ETFs have continued to lose capital despite rising stock prices - which means retail investors have not participated in the rally. Attractive valuations and lack of "irrational exuberance" suggest the rally in Chinese investable stocks should have further to run. Chart 1Chinese Equities Have Outperformed... Chart 2...But Still With Much Lower Multiples Chart 3... And Net ETF Redemptions Overall, we remain positive on both Chinese equities and the economy's cyclical outlook, and see limited downside risks in the near term, as discussed in detail in recent weeks.1 However, as growth and stock market performance have been largely in line with our expectations, it is always useful to reflect on risk factors. We see three potential risks that could upset the economy and the ongoing rally in Chinese stocks that need to be closely monitored. Will The Trump Wildcard Strike Again? There are increasing signs that tensions between the U.S. and China are on the rise again after a period of relative tranquility. The first round of U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue (CED) resulted in no material progress or concrete plans to improve bilateral trade imbalances. U.S. President Donald Trump has continued to pull "China hawks" into his trade policy team, naming Dennis Shea, well known for being highly critical of China's trade practices, as deputy U.S. Trade Representative. Furthermore, the U.S. State Department recently approved a major weapon package to Taiwan, the first arms sales to the Island since 2015. More recently, President Trump has openly accused China of not helping deal with the North Korea nuclear issue after the country tested an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that it claims can reach continental America. In addition, the Trump administration is reportedly planning trade measures to force Beijing to crack down on intellectual-property theft and ease requirements that American companies share advanced technologies to gain entry to the Chinese market. Overall, it is widely viewed that the brief "honeymoon" in U.S.-China relations following the April Summit between the leaders of the two countries has decisively ended, and the odds for protectionism tactics against Chinese products have increased. The "Trump wildcard" has always been a key risk with respect to our outlook for China2 - the latest developments suggest this risk remains firmly in place. President Trump and his inner circle appear genuinely convinced that punitive tactics could solve the country's chronic trade deficit. Moreover, President Trump has been increasingly bogged down by domestic policy, and he may lash out on the international front in an effort to boost his popularity. Furthermore, the U.S. President has few legal constitutional constraints to using tariffs against trade partners, giving him maneuvering room. From a big-picture perspective, the conflict between the U.S. and China has deep ideological and geopolitical roots, which are even harder to deal with than trade issues. Chart 4Steel Is No Longer Relevant For ##br##U.S.-China Trade Nonetheless, we maintain our guarded optimism that unilateral protectionism measures will not materially undermine Chinese exports, at least in the near term. On the U.S. side, even though President Trump has toughened his rhetoric on China and trade issues of late, it is still far less extreme compared to the promises he made on the campaign trail, in which he pledged to slap a 45% tariff on all imports from China and to label the country a currency manipulator on "day one." So far, the U.S. administration has mainly been focusing on specific industries, particularly steel, rather than broad-based tariffs, the impact of which should be marginal. For example, China accounts for only 3% of American steel imports. Sales to the U.S. account for less than 1% of China's massive steel output (Chart 4). In other words, steel appears to be a highly symbolic sector in Trump's trade policy, but the real impact on China-U.S. trade is negligible. On the Chinese side, the authorities have hard-drawn redlines on political and sovereign issues, but have much greater flexibility on trade-related issues. Chinese officials understand that the country's large surplus with the U.S. puts it at a near-term disadvantage in a trade war, and therefore will likely cave to pressure from the U.S. Moreover, the sectors that President Trump has been complaining about, namely steel and some other base metals, are the same sectors the Chinese government wants to restrict. Therefore, China will not fight for its own "out of favor" industries to disrupt the broader picture in exports. Taken together, President Trump's trade policy has once again become unpredictable, and some punitive measures on specific products appear likely in the near term. However, we still assign low odds of a drastic escalation in trade frictions, and we expect the Chinese authorities to refrain from tit-for-tat retaliation that could lead to a trade war. Protectionism risks, however, will remain a long-term structural issue that complicates the global trade and growth outlook. Deflationary Pressures And The Risk Of Policy Overkill? Chart 5Headline CPI Is Set To Drop Further A key feature of the Chinese economy is strong disinflationary/deflationary pressures, despite robust growth and job creation. Headline inflation to be released next week will likely once again surprise to the downside, mainly due to food prices (Chart 5). Wholesale prices of agricultural products have weakened substantially in recent months, pointing to sharply lower food CPI. Core CPI remains around 1%, underscoring incredibly low inflationary pressures. The key challenge for the Chinese authorities is figuring out how to manage economic policies to achieve the delicate balance between growth and disinflation/deflation. We have long viewed that one of the critical reasons behind China's sharp growth deterioration between 2012 and 2015 was a policy mistake, in which the authorities allowed monetary conditions to tighten dramatically. We are hopeful that the authorities have realized the cost of policy overkill, and will avoid similar mistakes down the road, but the risk certainly cannot be dismissed entirely. For now, we see low odds of policy overkill that could lead to price deflation and negative growth surprises. First, as growth has improved, some policy tightening is warranted. The authorities recently reported that the economy added 7.35 million new jobs in the first half of the year, far exceeding the government's target, pushing the registered urban unemployment rate to 3.95%, the lowest in recent years. In fact, the People's Bank of China may still be behind the curve, meaning that further tightening is simply a "catch-up" and is not immediately restrictive. Chart 6Another Sharp Rally ##br##In The Trade Weighted RMB is Unlikely Second, a major factor behind China's drastic tightening in monetary conditions in previous years was the sharp rally in the trade-weighted RMB, which appreciated by almost 30% between mid-2011 and early/late 2015 - a massive deflationary shock to Chinese exporters (Chart 6). Looking forward, it is extremely unlikely that the PBoC will allow the RMB to rise by a similar magnitude anytime soon. Finally, from investors' perspective, producer output prices are more important to watch for pricing power and profitability. On this front, PPI inflation has also rolled over and will likely continue to downshift, but will not turn to outright deflation in our view. It is important to note that the sharp decline in producer prices in previous years was due to a multi-year deterioration in Chinese growth, which has historically been an anomaly. The only other period in China's post-reform history with falling PPI happened in the late 1990s in the aftermath of the Asian crisis (Chart 7). In other words, falling PPI only occurs under rather extreme growth difficulties. Our model suggests that PPI inflation may decelerate to 3% by year end. Our PPI diffusion index, which measures the percentage of industrial sectors experiencing rising prices, suggests the majority of sectors are still witnessing higher prices both compared with previous months and a year ago (Chart 8). We are monitoring the PPI diffusion index closely to heed a leading signal on corporate pricing power and overall deflationary pressures in the corporate sector. Chart 7Producer Prices: A Historical Perspective Chart 8PPI Watch Bottom Line: A policy mistake of overtightening by the Chinese authorities remains a key threat to the near-term growth outlook, but is not our base case scenario. The Resumption Of The Dollar Bull Market? The U.S. dollar has rapidly dropped out of favor among global investors. The dollar index has fallen by 10% so far this year, the weakest among the major currencies. The weak U.S. dollar has provided a Goldilocks scenario for both the Chinese economy and financial markets: a weaker dollar depreciates the RMB in trade-weighted terms, which is reflationary for the Chinese economy. For investors, the broad dollar weakness also alleviates downward pressure on the CNY/USD, and a stable CNY/USD in turn reduces investors' anxiety on China's macro conditions, pushing up stock prices. This Goldilocks scenario could once again be disrupted if the dollar bull market resumes, and the positive feedback loop goes into reverse. A stronger dollar tends to strengthen the trade-weighted RMB, which is bad news for exporters. Meanwhile, it could rekindle downward pressure on the CNY/USD, re-intensifying domestic capital outflows, which could be viewed as a sign of China's macro troubles. Fears of an economic hard landing would quickly resurface. In our view, Chinese stocks are more vulnerable if the dollar's strength resumes, but the real damage on the broader economy should not be material. It is highly unlikely that Chinese policymakers would allow the trade-weighted RMB to rise alongside the dollar, and will tighten capital account controls to stop domestic capital flight. Chinese equities will suffer in this scenario, as investors' risk aversion increases. However, so long as the Chinese economy and corporate profits do not suffer a major relapse, the rally in stocks should eventually resume. All in all, the three risk factors should be closely monitored in the coming months, especially if investors become increasingly comfortable with the Chinese growth outlook. For now, the risks appear reasonably contained, and the lack of a complacency in the marketplace means it is too early to bet against the herd. We remain positive on Chinese growth, and favor Chinese equites both in absolute terms and against global/EM benchmarks. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, "China Outlook: A Mid-Year Revisit", dated July 13, 2017, "Rising Odds Of PBoC Rate Hikes", dated July 20, 2017, and Special Report, "Focusing On Chinese Money Supply", dated July 27, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: The 2017 Outlook, And The Trump Wildcard", dated January 12, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The euro area's growth prospects, adjusted for population, are no different to any other major developed economy. If the euro area continues its recovery to just the mid-point of its long-term relative growth cycle... ...the yield spread between long-dated bonds in the euro area and the U.S. will compress to around -50 bps from today's -150 bps... ...and euro/dollar will eventually rally to over 1.30. Stay overweight euro area Financials and Retailers versus U.S. Financials and Retailers. Feature ChartThe Euro Area Has Surged Because Expectations ##br##For The Euro Area's 'Terminal' Interest Rate Have Surged Feature The latest GDP releases confirm that the euro area has comfortably outperformed other major developed economies this year. Yet among mainstream equity indexes the Eurostoxx50, which is up 6%, has comfortably underperformed both the MSCI World index1 and the S&P500, which are up 9% and 11%. Why? One clue comes from the technology-heavy NASDAQ 100, which is up 21%. Whereas euro area equities have a negligible exposure to technology, the S&P500 has more than a quarter of its market capitalization in the strongly performing tech and biotech sectors (Chart I-2). Then there is the effect of the surging euro. The largest euro area companies are multinationals earning dollars. In dollar terms, euro area profit growth2 has indeed outperformed U.S. profit growth by about 10%. But converted back into euros - the base currency of the Eurostoxx50 - the outperformance has become an underperformance (Chart I-3). Chart I-2When Technology Outperforms, The Eurostoxx50 Underperforms Chart I-3Euro Area Profits Have Outperformed In Dollars, ##br##But Not In Euros Play Relative Economic Performance Through Bonds And Currencies Chart I-4Euro Area Banks Have Outperformed U.S. Banks The salutary lesson is that sector and currency effects always swamp relative economic performance in predicting or explaining the relative performance of mainstream equity indexes. To play the euro area's economic outperformance, global equity investors must drill down to the more domestically driven euro area sectors, financials and retailers. An overweight position in these two domestic sectors versus their equivalents in, say, the U.S. has outperformed this year, and should continue to do so (Chart I-4). But the best way to play relative economic performance is through other asset classes. Focus not on equities, but on government bonds and currencies. In line with the euro area's superior economic performance this year, the spread between long-dated bond yields in the euro area and U.S. has compressed by 45bps, and euro/dollar is up 12%. The good news is that these trends can ultimately run much further. He That Is Without Structural Problem, Cast The First Stone... Chart I-5For American Men, Labour Force ##br##Participation Rate Is Collapsing The obvious pushback to the longer-term narrative is: what about the euro area's much discussed structural difficulties? To which our response is yes, the euro area does face undoubted long-term challenges. Integrating 19 disparate nations into the confines of an ever closer financial, economic, and ultimately political union is a task that comes with difficulties and risks, especially in the political dimension. Having said that, the euro area is not the only major economy contending with major financial, economic and political challenges in the coming years. To paraphrase the Bible, "he that is without structural problem among you, let him cast the first stone at the euro area." The United Kingdom will spend the next few years struggling to define and redefine the meaning of Brexit, then trying to negotiate it, and then grappling to implement it - whatever 'it' ends up being. The whole process is fraught with financial, economic and political challenges and dangers. Looking West, the United States is suffering a major structural downtrend in its labour participation rate; for American men especially, the participation rate is collapsing (Chart I-5), which creates its own political problems. Looking East, Japan is suffering a chronically low and declining birth rate. And China must wean itself off a decade long addiction to debt-fuelled growth. We could go on... Seen in this light, are the euro area's structural challenges really any harder (or easier) than those faced by the other major economies? The Euro Area Is An Economic Equal One important differentiator across the major developed economies is population growth. A population that is growing boosts headline output. On the other hand, it also adds to the number of people who must share the economy's income and resources. Conversely, a population that is shrinking weighs on headline output, but it reduces the number of people who must share the income and resources. Therefore, what matters for standards of living - and the consequent political implications - is the evolution of GDP per head. In a similar vein, a growing population means that a firm will see rising sales. But absent a rise in productivity, the firm will have to employ more staff and capital to deliver those increased sales - in other words, issue more shares. Therefore, what matters for earnings per share is the evolution of productivity, which once again means GDP per head. Some people consider a shrinking population as a particular problem. They argue that when a population is shrinking, the economy needs to shed workers and capital, which can be hard to do. But a growing population can also create disruptions and pains: specifically, resources such as housing and public services might struggle to keep pace with rapidly rising demand. Consider the United Kingdom. In the 1980s and 90s, the population grew at a very sedate 2% per decade. But since the millennium, population growth has almost quadrupled to 7.5% per decade. The resulting strain on housing and public services was a major factor behind the vote for Brexit - which of course, now carries its own disruptive consequences. Chart I-6The Euro Area Is An Economic Equal Therefore, population shrinkage or growth is a problem only if it is sudden or extreme. More modest changes in either direction are neither good nor bad per se. But to assess progress in living standards and indeed equity market profitability, it is crucial to measure economic growth adjusted for population change. On this population adjusted basis, the structural growth prospects of the euro area are not meaningfully different to other developed economies such as the U.K. and the U.S. The euro area is an equal, and recently it has been the first among equals. Over the longer term, the euro area and the U.S. have generated identical growth in real GDP per head (Chart I-6). Within the bigger picture, the euro area has underperformed through multi-year periods encompassing around half the time; and it has outperformed through the multi-year periods encompassing the other half. Seen in this light, the post-2008 phase of poor performance was the impact of back to back recessions separated by an unusually short gap, with the second of the two recessions the direct result of policy errors specific to the euro area. In other words, the euro area's 2008-14 economic underperformance was not structural; it was cyclical. Prospects For Bond Yield Spreads And The Euro If the euro area continues its recovery to just the mid-point of its long-term relative cycle, then recent investment trends ultimately have much further to run. Unsurprisingly, relative interest rate expectations closely follow relative real GDP per head. Relative interest rate expectations 2 years out between the euro area and United States have compressed from -230 bps last December to -185 bps today. Relative interest rates expectations 5 years out have compressed more, to -150 bps today (Feature Chart). This makes perfect sense. Clearly, the ECB will not hike interest rates any time soon, but expectations for the long-term 'terminal' rate have correctly gone up from overly-pessimistic levels. Nevertheless, to reach the mid-point of its long-term cycle, the gap between euro area and U.S. interest rate expectations must ultimately get to around -50 bps (Chart I-7). The implication is that the yield spread between long-dated bonds in the euro area3 and the U.S. will also compress to around -50 bps (Chart I-8). Therefore, on a 2-year horizon, stay underweight euro area bonds - especially German bunds - in a European and global bond portfolio. This also carries repercussions for euro/dollar, given that it closely tracks relative interest rate expectations. The mid-cycle gap of -50 bps equates to euro/dollar at over 1.30 (Chart I-9). And an overshoot to the top of the cycle implies over 1.50. Chart I-7Relative GDP Per Head Leads Relative Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-8...And Bond Yield Spreads Chart I-9Relative Interest Rate Expectations Drive Euro/Dollar But trends do not unfold in straight lines. They are punctuated by regular setbacks. The recent surge in euro/dollar has taken its 65-day fractal dimension towards its lower limit, which suggests excessive short-term herding. That said, we could now be at the mirror-image turning point in ECB policy to that of the summer of 2014. Then, Draghi pre-announced QE; now, he may pre-announce its demise. In which case, fundamentals will override the 65-day fractal signal just as they did three years ago (Chart I-10). Nonetheless, we would not be surprised if euro/dollar first revisited the 1.10-1.15 channel before resuming its long march upwards. Chart I-10Excessive Short-Term Herding In Euro/Dollar, But... Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 In local currency terms. 2 Based on 12 month forward earnings per share. 3 Euro area average over 10-year sovereign yield, weighted by sovereign issue size. Fractal Trading Model* This week's trade is to position for an underperformance of Chinese shares versus the emerging markets benchmark. Target a 2.5% profit target and stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. 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 Chart I-1The Economy Has Stabilized##br## But Has Not Recovered Brazil desperately needs to boost nominal growth to avoid public debt spiraling out of control1. We do not think it is possible without resorting to meaningful currency depreciation and much lower interest rates. The Brazilian economy has stabilized, but it has not yet recovered (Chart I-1). To stage a sustainable recovery, much easier monetary conditions and fiscal stance are required. However, monetary conditions remain tight and fiscal policy is tightening: Feature Real interest rates are about 5.5-6% - as high as they were before the current rate-cut cycle commenced (Chart I-2). The Brazilian central bank's aggressive rate cuts have largely matched the drop in the inflation rate, keeping real borrowing costs elevated. Besides, household debt servicing costs (interest payments and principal) are high, above 20% of disposable income (Chart I-3) and employment conditions remain extremely poor. In this environment, households will not be inclined to expand leverage considerably. The Brazilian real is not cheap. In fact, the real effective exchange rate is slightly above its fair value (Chart I-4). Nominal GDP growth is currently running close to 4%, while the government's budget assumption for nominal GDP growth in 2017 is 5-5.5%. Not surprisingly, government revenues are disappointing and the budget deficit is above its target (Chart I-5). Furthermore, the improvement in government revenues in the past 12 months has been due to one-off measures such as non-recurring privatization revenue, repayment by the national development bank (BNDES) of 100 billion BRL and tax amnesty/capital repatriation programs that will not be repeated. In brief, more tax hikes are needed to achieve revenue targets but higher taxes will in turn jeopardize the economic revival. Taxes on fuel have been raised in recent weeks. Chart I-2Interest Rates Are##br## Still Very High Chart I-3Household Debt Servicing##br## Ratio Has Not Yet Declined Chart I-4The Real Is Not Cheap Chart I-5Brazil: No Improvement In Fiscal Accounts Given that fiscal policy is straightjacketed by high and rapidly rising public debt levels, the onus of boosting nominal growth is squarely on the central bank. Not only have the monetary authorities cut interest rates, they have also been monetizing government debt. Chart I-6 shows that the central bank's holdings of government securities have skyrocketed, i.e., the central bank has bought BRL531 billion of government paper since January 2015. While it has partially sterilized its debt monetization by using these securities as reverse repos with banks, the amount of high-powered money/liquidity withdrawal via repos has been much smaller than the central bank's liquidity injections. Chart I-6aBrazil: Central Bank Has##br## Been Monetizing Public Debt... Chart I-6b...And Sterilizing It ##br##Only Partially This has helped liquidity in the banking system considerably, and smoothed the banking system adjustment at a time of surging non-performing loans. However, it has not generated enough purchasing power in the economy to boost nominal growth. Notably, broad money growth is slowing (Chart I-7). Even though bank loan growth may have troughed (Chart I-7, bottom panel), it is unlikely to recover strongly due to high real rates. Broad money captures the stance of credit and fiscal policies because broad money reflects purchasing power created by commercial banks and central bank when lending to and buying government bonds from non-banks. Remarkably, the broad money impulse - which is the second derivative of outstanding broad money - points to weakness in nominal GDP growth (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Brazil: Broad Money##br## And Bank Loans Chart I-8Broad Money And Terms Of Trade Point ##br## To Weaker Nominal Growth In addition, nominal GDP growth correlates with terms of trade, and the latter has also relapsed (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Furthermore, high-frequency data reveal that manufacturing PMI and consumer confidence have also rolled over lately, pointing to stalling improvement in both the manufacturing sector and consumer spending (Chart I-9). All in all, policymakers are behind the curve. The central bank could continue cutting interest rates, increase its purchases of government bonds, and also use other measures to inject more money – both high-powered money and broad money – into circulation. If they do so, it will eventually help the economy recover and boost inflation, yet it is bearish for the exchange rate. However, if the exchange rate relapses on its own (due to other factors), that will limit the authorities' ability to reduce interest rates further. This is on top of heightened political uncertainty that does not bode well for Brazilian financial markets. In a nutshell, Brazil needs to engineer currency depreciation to boost nominal growth and make public debt sustainable. This is true especially as Argentina is opting to keep its currency competitive, and it will be even more critical if commodities prices relapse, as we expect (Chart I-10). Provided the share of foreign currency public debt is low, reflating via currency depreciation is the least painful way out for Brazil. Bottom Line: Policymakers are desperate to boost nominal growth to stabilize public debt. Yet, in our opinion, nominal growth will not improve without further sizable rate cuts and meaningful currency depreciation. Eventually, policymakers will allow the BRL to depreciate 20%-plus, which will hurt foreign investments in local asset markets. We remain negative on/underweight Brazil equities, currency and sovereign debt. That said, we recommend fixed-income investors to bet on the 3/1-year yield curve flattening: receive 3-year / pay 1-year swap rate (Chart I-11). Chart I-9High-Frequency Indicators:##br## Improvement Has Stalled Chart I-10Other Headwinds##br## For BRL Chart I-11A New Trade: ##br## Bet On 3/1-Year Yield Curve Flattening Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Has Brazil Achieved Escape Velocity?", dated February 8, 2017, link available on page 11 - we argued that Brazil's public debt dynamics is unsustainable without strong nominal growth and/or social security reforms. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights This report ranks developing economies according to their potential to achieve higher productivity growth as well as overall growth. Yet, this ranking does not incorporate the cyclical economic outlook. Taking into consideration both long-term growth potential and the current equity valuations, the stock markets in Colombia, Poland, the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines offer the highest potential returns in the next three to five years. On the opposite spectrum, share prices in South Africa, Russia, Brazil, and Turkey offer the least appealing long-term opportunities. Feature Why do some nations develop economically and prosper, while others stagnate and fail to climb out of poverty? The answer is productivity growth - a function of investment and innovation. Without it, every growth story peters out and fails to become a benchmark of success. While demographics matter for overall economic growth, productivity is the defining factor for per-capita income growth and prosperity. This report is not intended to answer all pertinent questions on economic development. It also does not incorporate our qualitative assessment. Finally, this ranking does not include the cyclical economic outlook. The objective of this report is to produce an EM country ranking based on parameters that matter from a structural perspective and test how this ranking aligns with current equity valuations. Chart 1 illustrates that Potential Growth Scores calculated based on data available in 2012 did in fact correlate with EM individual country performance since early 2013 to date. Chart 1Growth Potential Score Historically Mattered To Equity Returns Institutions Matter Various theories and explanations have been proposed to explain why some countries get rich while many others fail. According to Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, an economist and political scientist respectively and authors of Why Nations Fail,1 a nation's success or failure highly depends on the quality of its political and economic institutions. Acemoglu and Robinson characterize political and economic institutions as either inclusive or extractive. By institutions they mean the structures and systems that govern the behaviors of communities. Inclusive institutions operate under pluralistic rules, which means they allow multiple groups in society to access the institutional decision-making process. These pluralistic rules force elites to constantly bargain and negotiate with one another, leading to rules that provide a level playing field amongst members of society. In other words, inclusive institutions allow those at the bottom of the pyramid to petition the government to change the rules of the game and climb the social ladder. This process incentivizes entrepreneurs, innovators and ambitious members of society to seek to monetize their efforts with little or no fear that their proceeds will be expropriated or nationalized. Ultimately, such inclusiveness leads to innovation and major technological changes which drive productivity gains. This process, nevertheless, comes at the cost of creative destruction, which threatens the interests and privileges of well-established elites and leaders. To protect their privileges, this group attempts to impede progress by placing obstacles in the face of creative destruction. In a political system with inclusive institutions, attempts to impede are put to a stop through the presence of checks and balances, and creative destruction is allowed to take place uninterruptedly. By contrast, in nations governed by extractive institutions - where checks and balances are absent - powerful elites reap substantial economic and political gains by presiding over these institutions. In turn, because of the elites' vast political and economic powers, they resist inclusive policies that would make their countries collectively wealthier and stronger. The basis for this resistance lies in their desire to protect their privileges and ultimately the economic rent (excessive profit) they extract. This causes an innovation deficit, weak productivity and ultimately economic stagnation. The eventual outcomes of these extractive systems are low social mobility and persistent income inequality among various social groups that in extreme cases can lead to state failure and civil wars.2 Gauging Potential Productivity To rank developing economies according to their potential for boosting productivity, we evaluated both the quality of their institutions and innovation aptitude. We used data from the World Bank Governance Indicators to construct an Institutional Strength Score and data from The Atlas of Economic Complexity to construct an Economic Complexity and Innovation Score. Then, we aggregated these two scores to derive an overall Potential Productivity Score. The basis for using both these measures and aggregating them is that these measures are, on their own, incomplete and subjective. Consequently, on an individual basis they might not capture all the necessary drivers of productivity. Adding them up together reveal more information and improve the outcome. In other words, Economic Complexity captures elements that Institutional Strength does not and vice versa. Furthermore, Economic Complexity also sheds light on broader variables such as the quality of advanced education as well as its attainment level, and the ability to apply such education in an economically productive and value-added manner. The latter is something that cannot be captured by education variables alone. What follows is a detailed description of the framework. Institutional Strength We constructed an Institutional Strength Score that reflects the quality of institutions in EM and ranks countries from best to worst. The score is based on the following World Bank Government Indicators: Rule of Law (20%) Regulatory Quality (20%), Government Effectiveness (20%) Political Stability (20%) Control of Corruption (10%) Voice and Accountability (10%). For a brief description of each of these components, please refer to Appendix I: We first calculated the weighted average measure of these indicators using the aforementioned weights. Please see Appendix II for more information on why we chose a five-year period. Importantly, this score incorporates both the level and marginal change in these parameters. We aggregated the two variations of the measure (change and level) to derive an Institutional Strength Score. Please see Appendix III for calculation details. Table 1 ranks the developing countries from best to worst according to their Institutional Strength Score. United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Poland have the highest Institutional Strength Score, while Egypt, Russia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Turkey have the lowest. Economic Complexity And Innovation We also constructed the Economic Complexity Score which ranks EM countries according to their economic complexity and innovation. We used the data from The Atlas of Economic Complexity which measures economic complexity by evaluating a country's ability to produce unique/rare as well as diverse sets of products. Countries that have higher complexity - measured via their ability to produce diverse and rare products - have developed high levels of productive knowledge and networks that enable their people and organizations to collaborate, share information/knowledge, and collectively build more complex and diverse products. This process of producing complex products makes their countries wealthier. In a nutshell, by assessing a country's ability to produce more diverse and more sophisticated goods that not many countries can produce - one can assess a country's level of accumulated knowledge, its networks that allow collaboration, as well as the presence of industry and businesses that allow the application of this knowledge. Please see Appendix IV for more information: As with the Institutional Strength Score, we calculated the Economic Complexity and Innovation Score by aggregating both the level and change in economic complexity - calculation is described in Appendix III. Table 2 shows the country rankings based on the Economic Complexity Score. Malaysia, South Korean, the Philippines and China are ranked the highest, while Kenya, Peru, South Africa and Pakistan have the worst scores. Table 1 Table 2 Potential Productivity = Institutional Strength + Complexity and Innovation Countries with strong and improving institutions as well as high and rising complexity are positioned able to achieve strong productivity growth. Chart 2 illustrates a scatter plot of Institutional Strength Score on the X-axis and Economic Complexity and Innovation Score on the Y-axis. The Philippines, Poland, Singapore, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and the United Arab Emirates have the highest potential productivity, while Russia, Brazil and South Africa are among the lowest. Chart 2Matching Institutional Strength With Economic Complexity And Innovation We also combined the Institutional Strength Score and Economic Complexity and Innovation scores together to generate a Potential Productivity Score and ranking. The rankings are shown in Table 3. A higher ranking implies that a country has the potential to achieve a higher sustainable growth rate in the next three to five years. Combining Potential Productivity With Demographics To achieve higher potential growth, an economy needs not only robust productivity but also a demographic tailwind - i.e. a growing labor force. We thus combined the Potential Productivity Score with growth projections for working age population. The latter projections are from the United Nations. Chart 3 shows a scatter plot of the Potential Productivity Score against the five-year projection of working-age population growth and Table 4 shows the combined total scores of Potential Productivity with working age population growth. We call this measure the Potential Growth Score. Chart 3Matching Potential Productivity With Demographics Table 3 Table 4 The Philippines, Malaysia, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Singapore offer the strongest demographic dividend and the highest potential productivity. On the flip side, Russia, South Africa and Brazil offer the lowest demographic dividend and potential productivity. Prospective Equity Returns Great companies and countries do not always make for great investments, and vice versa. To identify long-term investment opportunities, we have brought into the analysis equity valuations. An economy can offer great potential, but markets may have already priced in the bullish outlook. The opposite can also be true. We incorporate equity valuations into the analysis by comparing the Potential Growth Score against the current price-to-book value ratio of non-financial stocks. Chart 4 is a scatter plot of the Potential Growth Score on the X-axis against the current price-to-book ratio for non-financial corporations of the 20 bourses on the Y-axis. Chart 4Potential Growth Versus Equity Valuations We excluded financials from our calculations of price-to-book because many EM banks' earnings and, hence, book value have been unduly inflated in the recent years. This has, in turn, resulted in artificially low price-to-book value ratio. Many banks across EM have expanded their loan book enormously in the past eight to 10 years - boosting their earnings, retained earnings and the book value in the process, but have not yet provisioned sufficiently for non-performing loans (NPLs). All in all, the bourses in Colombia, Poland, the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines offer the highest potential returns in the next three to five years when incorporating potential productivity, demographics and the starting point of equity valuations. On the opposite end of the spectrum, equity markets in South Africa, Russia, Brazil, and Turkey promise the least in terms of returns in the coming years. It is important to note that this framework should be used as a broad guide, and serves to supplement our regular cyclical and structural analysis of various EMs. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com Appendix I Below is a brief description of the World Bank Governance Indicators that we used as components in our Institutional Strength Score: Rule of Law: This measure evaluates how strong and fair the laws that govern a nation are and assesses the independence of the judicial system. Regulatory Quality: The measure of a government's ability to conceive sound regulations that promote private sector activity. Government Effectiveness: This component assesses the quality of public service and a government's ability to implement policy. In essence, this component looks at the government's ability to apply and enforce fair laws and regulations. Political Stability: This measure looks at the perceived likelihood of political instability, political violence or terrorism - all of which impede policy implementation. As with government effectiveness, political stability also assesses a government's ability to enforce laws. A country consumed with violence will have a weak state that is unable to maintain law and order. Control of Corruption: The corruption component assesses the extent to which public offices and government power are used for personal gains. Voice and Accountability: This measures the involvement of citizens in political life and assesses various types of freedoms. It also looks at how independent the media are. In other words, this component evaluates the ability for citizens to petition the government, and voice their concerns. Appendix II We incorporated the five-year change (2010 to 2015) and not a longer period because we wanted to capture institutional changes that have occurred since the global financial crisis (GFC). The GFC has led to major distortions in financial markets, and a deterioration in institutional and governance quality in EM. Five years are also sufficient to show meaningful changes in institutional quality. Appendix III In order to calculate the Institutional Strength Score: We started by ranking the countries from lowest to highest - first based on their five-year change in their weighted average measure, and then based on their 2015 level measure. For each variation in the measure, the lowest ranking country received a rank of 1 while the highest ranked country received a rank of 28 (we included 28 countries in our framework). We then summed up the rankings of the five-year change in the measure with those of the 2015 measure level for each country to derive the Institutional Strength Score. The Economic Complexity and Innovation Score follows the same methodology. It is based on the aggregation of the rankings of the two variations - change and level - of the economic complexity ranking. Appendix IV Countries that are able to produce (1) knowledge-intensive products (scarce products that are not produced by many other countries) as well as (2) diverse sets of products (many types of products), have complex societies and economies. Therefore, by looking at what a country produces, one can assess its complexity. In order to rise in complexity, a country should develop a network that enables its people to share their specialized knowledge and produce more value-added products. This process of sharing specialized knowledge leads to more gains in total knowledge that further spread to various areas and increases the country's ability to produce even more diverse and scarce products and get richer. It is important, however, to differentiate between types of scarce products. The United States produces advanced medical equipment, which are scarce, and Sierra Leone produces diamonds, which are also a scarce product. This does not make Sierra Leone a complex economy with advanced knowledge because, if it was, it would also have more product diversity, which it lacks.

Special Report

This week we are sending you two Special Reports (both included in this document) that were previously published in the May and June editions of The Bank Credit Analyst. Both reports discuss the long-term outlook for global bond yields. The first report emphasizes the importance of demographics and the second focuses on the outlook for productivity growth. We are also sending a Weekly Report published jointly by our Global Fixed Income Strategy and U.S. Bond Strategy services. Highlights The fundamental drivers of the low rate world are considered by many to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields quite depressed by historical standards for years to come. However, some of the factors behind ultra-low interest rates have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. The age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. Global investment needs will wane along with population aging, but the majority of the effect on equilibrium interest rates is in the past. In contrast, the demographic effects that will depress desired savings are still to come. The net impact will be bond-bearish. Moreover, the massive positive labor supply shock, following the integration of China and Eastern Europe into the world's effective labor force, is over. Indeed, this shock is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power, sparking a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby placing upward pressure on global real bond yields. It is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. This could be inflationary if it disrupts global supply chains. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. As for China, the fundamental drivers of its savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Technological advance will remain a headwind for real wage gains, but at least the transition to a world that is less labor-abundant will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We are not making the case that real global bond yields are going to quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations for bond yields are too low. Investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. Feature In the September 2016 The Bank Credit Analyst, we summarized the key drivers behind the major global macroeconomic disequilibria that have resulted in deflationary pressure, policy extremism, dismal productivity, and the lowest bond yields in recorded history (Chart I-1). The disequilibria include income inequality, the depressed wage share of GDP, lackluster capital spending, and excessive savings. Chart I-1Global Disequilibria The fundamental drivers of the low bond yield world are now well documented and understood by investors. These drivers generally are considered to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields and interest rates at historically low levels for years to come according to the consensus. Based on discussions with BCA clients, it appears that many have either "bought into" the secular stagnation thesis or, at a minimum, have adopted the view that growth headwinds preclude any meaningful rise in bond yields. However, bond investors might have been lulled into a false sense of security. Yields will not return to pre-Lehman norms anytime soon, but some of the factors behind the low-yield world have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. Most importantly, the age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. We have reached the tipping point. Equilibrium real bond yields will gradually move higher as a result. But before we discuss what is changing, it is important to review the drivers of today's macro disequilibria. Several of them predate the Great Financial Crisis, including demographic trends, technological advances, and the integration of China's massive workforce and excess savings into the global economy. Ultra-Low Rates: How Did We Get Here? (A) Demographics And Global Savings The so-called Global Savings Glut has been a bullish structural force for bonds for the past couple of decades. We won't go through all of the forces behind the glut, but a key factor is population aging in the advanced economies. Ex-ante desired savings rose as baby boomers entered their high-income years. The Great Financial Crisis only served to reinforce the desire to save, given the setback in the value of boomers' retirement nest eggs.1 The corporate sector also began to save more following the crisis. Chart I-2Global Shifts In The Saving ##br##And Investment Curves Even more importantly, the surge in China's trade surplus since the 1990s had to be recycled into the global pool of savings. While China's rate of investment was very high, its propensity to save increased even faster, resulting in a swollen external surplus and a massive net outflow of capital. Other emerging economies also made the adjustment from net importers of capital to net exporters following the Asian crisis in the late 1990s. By leaning into currency appreciation, these countries built up huge foreign exchange reserves that had to be recycled abroad. In theory, savings must equal investment at the global level and real interest rates shift to ensure this equilibrium (Chart I-2). China's excess savings, together with a greater desire to save in the developed countries, represented a shift in the saving schedule to the right. The result was downward pressure on global interest rates. (B) Demographics And Global Capital Spending Demographics and China's integration also affected the investment side of the equation. A slower pace of labor force growth in the developed countries resulted in a permanently lower level of capital spending relative to GDP. Slower consumer spending growth, as a result of a more moderate expansion in the working-age population, meant a reduced appetite for new factories, malls, and apartment buildings. Chart I-3 shows that the growth rate of global capital spending that is required to maintain a given capital-to-output ratio has dropped substantially, due to the dramatic slowdown in the growth of the world's working-age population.2 Keep in mind that this estimate refers only to the demographic component of investment spending. Actual capital expenditure growth will not be as weak as Chart I-3 suggests because firms will want to adopt new technologies for competitive or environmental reasons. Nonetheless, the point is that the structural tailwind for global capex from the post-war baby boom has disappeared. Chart I-3Demographics Are A Structural Headwind For Global Capex (C) Labor Supply Shock And Global Capital Spending While the working-age population ratio peaked in the developed countries years ago, it is a different story at the global level (Chart I-4). The integration of the Chinese and Eastern European workforces into the global labor pool during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in an effective doubling of global labor supply in a short period of time. Relative prices must adjust in the face of such a large boost in the supply of labor relative to capital. The sudden abundance of cheap labor depressed real wages from what they otherwise would have been, thus incentivizing firms to use more labor and less capital at the margin. The combination of slower working-age population growth in the advanced economies and a surge in the global labor force resulted in a decline in desired global capital spending. In terms of Chart I-2, the leftward shift of the investment schedule reinforced the impact of the savings impulse in placing downward pressure on global interest rates. (D) Labor Supply Shock And Income Inequality The wave of cheap labor also aggravated the trend toward greater inequality in the advanced economies and the downward trend in labor's share of the income pie (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Working-Age Population Ratios Have Peaked Chart I-5Labor Share Of Income Has Dropped In theory, a surge in the supply of labor is a positive "supply shock" that benefits both developed and developing countries. However, a recent report by David Autor and Gordon Hanson3 highlighted that trade agreements in the past were incremental and largely involved countries with similar income levels. The sudden entry of China to the global trade arena, involving a massive addition to the effective global stock of labor, was altogether different. The report does not argue that trade has become a "bad" thing. Rather, it points out that the adjustment costs imposed on the advanced economies were huge and long-lasting, as Chinese firms destroyed entire industries in developed countries. Chart I-6Hollowing Out The lingering adjustment phase contributed to greater inequality in the major countries. Management was able to use the threat of outsourcing to gain the upper hand in wage negotiations. The result has been a rise in the share of income going to high-income earners in the Advanced Economies, at the expense of low- and middle-income earners (Chart I-6). The same is true, although to a lesser extent, in the emerging world. Greater inequality, in turn, has weighed on aggregate demand and equilibrium interest rates because a larger share of total income flowed to the "rich" who tend to save more than the low- and middle-income classes. (E) The Dark Side Of Technology Advances in technology also contributed to rising inequality. In theory, new technologies hurt some workers in the short term, but benefit most workers in the long run because they raise national income. However, there is evidence that past major technological shocks were associated with a "hollowing out" or U-shaped pattern of employment. Low- and high-skilled employment increased, but the proportion of mid-skilled workers tended to shrink. Wages for both low- and mid-skilled labor did not keep up with those that were highly-skilled, leading to wider income disparity. Today, technology appears to be resulting in faster, wider and deeper degrees of hollowing-out than in previous periods of massive technological change. This may be because machines are not just replacing manual human tasks, but cognitive ones too. A recent IMF report made the case that technology and global integration played a dominant role in labor's declining fortunes. Technology alone explains about half of the drop in the labor share of income in the developed countries since 1980.4 Falling prices for capital goods, information and communications technology in particular, have facilitated the expansion of global value chains as firms unbundled production into many tasks that were distributed around the world in a way that minimized production costs. Chart I-7 highlights that the falling price of capital goods in the advanced economies went hand-in-hand with rising participation in global supply chains since 1990. Falling capital goods prices also accelerated the automation of routine tasks, contributing especially to job destruction in the developed (high-wage) economies. In other words, firms in the developed world either replaced workers with machinery in areas where technology permitted, or outsourced jobs to lower-wage countries in areas that remained labor-intensive. Both trends undermined labor's bargaining power, depressed labor's share of income, and contributed to inequality. The effects of technology, global integration, population aging and China's economic integration are demonstrated in Chart I-8. The world working-age-to-total population ratio rose sharply beginning in the late 1990s. This resulted in an upward trend in China's investment/GDP ratio, and a downward trend in the G7. The upward trend in the G7 capital stock-per-capita ratio began to slow as a result, before experiencing an unprecedented contraction after the Great Recession and Financial Crisis. Chart I-7Economic Integration And ##br##Falling Capital Goods Prices Chart I-8Macro Impact Of ##br##Labor Supply Shock The result has been a deflationary global backdrop characterized by demand deficiency and poor potential real GDP growth, both of which have depressed equilibrium global interest rates over the past 20 to 25 years. Transition Phase It would appear easy to conclude that these trends will be with us for another few decades because the demographic trends will not change anytime soon. Nonetheless, on closer inspection the global economy is transitioning from a period when cyclical economic pressures and all of the structural trends were pushing equilibrium interest rates in the same direction, to a period in which the economic cycle is becoming less bond-friendly and some of the secular drivers of low interest rates are gradually changing direction. First, the massive labor supply shock of the past few decades is over. The world working-age population ratio has peaked according to United Nations estimates. This ratio is already declining in the major advanced economies and is in the process of topping out in China. The absolute number of working-age people will shrink in China and the G7 countries over the next five years, although it will continue to grow at a low rate for the world as a whole (Chart I-9). Unions are unlikely to make a major comeback, but a backdrop that is less labor-abundant should gradually restore some worker bargaining power, especially as economies regain full employment. The resulting upward pressure on real wages will support capital spending as firms substitute toward capital and away from (increasingly expensive) labor. Consumer demand will also receive a boost if inequality moderates and the labor share of income begins to rise. Globalization On The Back Foot Second, it is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. Global exports appear to have peaked relative to GDP and average tariffs have ticked higher (Chart I-10). The World Trade Organization has announced that the number of new trade restrictions or impediments outweighed the number of trade liberalizing initiatives in 2016. The U.K. appears willing to sacrifice trade for limits to the free movement of people. The new U.S. Administration has ditched the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and is threatening to impose punitive tariffs on some trading partners. Chart I-9Working-Age Population To Shrink In G7 And China Chart I-10Globalization Peaking? Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. If the U.S. were to impose high tariffs on China, for example, it would make a part of the Chinese capital stock redundant overnight. In order for the global economy to produce the same amount of goods and services as before, the U.S. and other countries would need to invest more. Any unwinding of globalization would also be inflationary as it would disrupt international supply chains. Demographics And Saving: From Tailwind To Headwind... Chart I-11Income And Consumption By Age Cohort Third, the impact of savings in the major advanced economies and China on global interest rates will change direction as well. In the developed world, aggregate household savings will come under downward pressure as boomers increasingly shift into retirement. Economists are fond of employing the so-called life-cycle theory of consumer spending. According to this theory, consumers tend to smooth out lifetime spending by accumulating assets during the working years in order to maintain a certain living standard after retirement. The U.N. National Transfer Accounts Project has gathered data on spending and labor income by age cohort at a point in time. Chart I-11 presents the data for China and three of the major advanced economies. The data for the advanced economies suggest that spending tends to rise sharply from a low level between birth and about 15 years of age. It continues to rise, albeit at a more modest pace, through the working years. Other studies have found that consumer spending falls during retirement. Nonetheless, these studies generally include only private spending and therefore do not include health care that is provided by the government. The data presented in Chart I-11 show that, if government-provided health care is included, personal spending rises sharply toward the end of life. The profile is somewhat different in China. Spending rises quickly from birth to about 20 years of age, and is roughly flat thereafter. Indeed, consumption edges lower after 75-80 years of age. These data allow us to project the impact of changing demographics on the average household saving rate in the coming years, assuming that the income and spending profiles shown in Chart I-11 are unchanged. We start by calculating the average saving rate across age cohorts given today's age structure. We then recalculate the average saving rate each year moving forward in time. The resulting saving rate changes along with the age structure of the population. The results are shown in Chart I-12. The saving rates for all four economies have been indexed at zero in 2016 for comparison purposes. The aggregate saving rate declines in all cases, falling between 4 and 8 percentage points between 2016 and 2030. Germany sees the largest drop of the four countries. Chart I-12Aging Will Undermine Aggregate Saving The simulations are meant to be suggestive, rather than a precise forecast, because the savings profile across age cohorts will adjust over time. Moreover, governments will no doubt raise taxes to cover the rising cost of health care, providing a partial offset in terms of the national saving rate.5 Nonetheless, the simulations highlight that the major economies are past the point where the baby boom generation is adding to the global savings pool at a faster pace than retirees are drawing from it. The age structure in the major advanced economies is far enough advanced that the rapid increase in the retirement rate will place substantial downward pressure on aggregate household savings in the coming years. It is well known that population aging will also undermine government budgets. Rising health care costs are already captured in our household saving rate projection because the data for household spending includes health care even if it is provided by the public sector. However, public pension schemes will also be a problem. To the extent that politicians are slow to trim pension benefits and/or raise taxes, public pension plans will be a growing drain on national savings. Could younger, less developed economies offset some of the demographic trends in China and the Advanced Economies? Numerically speaking, a more effective use of underutilized populations in Africa and India could go a long way. Nevertheless, deep-seated structural problems would have to be addressed and, even then, it is difficult to see either of these regions turning into the next "China story" given the current backlash against globalization and immigration. ...And The Capex Story Is Largely Behind Us Demographic trends also imply less capital spending relative to GDP, as discussed above. In terms of the impact on global equilibrium interest rates, it then becomes a race between falling saving and investment rates. Some analysts point to the Japanese experience because it is the leading edge in terms of global aging. Bond yields have been extremely low for many years even as the household saving rate collapsed, suggesting that ex-ante investment spending shifted by more than ex-ante savings. Nonetheless, Japan may not be a good example because the deterioration in the country's demographics coincided with burst bubbles in both real estate and stocks that hamstrung Japanese banks for decades. A series of policy mistakes made things worse. Economic theory is not clear on the net effect of demographics on savings and investment. The academic empirical evidence is inconclusive as well. However, a detailed IMF study of 30 OECD countries analyzed the demographic impact on a number of macroeconomic variables, including savings and investment.6 They estimated separate demographic effects for the old-age dependency ratio and the working-age population ratio. Applying the IMF's estimated model coefficients to projected changes in both of these ratios over the next decade suggests that the decline in ex-ante savings will exceed the ex-ante drop in capex requirements by about 1 percentage point of GDP. This is a non-trivial shift. Moreover, our simulations highlight that timing is important. The outlook for the household saving rate depends on the changing age structure of the population and the distribution of saving rates across age cohorts. Thus, the average saving rate will trend down as populations continue to age over the coming decades. In contrast, the impact of demographics on capital spending requirements is related to the change in the growth rate of the working-age population. Chart I-13 once again presents our estimates for the demographic component of capital spending. The top panel presents the world capex/GDP ratio that is necessary to maintain a constant capital/output ratio, and the bottom panel shows the change in that ratio. The important point is that the downward adjustment in world capex/GDP related to aging is now largely behind us because most of the deceleration in the growth rate of the working-age population is done. This is in contrast to the household saving rate adjustment where all of the adjustment is still to come. China Is Transitioning Too China must be treated separately from the developed countries because of its unique structural issues. As discussed above, household savings increased dramatically beginning in the mid-1990s (Chart I-14). This trend reflected a number of factors, including: Chart I-13Demographics And Capex Requirements Chart I-14China's Savings Rates Have Peaked... the rising share of the working-age population; a drop in the fertility rate, following the introduction of the one-child policy in the late 1970s that allowed households to spend less on raising children and save more for retirement; health care reform in the early 1990s required households to bear a larger share of health care spending; and job security was also undermined by reform of the state-owned enterprises (SOE) in the late 1990s, leading to increased precautionary savings to cover possible bouts of unemployment. These savings tailwinds have turned around in recent years and the household saving rate appears to have peaked. China's contribution to the global pool of savings has already moderated significantly, as measured by the current account surplus. The surplus has withered from about 9% in 2008 to 2½% in 2016. A recent IMF study makes the case that China's national saving rate will continue to decline. The IMF estimates that for every one percentage-point rise in the old-age dependency ratio, the aggregate household saving rate will fall by 0.4-1 percentage points. In addition, the need for precautionary savings is expected to ease along with improvements in the social safety net, achieved through higher government spending on health care. The household saving rate will fall by three percentage points by 2021 according to the IMF (Chart I-15). Competitive pressure and an aging population will also reduce the saving rates of the corporate and government sectors. Chart I-15...Suggesting That External Surplus Will Shrink Of course, investment as a share of GDP is projected to moderate too, reflecting a rebalancing of the economy away from exports and capital spending toward household consumption. The IMF expects that savings will moderate slightly faster than investment, leading to a narrowing in the current account surplus to almost zero by 2021. A lot of assumptions go into this type of forecast such that we must take it with a large grain of salt. Nonetheless, the fundamental drivers of China's savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Moreover, a return to large current account surpluses would likely require significant currency depreciation, which is a political non-starter given U.S. angst over trade. The risk is that China's excess savings will be less, not more, in five year's time. Tech Is A Wildcard It is extremely difficult to forecast the impact of technological advancement on the global economy. We cannot say with any conviction that the tech-related effects of "hollowing out", "winner-take-all" and the "skills premium" will moderate in the coming years. Nonetheless, these effects have occurred alongside a surge in the world's labor force and rapid globalization of supply chains, both of which reinforced the erosion of employee bargaining power. Looking ahead, technology will still be a headwind for some employees, but at least the transition from a world of excess labor to one that is more labor-scarce will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We will explore the impact of technology on productivity, inflation, growth, and bond yields in a companion report to be published in the next issue. Conclusion: The main points we made in this report are summarized in Table I-1. All of the structural factors driving real bond yields were working in the same (bullish) direction over the past 30-40 years. Looking ahead, it is uncertain how technological improvement will affect bond prices, but we expect that the others will shift (or have already shifted) to either neutral or outright bond-bearish. Table I-1Key Secular Drivers No doubt, our views that globalization and inequality have peaked, and that the labor share of income has bottomed, are speculative. These factors may not place much upward pressure on equilibrium yields. Nonetheless, it seems likely that the demographic effect that has depressed capital spending demand is well advanced. We see it shifting from a positive factor for bond prices to a neutral factor in the coming years. It is also clear that the massive positive labor supply shock is over, and is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power and the resulting boost consumer spending will be negative for bonds. This may also spark a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby place additional upward pressure on global real bond yields. Admittedly, however, this last point requires more research because theory and empirical evidence on it are not clear. Perhaps most importantly, the aging of the population in the advanced economies has reached a tipping point; retirees will drain more from the pool of savings than the working-age population will add to it in the coming years. We have concentrated on real equilibrium bond yields in this report because it is the part of nominal yields that is the most depressed relative to historical norms. The inflation component is only a little below a level that is consistent with central banks meeting their 2% inflation targets in the medium term. There is a risk that inflation will overshoot these targets, leading to a possible surge in long-term inflation expectations that turbocharges the bond bear market. This is certainly possible, as highlighted by a recent Global Investment Strategy Quarterly Strategy Outlook.7 Pain in bond markets would be magnified in this case, especially if central banks are forced to aggressively defend their targets. Please note that we are not making the case that real global bond yields will quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. It will take time for the bond-bullish structural factors to unwind. It will also take time for inflation to gain any momentum, even in the United States. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations suggest that investors have adopted an overly benign view on the outlook for yields. For example, implied real short-term rates remain negative until 2021 in the U.S. and 2026 in the Eurozone, while they stay negative out to 2030 in the U.K. (Chart I-16). We doubt that short-term rates will be negative for that long, given the structural factors discussed above. Another way of looking at this is presented in Chart I-17. The market expects the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years to be only slightly above today's spot yield, which itself is not far above the lowest levels ever recorded. Market expectations are equally depressed for the 5-year forward rate for the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart I-16Market Expects Negative Short-Term Rates For A Long Time Chart I-17Forward Rates Very Low Vs. History The implication is that investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst MarkM@bcaresearch.com 1 It is true that observed household savings rates fell in some of the advanced economies, such as the United States, at a time when aging should have boosted savings from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. This argues against a strong demographic effect on savings. However, keep in mind that we are discussing desired (or ex-ante) savings. Ex-post, savings can go in the opposite direction because of other influencing factors. As discussed below, global savings must equal investment, which means that shifts in desired capital spending demand matter for the ex-post level of savings. 2 Arithmetically, if world trend GDP growth slows by one percentage point, then investment spending would need to drop by about 3½ percentage points of GDP to keep the capital/output ratio stable. 3 David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Review of Economics, Vol. 8, pp. 205-240 (October 2016). 4 Please see "Understanding The Downward Trend In Labor Income Shares," Chapter 3 in the IMF World Economic Outlook (April 2017). 5 In other words, while the household savings rate, as defined here to include health care spending by governments on behalf of households, will decline, any associated tax increases will blunt the impact on national savings (i.e. savings across the household, government and business sectors). 6 Jong-Won Yoon, Jinill Kim, and Jungjin Lee, "Impact Of Demographic Changes On Inflation And The Macroeconomy," IMF Working Paper no. 14/210 (November 2014). 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook: Second Quarter 2017: A Three Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds? Productivity growth has declined in most countries. This appears to be a structural problem that will remain with us for years to come. In theory, slower productivity growth should reduce the neutral rate of interest, benefiting bonds in the process. In reality, countries with chronically low productivity growth typically have higher interest rates than faster growing economies. The passage of time helps account for this seeming paradox: Slower productivity growth tends to depress interest rates at the outset, but leads to higher rates later on. The U.S. has reached an inflection point where weak productivity growth is starting to push up both the neutral real rate and inflation. Other countries will follow. The implication for investors is that government bond yields have begun a long-term secular uptrend. The market is not at all prepared for this. Slow Productivity Growth: A Structural Problem Productivity growth has fallen sharply in most developed and emerging economies (Chart II-1). As we argued in "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," there is little compelling evidence that measurement error explains the productivity slowdown.1 Yes, the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and air conditioning. No one has offered a convincing explanation for why the well-known problems with productivity calculations suddenly worsened about 12 years ago. Chart II-1Productivity Growth Has Slowed In Most Major Economies If mismeasurement is not responsible for the productivity slowdown, what is? Cyclical factors have undoubtedly played a role. In particular, lackluster investment spending has curtailed the growth in the capital stock (Chart II-2). This means that today's workers have not benefited from the improvement in the quality and quantity of capital to the same extent as previous generations. However, the timing of the productivity slowdown - it began in 2004-05 in most countries, well before the financial crisis struck - suggests that structural factors have been key. These include: Waning gains from the IT revolution. Recent innovations have focused more on consumers than businesses. As nice as Facebook and Instagram are, they do little to boost business productivity - in fact, they probably detract from it, given how much time people waste on social media these days. The rising share of value added coming from software relative to hardware has also contributed to the decline in productivity growth. Chart II-3 shows that productivity gains in the latter category have been much smaller than in the former. Chart II-2The Great Recession Hit ##br##Capital Stock Accumulation Chart II-3The Shift Towards Software Has ##br##Dampened IT Productivity Gains Slower human capital accumulation. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the pace it did in the 1990s (Chart II-4). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores in mathematics and science, is edging lower in the OECD, and is showing very limited gains in most emerging markets (Chart II-5). Test scores tend to be much lower in countries with rapidly growing populations (Chart II-6). Consequently, the average level of global mathematical proficiency is now declining for the first time in modern history. Chart II-4The Contribution To Growth ##br##From Rising Human Capital Is Falling Chart II-5Math Skills Around The World Decreased creative destruction. The birth rate of new firms in the U.S. has fallen by half since the late 1970s and is now barely above the death rate (Chart II-7). In addition, many firms in advanced economies are failing to replicate the best practices of industry leaders. The OECD reckons that this has been a key reason for the productivity slowdown.2 Chart II-6The Best Educated EMs Have The Worst Demographic Outlooks Chart II-7Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Productivity Growth And Interest Rates Investors typically assume that long-term interest rates will converge to nominal GDP growth. All things equal, this implies that faster productivity growth should lead to higher interest rates. Most economic models share this assumption - they predict that an acceleration in productivity growth will raise the rate of return on capital and incentivize households to save less in anticipation of faster income gains.3 Both factors should cause interest rates to rise. The problem is that these theories do not accord with the data. Chart II-8 shows that interest rates are far higher in regions such as Africa and Latin America, which have historically suffered from chronically weak productivity growth. In contrast, rates are lower in regions such as East Asia, which have experienced rapid productivity growth. One sees the same negative correlation between interest rates and productivity growth over time in developed economies. In the U.S., for example, interest rates rose rapidly during the 1970s, a decade when productivity growth fell sharply (Chart II-9). Chart II-8Emerging Markets: Interest Rates Tend To ##br##Be Higher Where Productivity Growth Is Weak Chart II-9U.S. Interest Rates Soared In ##br##The 1970s While Productivity Swooned Two Reasons Why Slower Productivity Growth May Lead To Higher Interest Rates There are two main reasons why slower productivity growth may lead to higher nominal interest rates over time: Slower productivity growth may eventually lead to higher inflation; Slower productivity growth may deplete national savings, thereby raising the neutral real rate of interest. We discuss each reason in turn. Reason #1: Slower Productivity Growth May Fuel Inflation Most economists agree that chronically weak productivity growth tends to be associated with higher inflation. Even Janet Yellen acknowledged as much, noting in a 2005 speech that "the evidence suggests that the predominant medium-term effect of a slowdown in trend productivity growth would likely be higher inflation."4 In theory, the causation between productivity and inflation can run in either direction: Weak productivity gains can fuel inflation while high inflation can, in turn, undermine growth. With respect to the latter, economists have focused on three channels: First, higher inflation may make it difficult for firms to distinguish between relative and absolute price shocks, leading to suboptimal resource allocation. Second, higher inflation may stymie capital accumulation because investors typically pay capital gains taxes even when the increase in asset values is entirely due to inflation. Third, high inflation may cause households and firms to waste time and effort on economizing their cash holdings. There are also several ways in which slower productivity growth can lead to higher inflation. For example, sluggish productivity growth may increase the likelihood that a country will be forced to inflate its way out of any debt problems. In addition, central banks may fail to recognize structural declines in productivity growth in real time, leading them to keep interest rates too low in the errant belief that weak GDP growth is due to inadequate demand when, in fact, it is due to insufficient supply. There is strong evidence that this happened in the U.S. in the 1970s. Chart II-10 shows that the Fed consistently overestimated the size of the output gap during that period. Chart II-10The Fed Continuously Overstated ##br##The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s Reason #2: Slower Productivity Growth May Deplete National Savings, Leading To A Higher Neutral Real Rate Imagine that you have a career where your real income is projected to grow by 2% per year, but then something auspicious happens that leads you to revise your expected annual income growth to 20%. How do you react? If you are like most people, your initial inclination might be to celebrate by purchasing a new car or treating yourself to a lavish vacation. As such, your saving rate is likely to fall at the outset. However, as the income gains pile up, you might find yourself running out of stuff to buy, resulting in a higher saving rate. This is particularly likely to be true if you grew up poor and have not yet acquired a taste for conspicuous consumption. Now consider the opposite case: One where you realize that your income will slowly contract over time as your skills become increasingly obsolete. The logic above suggests that your immediate reaction will be to hunker down and spend less - in other words, your saving rate will rise. However, as time goes by and the roof needs to be changed and the kids sent off to college, you may find it hard to pay the bills - your saving rate will then fall. The same reasoning applies to economy-wide productivity growth. When productivity growth increases, household savings are likely to decline as consumers spend more in anticipation of higher incomes. Meanwhile, investment is likely to rise as firms move swiftly to expand capacity to meet rising demand for their products. The combination of falling savings and rising investment will cause real rates to increase. As time goes by, however, it may become increasingly difficult for the economy to generate enough incremental demand to keep up with rising productive capacity. At that point, real rates will begin falling. The historic evidence is consistent with the notion that higher productivity growth causes savings to fall at the outset, but rise later on. Chart II-11 shows that East Asian economies all had rapid growth rates before they had high saving rates. China is a particularly telling example. Chinese productivity growth took off in the early 1990s. Inflation accelerated over the subsequent years, while the country flirted with current account deficits - both telltale signs of excess demand. It was not until a decade later that the saving rate took off, pushing the current account into a large surplus, even though investment was also rising at the time (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First, ##br##Followed By Higher Savings Chart II-12China: Productivity Growth Accelerated, ##br##Then Savings Rate Took Off Today, Chinese deposit rates are near rock-bottom levels, and yet the household sector continues to save like crazy. This will change over time. The working-age population has peaked (Chart II-13). As millions of Chinese workers retire and begin to dissave, aggregate household savings will fall. Meanwhile, Chinese youth today have no direct memory of the hardships that their parents endured. As happened in Korea and Japan, the flowering of a consumer culture will help bring down the saving rate. Meanwhile, sluggish income growth in the developed world will make it difficult for households to save much. Population aging will only exacerbate this effect. As my colleague Mark McClellan pointed out in last month's edition of The Bank Credit Analyst, elderly people in advanced economies consume more than any other age cohort once government spending for medical care on their behalf is taken into account (Chart II-14).5 Our estimates suggest that population aging will reduce the household saving rate by five percentage points in the U.S. over the next 15 years (Chart II-15). The saving rate could fall as much as ten points in Germany, leading to the evaporation of the country's mighty current account surplus. As saving rates around the world begin to fall, real interest rates will rise. Chart II-13China's Very High Rate Of National Savings ##br##Will Face Pressure From Demographics Chart II-14Income And Consumption By Age Cohort Chart II-15Aging Will Reduce Aggregate Savings The Two Reasons Reinforce Each Other The discussion above has focused on two reasons why chronically low productivity growth could lead to higher interest rates: 1) weak productivity growth could fuel inflation; and 2) weak productivity growth could deplete national savings, leading to higher real rates. There is an important synergy between these two reasons. Suppose, for example, that weak productivity growth does eventually raise the neutral real rate. Since central banks cannot measure the neutral rate directly and monetary policy affects the economy with a lag, it is possible that actual rates will end up below the neutral rate. This would cause the economy to overheat, resulting in higher inflation. Thus, if the first reason proves to be true, it is more likely that the second reason will prove to be true as well. The Technological Wildcard So far, we have discussed productivity growth in very generic terms - as basically anything that raises output-per-hour. In reality, the source of productivity gains can have a strong bearing on interest rates. Economists describe innovations that raise the demand for labor relative to capital goods as being "capital saving." Paul David and Gavin Wright have argued that the widespread adoption of electrically-powered processes in the early 20th century serves as "a textbook illustration of capital-saving technological growth."6 They note that "Electrification saved fixed capital by eliminating heavy shafts and belting, a change that also allowed factory buildings themselves to be more lightly constructed." In contrast, recent technological innovations have tended to be more of the "labor saving" than "capital saving" variety. Robotics and AI come to mind, but so do more mundane advances such as containerization. Marc Levinson has contended that the widespread adoption of "The Box" in the 1970s completely revolutionized international trade. Nowadays, huge cranes move containers off ships and place them onto waiting trucks or trains. Thus, the days when thousands of longshoremen toiled in the great ports of Baltimore and Long Beach are gone.7 If technological progress is driven by labor-saving innovations, real wages will tend to grow more slowly than overall productivity (Chart II-16). In fact, if technological change is sufficiently biased in favour of capital (i.e., if it is extremely "labor saving"), real wages may actually decline in absolute terms (Chart II-17). Owners of capital tend to be wealthier than workers. Since richer people save more of their income than poorer people, the shift in income towards the former will depress aggregate demand (Chart II-18). This will result in a lower neutral rate. Chart II-16U.S.: Real Wages Have Been ##br##Lagging Productivity Gains Chart II-17Examples Of Capital-Biased ##br##Technological Change It is difficult to know if the forces described above will dissipate over time. Productivity growth is largely a function of technological change. We like to think that we are living in an era of unprecedented technological upheavals, but if productivity growth has slowed, it is likely that the pace of technological innovation has also diminished. If so, the impact that technological change is having on such things as the distribution of income and global savings - and by extension on interest rates - could become more muted. To use an analogy, the music might remain the same, but the volume from the speakers could still drop. Capital In A Knowledge-Based Economy Labor-saving technological change has not been the only force pushing down interest rates. Modern economies are transitioning away from producing goods towards producing knowledge. Companies such as Google, Apple, and Amazon have thrived without having to undertake massive amounts of capital spending. This has left them with billions of dollars in cash on their balance sheets. The price of capital goods has also tumbled over the past three decades, allowing companies to cut their capex budgets (Chart II-19). Chart II-18Savings Heavily Skewed ##br##Towards Top Earners Chart II-19Falling Capital Goods Prices Have Allowed ##br##Companies To Slash Capex Budgets In addition, technological advances have facilitated the emergence of "winner-take-all" industries where scale and network effects allow just a few companies to rule the roost (Chart II-20). Such market structures exacerbate inequality by shifting income into the hands of a few successful entrepreneurs and business executives. As noted above, this leads to higher aggregate savings. Market structures of this sort could also lead to less aggregate investment because low profitability tends to constrain capital spending by second- or third-tier firms, while the worry that expanding capacity will erode profit margins tends to constrain spending by winning companies. The combination of higher savings and decreased investment results in a lower neutral rate. As with labor-saving technological change, it is difficult to know how these forces will evolve over time. The growth of winner-take-all industries has benefited greatly from globalization. Globalization, however, may be running out of steam. Tariffs are already extremely low in most countries, while the gains from further breaking down the global supply chain are reaching diminishing returns (Chart II-21). Perhaps more importantly, political pressures for greater income distribution, trade protectionism, and stronger anti-trust measures are likely to intensify. If that happens, it may be enough to reverse some of the downward pressure on the neutral rate. Chart II-20A Winner-Take-All Economy Chart II-21The Low-Hanging Fruits Of ##br##Globalization Have Been Picked Investment Conclusions Is slow productivity growth good or bad for bonds? The answer is both: Slow productivity growth is likely to depress interest rates at the outset, but is liable to lead to higher rates later on. The U.S. has likely reached the inflection point where slow productivity is going from being a boon to a bane for bonds. Chart II-22 shows that the U.S. output gap would be over 8% of GDP had potential GDP grown at the pace the IMF projected back in 2008. Instead, it is close to zero and will likely turn negative if growth remains over 2% over the next few quarters. Other countries are likely to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. Chart II-22Output Gap Has Narrowed Thanks ##br##To Lower Potential Growth To be clear, productivity is just one of several factors affecting interest rates - demographics, globalization, and political decisions being others. However, as we argued in our latest Strategy Outlook, these forces are also shifting in a more inflationary direction.8 As such, fixed-income investors with long-term horizons should pare back duration risk and increase allocations to inflation-linked securities. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Dan Andrews, Chiara Criscuolo, and Peter N. Gal,"The Best versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of Public Policy," OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 5 (November 2016). 3 Consider the widely-used Solow growth model. The model says that the neutral real rate, r, is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the saving rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. All things equal, an increase in g will result in a higher equilibrium real interest rate. The same is true in the Ramsey model, which goes a step further and endogenizes the saving rate within a fully specified utility-maximization framework. In this model, consumption growth is pinned down by the so-called Euler equation. Assuming that utility can be described by a constant relative risk aversion utility function, the Euler equation states that consumption will grow at (r-d)/h where d is the rate at which households discount future consumption and h is a measure of the degree to which households want to smooth consumption over time. In a steady state, consumption increases at the same rate as GDP, n+g. Rearranging the terms yields: r=(n+g)h+d. Notice that both models provide a mechanism by which a higher g can decrease r. In the Solow model, this comes from thinking about the saving rate not as an exogenous variable, but as something that can be influenced by the growth rate of the economy. In particular, if s rises in response to a higher g, r could fall. Likewise, in the Ramsey model, a higher g could make households more willing to forgo consumption today in return for higher consumption tomorrow (equivalent to a decrease in the rate of time preference, d). This, too, would translate into a lower neutral rate. 4 Janet L. Yellen, "The U.S. Economic Outlook," Presentation to the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research, February 11, 2005. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," April 28, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Paul A. David, and Gavin Wright,"General Purpose Technologies And Surges In Productivity: Historical Reflections On the Future Of The ICT Revolution," January 2012. 7 Marc Levinson, "The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger," Princeton University Press, 2006. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Easier financial conditions will lift U.S. growth in the second half of this year. However, given the Fed's dovish predisposition, aggressive tightening measures are unlikely until next year, when inflation will begin to accelerate. We see little downside for the dollar over the coming months, but think the next major leg of the structural dollar bull market will only come in 2018, as the Fed begrudgingly comes to terms with the fact that it has been behind the curve in raising rates. Even then, the Fed's efforts to tighten monetary policy will not be enough to prevent a secular rebound in inflation from taking root. Structural factors, ranging from population aging to chronically weak productivity growth, will further fuel inflation in the U.S. and around the world. Political populism - historically, an inflationary force - will come roaring back, while globalization, a deflationary force, will remain in retreat. Remain overweight global equities for now, but look to raise cash next summer. A structurally underweight position in government bonds is appropriate. Feature The Fed Stands Pat As expected, the Fed kept rates on hold this week and signaled its intention to start shrinking its balance sheet later this year. The FOMC upgraded its assessment of the state of the labor market to "solid," but sounded a note of caution on the recent weak inflation readings. It was the latter point that caught investors' attention. The dollar promptly sold off. We went long the DXY index in October 2014. We maintained our bullish dollar view going into the U.S. presidential elections, controversially arguing in September 2016 that "Trump will win and the dollar will rally."1 While our long dollar trade is still comfortably in the black, the dollar's recent swoon does imply that we stayed at the party longer than was warranted. Chart 1Investors Dismiss Future Inflation Risk What went wrong this year? The failure of the Trump administration to make progress on tax reform in recent months has hurt the dollar. So has the decline in core inflation. Core PCE inflation registered 1.4% in May, down from a high of 1.8% in January. As a result, the market is now pricing in only 26 basis points of rate hikes over the next 12 months and just a 45% chance that the Fed will raise rates by December. Hawkish comments from the ECB, the Bank of Canada, and several other central banks have added fuel to the dollar selloff. Shifts in speculative positioning haven't helped either. Investors were extremely bullish the dollar going into 2017 while bearish the euro. Today, euro longs are at record highs, while sentiment towards the dollar is in the pits. Looking out, sentiment towards the dollar should normalize, while U.S. growth should surprise to the upside over the next few quarters. U.S. financial conditions have eased sharply this year thanks to the decline in bond yields, narrower credit spreads, higher equity prices, and of course, a weaker dollar. Historically, easier financial conditions have boosted growth with a lag of 6-to-9 months. In contrast, euro area growth may be close to plateauing, as already foreshadowed this week by the decline in the PMI for July. All this should be enough to put a floor under the dollar over the remainder of the year. However, at this point, it looks increasingly likely that the next (and last) leg of the dollar bull market will have to wait until inflation begins to accelerate. This may not happen until 2018, suggesting that the dollar could trade in a range until then. We are maintaining our view that EUR/USD will eventually reach parity, but now see this as most likely to happen in the second half of next year. Many investors are skeptical that inflation will rise even if the unemployment rate continues to trend downwards. They argue that the relationship between economic slack and inflation - epitomized by the so-called Phillips curve - has completely broken down. We disagree with this assessment. As we argue below, not only is inflation likely to accelerate next year, but a number of powerful structural factors will propel inflation higher over a longer-term horizon. In fact, the 2020s could turn out to look a lot like the 1970s. Current market-based inflation expectations do not reflect this risk at all (Chart 1). Cyclical Forces Will Boost Inflation Spare capacity has declined significantly in most economies since 2009 (Chart 2). By many measures, the U.S. is now close to full employment (Table 1). Historically, diminished slack has corresponded with higher inflation (Chart 3). Chart 2Output Gaps Have Narrowed Table 1Comparing Current Labor Market Slack With Past Cycles Chart 3Diminished Slack Has Corresponded With Higher Inflation The fact that decreased spare capacity has not yet translated into higher inflation is not especially surprising. Inflation is a severely lagging indicator. As we noted last week, inflation typically does not peak until well after a recession has begun and does not bottom until well after it has ended (Chart 4).2 Trying to infer the true level of economic slack from today's inflation rate is like trying to read the speedometer of an automobile when there is a 30-second delay between what the dial says and when you step on the accelerator. Chart 4Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator Moreover, the relationship between slack and inflation tends to be highly non-linear. When there is a lot of spare capacity, reducing it modestly tends not to have much of an effect on inflation. However, when there is little or no slack, even a small reduction in spare capacity can lead to a big jump in inflation. The 1960s provide an extreme example of what can happen (Chart 5). The unemployment rate steadily declined between 1960 and 1966. Yet, core inflation remained remarkably stable during this period, consistently hovering between 1.5% and 2%. In early 1966, the unemployment rate finally broke below 4%. Within the span of 12 months, core inflation jumped from 1.5% to 3.7%. Such a rapid burst in inflation is unlikely in the near term. Inflation expectations are better anchored and unions have less power today than in the 1960s. Moreover, unlike then, some of the excess in aggregate demand can be absorbed through a larger trade deficit rather than through higher prices for goods and services. Nevertheless, as slack elsewhere in the world comes down, global inflation will rise. Our "pipeline inflation" indices, comprised of such variables as core PPI inflation and unit labor costs, are already pointing in that direction (Chart 6). The cyclical pressure on inflation will only intensify if crude prices grind higher, as our energy strategists expect they will. Chart 5Inflation In The 1960s Took Off Once ##br##The Unemployment Rate Fell Below 4% Chart 6Pickup In Global Pipeline Measures Of Inflation Structural Trends Are Becoming More Inflationary Meanwhile, several structural forces will slowly lift inflation over a longer-term horizon of five-to-fifteen years. Weaker productivity growth is one of them (Chart 7). We have argued in the past that much of the decline in global productivity growth reflects structural factors.3 As a matter of arithmetic, gross domestic output (GDP) must equal gross domestic income (GDI). If productivity growth stays weak, slow income growth could end up depressing savings by more than it depresses investment. This could push up equilibrium real interest rates. Unless central banks respond by raising policy rates, inflation will rise. The retirement of millions of highly paid baby boomers could also lead to labor shortages and lower aggregate savings. Chart 8 shows the estimated consumption and income profile for a typical U.S. individual over a lifetime. Notice that consumption tends to peak very late in life due to rising health care expenditures. Chart 7Productivity Growth Has Fallen, ##br##Particularly In Developed Economies Chart 8Spending And Saving Over The Lifecycle Using existing demographic projections, we can compute the impact that population aging is likely to have on savings. The effect is substantial. In the U.S., aging will reduce the household saving rate by about four percentage points between now and 2030. In Germany, the saving rate will sink by six points, while in China it will decline by five points. This will reduce the massive current account surpluses in these two countries, which have been major contributors to the global savings glut and the corresponding low level of real interest rates. The Japan Experience Japan's household saving rate will also continue to fall, having already declined from 14% in the late 1980s to 2% today. Amazingly, the decline in Japan's saving rate over the past few decades has occurred even though a larger share of the population is employed today than in 1980 (Chart 9). Rising female participation accounts for this. However, now that Japan's female employment rate has surpassed America's and Europe's, this demographic tailwind will dissipate (Chart 10). As a result, Japan's labor force will begin to shrink in earnest, while spending on health care and pensions will keep rising. What will be left is a large government debt burden. Chart 9Japan: Saving Rate Has Fallen Despite Rising Employment/Population Chart 10Japan: Female Employment-To-Population ##br##Has Surpassed The U.S. And Euro Area Whether debt is inflationary or deflationary depends both on economic and political considerations. On the one hand, a high degree of indebtedness may restrain spending throughout the economy. That is deflationary. On the other hand, high debt levels may provide an incentive for governments to crank up inflation in order to reduce the real value of outstanding debt obligations. Historically at least, the latter factor has often won out. One can debate whether Japan would have welcomed higher inflation even if it had the means to generate it. There are good arguments for both sides of the issue. But, in practice, the Bank of Japan's ability to create inflation was cut off very early into its first lost decade. This is because falling property prices and pervasive corporate deleveraging pushed the neutral nominal interest rate deep into negative territory. This meant that even an interest rate of zero was not enough to boost inflation. Now that property prices appear to be bottoming, corporate balance sheets are in reasonably good shape, and the prospect of significant labor shortages looms on the horizon, Japan may finally be able to gain some traction over monetary policy. Such an outcome would come as a complete surprise to most investors. The Benefits Of Higher Inflation Japan's struggles illustrate the pitfalls of excessively low inflation. Had Japanese inflation been higher in the early 1990s, the Bank of Japan might have been able to bring real rates far enough into negative territory without ever encountering the zero-bound constraint on nominal rates. This may have prevented a vicious circle where falling inflation put upward pressure on real rates, leading to weaker growth and even lower inflation. Fast forward to the present and what was once regarded as a uniquely Japanese problem is now seen as a concern in many countries. It is not surprising, therefore, that a growing chorus of economists is advocating that central banks aim for a higher inflation target than the standard 2%. The logic is straightforward: If inflation is 4% and a deep economic downturn requires that central bankers temporarily bring real rates down to -3%, this can be achieved by cutting nominal rates to 1%. In contrast, if inflation is 2%, it may be difficult to cut nominal rates to -1% since people could choose to hold cash over a negative-yielding asset. Another lesson that central bankers have learned from both the Great Recession and the recession that followed the dotcom boom is that burst asset bubbles can cause significant harm to economies. Here again, a bit more inflation can provide a safety valve of sorts. If the trend rate of inflation had been higher going into the housing bust, nominal home prices would have fallen less for any given change in real prices. This implies that fewer mortgages would have gone underwater. A higher underlying inflation rate would have also made it more difficult for lenders to offer zero-interest mortgages since their funding costs in real terms would have been greater. This would have imposed more discipline on lenders and borrowers alike. Then there is the labor market. The reluctance of workers to accept nominal wage cuts makes it difficult for real wages to adjust downwards in the face of adverse economic shocks when underlying inflation is very low. If inflation is higher, that problem diminishes. This point is especially relevant for the euro area, where labor markets are quite inflexible to begin with and many countries do not have the ability to respond to adverse shocks with either countercyclical fiscal policy or currency depreciation. Inflation As A Political Choice It is sometimes said that low inflation or even outright deflation is the natural state of affairs in capitalist economies. This is arguably true under monetary regimes such as the gold standard, but it is not true in a world of fiat money. Inflation took off in the late sixties because policymakers who grew up during the 1930s were more concerned about propping up aggregate demand than keeping a lid on prices. In contrast, the generation that reached adulthood in the 1970s was more worried about runaway inflation. It is this latter group that has run the world's central banks for the better part of the past few decades. As they step aside, they will be replaced by a younger cohort whose formative years were shaped by the financial crisis and the deflation shock that followed. Things have come full circle again. A recent NBER paper documented that age plays a major role in determining whether central bankers turn out to be dovish or hawkish.4 Those who witnessed stagflation in the 1970s as adults are much more likely to express a hawkish bias than those who were still in diapers back then. The implication is the future generation of central bankers is likely to see the world through a more dovish lens than its predecessors. Globalization In Retreat, Populism Ascendant Globalization has been a strong deflationary force through history. That force is now waning, as evidenced by the stagnation in global trade (Chart 11). In contrast, political populism - historically, a highly inflationary force - is on the rise. Much of the slowdown in globalization can be attributed to structural factors. Tariff rates fell steadily in the second half of the 20th century, helping to boost global trade in the process (Chart 12). Now that most goods cross borders duty free, further efforts at trade liberalization will be subject to diminishing returns. The same goes for outsourcing. In fact, growing evidence suggests that many firms have outsourced too much, leaving them with an unwieldy maze of suppliers around the world. Chart 11Globalization Has Stalled Chart 12Global Trade Was Boosted By Falling Tariffs ##br## In The Second Half Of The 20th Century Likewise, the integration of Eastern Europe and China into the capitalist economy brought a billion additional workers into the global labor force, giving globalization a huge boost (Chart 13). Nothing similar awaits over the horizon. Chart 13The Transition To Capitalism Enlarged The Global Labor Force Politics represents another headwind to globalization. Trade among rich countries tends to have smaller distributional consequences than trade between rich and poor countries. As emerging markets have become larger players in the global trading system, the impact on less-skilled workers in developed countries has grown. People in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania voted for Trumpism, not Trump. The problem is that Trump does not understand this, as his cyberbullying of Attorney General Jeff Sessions this week demonstrates. If Trump deserts his base, his base will find someone more to their liking. Either way, populism will prevail. For their part, the Democrats are also honing their populist message. Their "Better Deal" agenda harkens back to the populist roots of FDR's New Deal. It promises to "raise the wages and incomes of American workers," "crack down on unfair foreign trade and fight back against corporations that outsource American jobs," and root out "monopolies and the concentration of economic power," while also making sure that "Wall Street never endangers Main Street again."5 Bernie Sanders may have lost the Democratic nomination, but he won the soul of the Democratic party. European populists have been on the back foot over the past year, having suffered defeats in the Dutch, Austrian, and French elections. Yet, it would be a mistake to count them out. Populists do best when times are tough. European growth is strong these days and unemployment is falling. When the next recession rolls around, populist parties will gain favor. This will especially be the case if the migrant crisis re-escalates, as seems likely. Investment Conclusions Getting inflation up to 2% - let alone something higher - has seemed like "mission impossible" for most of the past eight years because of elevated levels of economic slack. However, as this slack is absorbed, boosting inflation will become easier. Central banks only need to raise rates by less than standard Taylor rules imply. As we discussed last week, the Fed, the Bank of Canada, the Swedish Riksbank, and the central banks of Australia and New Zealand are all somewhat behind the curve in raising rates.6 As inflation in these economies picks up next year, they will be forced to raise rates more aggressively than what the markets are currently discounting, causing bond yields to rise and their currencies to strengthen. This could sow the seeds of a slowdown or even a recession in 2019. The recession is unlikely to be especially severe since financial and economic imbalances are not as pronounced today as they were a decade ago. Yet, the policy reaction will be disproportionately large: Interest rates will be cut and talk of additional asset purchases will begin to swirl. Inflation will come down, but not all the way back to current levels. Likewise, bond yields will fall, but nowhere close to the secular lows recorded in mid-2016. As in previous inflationary episodes, the path for nominal bond yields over the next 15 years will be marked by higher highs and higher lows. Fixed-income investors should pare back duration and increase exposure to inflation-indexed securities. Gold will become a valuable hedge once the dollar peaks next year. Equities will suffer in a stagflationary environment. We remain cyclically overweight global stocks for now, as reflected in our asset allocation recommendations (Appendix 1). However, we will be looking to reduce exposure significantly next summer. Peter Berezin, Global Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Are Central Banks Behind The Curve Or Ahead Of It?" dated July 21, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?" dated May 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Ulrike Malmendier, Stefan Nagel, and Zhen Yan, "The Making Of Hawks And Doves: Inflation Experiences On The FOMC," NBER Working Paper No. 23228 (March 2017). 5 Chuck Schumer, "A Better Deal for American Workers," The New York Times, July 24, 2017, and "A Better Deal," available at http://www.democraticleader.gov. 6 Please see footnote 2. Appendix 1 Tactical Global Asset Allocation Monthly Update To complement our analysis, we use a variety of time-tested models to assess the global investment outlook. At present, these models generally favor global equities over bonds over a three-month horizon (Appendix Table 1). Our business cycle equity indicators remain firmly in bullish territory, as reflected in strong global growth and rising corporate earnings. The monetary and financial indicators are also flashing green. In contrast, our sentiment readings are sending mixed signals. Low implied equity volatility points to a heightened risk of complacency, while continued investor skepticism towards the rally (especially among retail investors) suggests that stocks have further to run. As has been the case for some time, our valuation measures are saying stocks are expensive, but these are typically useful only for horizons beyond one or two years. Calendar effects are also negative at the moment due to the tendency of stocks to underperform during the summer months. Regionally, we see more upside in more cyclically-exposed, higher-beta equity markets such as those in Europe and Japan. Canada also looks attractive based on our cyclically positive outlook for crude prices. Emerging market equities are fairly valued, although China still appears cheap based on our measures. Within the fixed-income arena, U.S. Treasurys remain overvalued based on the cyclical outlook, as do, to a lesser extent, most European bonds. Japanese bonds are the default winners simply because JGB yields are likely to remain flat on account of the BoJ's interventions. Appendix Table 1BCA's Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations* Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades