Asset Allocation

Highlights 2018 YTD Summary: Investment grade corporate debt in the developed economies has performed poorly so far in 2018, led by lagging returns in Financials and some steepening of credit curves. U.S. credit has outperformed European equivalents. These trends are likely to continue over at least the next six months. Our Sector Portfolios: Our investment grade sector model portfolios have underperformed modestly so far in 2018 (-3bps each in the U.S., euro area & U.K.) - primarily due to our overweight stance on Financials which have performed poorly. Looking Ahead: We are maintaining a neutral level of target spread risk (i.e. duration-times-spread equal that of the benchmark index) in our sector model portfolios for the U.S., euro area and U.K. We will look to reduce that spread risk on signs of a deeper global growth slowdown, which we expect will unfold in 2019. Feature Chart of the WeekReversal Of Fortune The performance of investment grade (IG) corporate bonds in the developed markets, as an asset class, has been underwhelming so far in 2018. Using the total return indices from Bloomberg Barclays, IG corporates in the U.S., euro area and U.K. - the regions with the three largest corporate bond markets among the developed economies - have lost -2.0%, -0.3% and -1.1%, respectively. The numbers do not look much better when shown on an excess return basis versus duration-matched government bonds: U.S. IG -0.8%, euro area -1.2% and the U.K. -1.3%. The sluggish performance for IG corporates is a mirror image of the strong showing in 2017 when looking at credit spreads, which reached very tight levels at the end of last year (Chart of the Week). The 2017 rally left global corporates exposed to any negative shocks, of which there have been many so far in 2018 (the February VIX spike, the Q1 global growth slowdown, intensifying U.S.-China trade tensions, ongoing Fed tightening, a strengthening U.S. dollar, less dovish non-U.S. central banks, Italian politics, emerging market turmoil). Given the more challenging environment for overall corporate bond performance, the role of sector selection as a way to generate alpha, by mitigating losses from beta, is critical. In this Weekly Report, we take a brief look at IG sector performance so far this year and update our sector allocations based on our relative value models for IG corporates in the U.S., euro area and U.K. 2018 YTD Global Corporates Performance: A Down Year The major IG sector groupings for the U.S., euro area and U.K. are presented in Table 1, ranked by the 2018 year-to-date excess returns (all are shown in local currency terms). The overall index return for each region is also shown (highlighted in gray) in the table, to highlight how individual sectors have performed relative to the overall IG index. Table 12018 Year-To-Date Investment Grade Sector Returns For The U.S., Euro Area & U.K. As is always the case with IG corporates, the performance of the broad Financials grouping (which includes banks, insurance companies, REITs, etc.) heavily influences the returns of the overall IG index given the large weighting of Financials within the Corporates index across all three regions. In both the euro area and U.K., the sharp underperformance of Financials seen year-to-date (-1.3% and -1.4%, respectively) has created a somewhat odd situation where the majority of sectors have outperformed the overall index. That could only happen given the large weight of Financials in the euro area index (40%) and U.K. index (43%). Financials are also a big part of the U.S. index (32%), but there is more balance in the U.S. IG index which has helped boost the "beta" return from U.S. corporates. Specifically, the weightings of the top three largest U.S. broad sector groupings - Energy (9%), Technology (8%) and Communications (9%) - are a combined 26% of the overall U.S. IG index. Those three sectors are also among upper tier of the 2018 performance table in the euro area and U.K., but only represent a combined 15% and 8%, respectively, of each region's IG index. The conclusion is that index composition has flattered the performance of U.S. IG corporates versus European equivalents, given the latter's heavier weighting in Financials. The poor performance of Financials can be attributed to flattening global government bond yield curves (which is a negative for banks) and poor returns from global credit, especially in emerging markets (which is a negative for insurers that invest in spread product). We do not anticipate either of those trends reversing anytime soon - particularly the ongoing selloff in emerging market assets - thus Financials are likely to remain a drag on corporate bond performance for at least the next 3-6 months. One other factor that has weighed on overall IG corporate performance has been the steepening of credit spread curves. The gaps between credit spreads for Baa- and A-rated corporates have widened since the end of January, most notably in the euro area and the U.K. where growth has been slower than in the fiscal-policy fueled U.S. economy (Chart 2). With Baa-rated debt now representing one-half of the IG index for the U.S., euro area and U.K. (Chart 3) - a function of rising corporate leverage - continued underperformance of lower quality sectors will negatively impact the future overall returns from IG corporates. Chart 2Spread Curves Are##BR##Steepening In Europe Chart 31/2 Of Investment Grade Corporate Indices##BR##Are Now Baa-Rated Looking ahead, credit investors should be wary of the potential for downgrade risk in their portfolios given the high proportion of Baa-rated debt in the IG benchmark indices. This risk will become more acute when the global business cycle runs out of steam (a 2019 story, at the earliest, in our view). Bottom Line: Investment grade corporate debt in the developed economies has performed poorly so far in 2018, led by lagging returns in Financials and some steepening of credit curves. U.S. credit has outperformed European equivalents. These trends are likely to continue over at least the next six months. Our Corporate Sector Valuation Models: Winners & Losers Our recommended IG sector allocations come from our relative value model, which measures the valuation of each individual sector compared to the overall Bloomberg Barclays corporate bond index for each region. The methodology takes each sector's individual option-adjusted spread (OAS) and regresses it in a panel regression with all other sectors in each region. The dependent variables in the model are each sector's duration, convexity (duration squared) and credit rating - the primary risk factors for any corporate bond. Using the common coefficients from that panel regression, a risk-adjusted "fair value" spread is calculated. The difference between the actual OAS and fair value OAS is our valuation metric used to inform our sector allocation ranking. The latest output from the models can be found in the tables and charts in the Appendix starting on Page 13. We also show the duration-times-spread (DTS) for each sector in those tables, which we use as the primary way to measure the riskiness (volatility) of each sector. The scatterplot charts in the Appendix show the tradeoff between the valuation residual from our model and each sector's DTS. We then apply individual sector weights based on the model output and our desired level of overall spread risk in our recommended credit portfolio. The weights are determined at our discretion and are not the output from any quantitative portfolio optimization process. The only constraints are that all sector weights must add to 100% (i.e. the portfolio is fully invested with no use of leverage) and the overall level of spread risk (DTS) must equal our desired target. That target portfolio DTS is the first decision in our discretionary allocation process, which is informed by our strategic views on corporate credit in each region. For example, if we were recommending an overweight allocation to U.S. IG corporates, then we would target a portfolio DTS that was greater than the index DTS. If we then became a bit more cautious on U.S. corporates, we could reduce the target DTS (spread risk) of our model sector portfolio while maintaining an overall overweight allocation to U.S. corporates versus U.S. Treasuries. That is exactly what we did one year ago, when we began to target a weighted DTS of all our individual sector tilts that was roughly equal to the overall IG corporate index DTS for each region (U.S. euro area, U.K.) while maintaining an overall overweight stance on global corporate credit versus government debt. More recently, we have downgraded our stance on global spread product to neutral, while continuing to favor the U.S. over Europe, in response to growing tensions from emerging markets and the brewing U.S.-China trade war.1 Chart 4Performance Of Our IG Sector Allocations We last presented a performance update for our global IG corporate sector allocations back on April 12th of this year. Since then, our recommended tilts have modestly underperformed the benchmark index in excess return terms by a combined -3bps (Chart 4). This came entirely from the euro area, with both the U.S. and U.K. sector allocations simply matching the benchmark index. Year-to-date, our IG sector allocations have underperformed the benchmark by a combined -9bps in excess return terms, split equally among the U.S., euro area and U.K. This is a result entirely consistent with our long-standing stance to overweight Financials in all three regions, which continue to appear cheap in our valuation framework. Also, an increasing number of sectors had become expensive within that framework, in all three regions, so some portion of that overweight to global Financials was "by default" given that our model portfolios must be fully invested (finding value has been a persistent problem for credit investors over the past year). The return numbers for our U.S. sector allocations can be found in Table 2. Since our last update in April, the best performing sectors (in excess return terms) within our recommended tilts have all been underweights: Pharmaceuticals (+1.2bps), Electric Utilities (+1.1bps), Retailers (+0.6bps), Health Care (+0.6bps), Diversified Manufacturing (+0.5bps) and Chemicals (+0.4bps). These were fully offset, however, by underperformance from our large overweights to Energy (-4.1bps) and Financials (-2.7bps). Table 2U.S. Investment Grade Performance The return numbers for our euro area sector allocations - shown here hedged into U.S. dollars as is the case when we present all our model portfolio returns - can be found in Table 3. Since our last update in April, the best performing sectors (in excess return terms) within our recommended tilts have been underweights to Transportation (+2.0bps) and Electric Utilities (+0.6bps), with underperformance coming from our underweight to Food/Beverage (-2.4bps) and overweight to Life Insurers (-3.1bps). Table 3Euro Area Investment Grade Performance The return numbers for our U.K. sector allocations (again, hedged into U.S. dollars) can be found in Table 4. Since our last update in April, the best performing sectors (in excess return terms) within our recommended tilts have been our underweight to Utilities (+2.0bps) and Consumer Non-Cyclicals (+0.9bps), but this was nearly fully offset by our large overweight to Financials (-2.6bps). Table 4U.K. Investment Grade Performance Despite the underperformance of our sector portfolios year-to-date, the cumulative alpha from the portfolios since we began tracking the performance of the recommendations remains positive (+2bps in the U.S., +9bps in the euro area, +42bps in the U.K.). Bottom Line: Our investment grade sector model portfolios have underperformed modestly so far in 2018 (-3bps each in the U.S., euro area & U.K.) - primarily due to our overweight stance on Financials which have performed poorly. Changes To Our Sector Model Portfolios As mentioned earlier, the first choice we make when determining the recommended sector allocations within our model portfolios is how much spread risk (DTS) to take. For the U.S., euro area and U.K., we have already been maintaining a portfolio DTS that is close to the index DTS since August 2017. After our recent decision to downgrade global spread product allocations to neutral versus government bonds, we do not feel a need to further reduce our spread risk by targeting a below-index DTS. That would likely be our next decision when we wish to get more defensive on credit, which would await evidence that global leading economic indicators are sharply slowing and/or global monetary policy is becoming restrictive. Within that neutral level of spread risk, we are making the following portfolio changes based on the updated output from our valuation models presented in the Appendix Tables on pages 13-18. The goal is to favor sectors that have a DTS close the index DTS but have positive valuation residuals from our model: U.S.: We downgrade Tobacco and Wireless to Neutral; we downgrade Paper to Underweight. Euro Area: We upgrade Transportation, Other Industrials, Natural Gas, Brokerages/Asset Managers and Finance Companies to Overweight; we upgrade Automotive, Retailers and Tobacco to Neutral; we downgrade Wireless to Neutral; we downgrade Diversified Manufacturing & Media Entertainment to Underweight. U.K.: We upgrade Health Care, Transportation and Other Industrials to Overweight; we upgrade Integrated Energy to Neutral; we downgrade Technology & Wireless to Neutral; we downgrade Metals & Mining and Supermarkets to underweight. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Time To Take Some Chips Off The Table: Downgrade Global Corporate Bond Exposure To Neutral", dated June 26th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix Table 1U.S. Corporate Sector Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Appendix Chart 1U.S. Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Appendix Table 2Euro Area Corporate Sector Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Appendix Chart 2Euro Area Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Appendix Table 3U.K. Corporate Sector Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Appendix Chart 3U.K. Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Feature GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of August 31, 2018. The quant model has further lifted its U.S. allocation to overweight from neutral, and the U.K. underweight has also been reduced by half. On the other hand, Italy is downgraded and the overweight in Spain, Germany and the Netherlands are all significantly reduced, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model underperformed its benchmark by 32 bps in August, largely driven by Level 2 model which underperformed its benchmark by 75 bps. expected, the model did not catch the "Turkey Effect" which drove deep losses in the Italian and Spanish markets. The Level 1 model slightly unperformed its MSCI World benchmark by 2 bps in August. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed its benchmarks by 87bps, driven by the Level 2 outperformance of 260 bps offset by the 5 bps of Level 1 underperformance. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model," dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model Dear Client, The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model has been live since July 2016, and has outperformed the benchmark over this period in line with our back-testing. However, GICS will make significant changes to sector compositions at the end of September, most notably creating a new "Communication Services" sector, dominated by internet-related companies, to replace "Telecommunication Services". However, MSCI has not yet made available the final details of membership or historical performance of the revised sectors. Accordingly, after this update we are temporarily suspending publication of this model until full data is available and we have been able to rebuild the model using the newly constituted sectors. The GAA Equity Sector Selection Mode (Chart 4) is updated as of August 31, 2018. Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live Chart 4Overall Model Performance The model continues to have a negative outlook on global growth and consequently has a net underweight on cyclical sectors. However, the magnitude of this tilt was reduced from 5.8% to 2.8%. The biggest move was a downgrade of consumer staples from a 2.5% overweight to a 1.4% underweight on the back of unfavorable momentum indicators. The only two sectors with favorable momentum are healthcare and technology. Finally, energy stocks also saw a 0.8% boost in its overweight recommendation on the back of attractive valuations. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," dated July 27, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Senior Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

Feature Desynchronization To Continue This year has been characterized by strong growth and asset performance in the U.S., and weakness everywhere else. While U.S. stocks are up by 10% year-to-date, those in the rest of the world have fallen by 3% in dollar terms (Chart 1). GDP growth in Q2 was 4.2% QoQ annualized in the U.S., compared to 1.6% in the euro area and 1.9% in Japan. Leading economic indicators point to this continuing and, therefore, to the U.S. dollar strengthening further (Chart 2). This has already put significant pressure on emerging markets, where equities have fallen by 7% this year in USD terms. Recommended Allocation Chart 1U.S. Has Outperformed Chart 2...And Leading Indicators Suggest This Will Continue There are many reasons why the desynchronization is likely to continue: U.S. growth continues to be boosted by tax cuts and increased fiscal spending which, according to IMF estimates, will add 0.7% to GDP growth this year and 0.8% next. The peak impact from the stimulus will not come until around Q1 next year. Further protectionist tariff increases. Despite August's tentative agreement between the U.S. and Mexico, the Trump administration still plans to implement 10-25% tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese imports, and also possibly 25% tariffs on auto imports, in September. This will - initially at least - be more negative for global exporters, such as China, the euro area and Japan, than for the U.S. China is unlikely to implement the sort of massive stimulus that it carried out in 2009 and 2015.1 It has recently cut interest rates and brought forward fiscal spending to cushion downside risk. But, given the Xi administration's focus on deleveraging and structural reform, we do not expect to see a substantial increase in credit creation (Chart 3). This indicates that emerging markets, and capital goods and commodities exporters, will continue to struggle. European banks will stay under pressure because of the problems in Italy (which will fight this fall with the European Commission over its fiscal stimulus plans) and Turkey. Euro zone equity relative performance is heavily influenced by the performance of financials, even though the sector is only 18% of market cap (Chart 4). The euro zone and Japan are also far more sensitive to a slowdown in EM growth: exports to EM are 8.4% and 6.4% of GDP in the euro zone and Japan respectively, but only 3.6% in the U.S. Chart 3China Unlikely To Repeat 2009 and 2015 Chart 4Banks Drive European Equity Performance Eventually, however, strong growth in the U.S. will become a headwind for U.S. assets too. Already, there are some signs of wage growth ticking up (Chart 5), suggesting that the labor market is finally becoming tight. Fed chair Jerome Powell, in his speech at Jackson Hole last month, reiterated that a "gradual process of normalization [of monetary policy] remains appropriate", suggesting that the Fed will continue to hike by 25 basis points a quarter. But the futures market is pricing in only 75 basis points in hikes over the next two years (Chart 6). And, if core PCE inflation were to rise above the Fed's forecast of 2.1% (it is currently 2.0%), the Fed would need to accelerate the pace of tightening. This all points to further dollar strength which will hurt emerging markets, given the consistent inverse correlation between U.S. financial conditions and EM asset performance (Chart 7). Chart 5Is Wage Growth Finally Accelerating? Chart 6Markets Pricing In Only Three More Fed Hikes Chart 7Tightening Financial Conditions Are Bad For EM We continue for now, therefore, to remain overweight U.S. equities in USD terms within a global multi-asset portfolio, despite their strong performance this year. We are neutral on equities overall and expect to move to negative perhaps early next year, when we will see some of the classic warning signs of recession (inverted yield curve, rise in credit spreads, peak in profit margins) starting to flash. Profit expectations are one key to the timing of this. Analysts forecast 22% YoY EPS growth for S&P 500 companies in Q3 and 21% in Q4, slowing to 10% in 2019. Those are strong numbers. But if companies are unable to beat these forecasts, what would be the catalyst for stocks to continue to rise? Moreover, analysts' expectations for long-term earnings growth are more optimistic currently than any time since 2000 (Chart 8). It would not take much of a downside earnings surprise - perhaps caused by the strength of the dollar, or regulatory change for internet companies - to disappoint the market. Equities: Our strongest conviction call remains an underweight on emerging markets. Emerging markets are entering what is likely to be a prolonged period of deleveraging, given their elevated levels of debt relative to GDP and exports (Chart 9). That makes them very vulnerable to the stronger U.S. dollar and higher interest rates that we expect. While EM equities have already fallen significantly, they are not yet cheap and investors have mostly not capitulated: outflows from EM funds have been small relative to inflows in previous years (Chart 10). Among developed markets, we keep our overweight on the U.S.: not only does its lower beta mean it should outperform in the event of a sell-off, but if markets were to see a last-year-of-the-bull-market "melt-up" (similar to 1999), this would likely be led by tech and internet stocks, where the U.S. is overweight. Chart 8Analysts Too Optimistic About Long-Term Earnings Growth Chart 9Long Period Of Deleveraging Ahead For EM Chart 10No Signs Of Capitulation In EM Yet Fixed Income: Higher inflation, and more Fed tightening than the market is pricing in, suggest that long-term rates have further to rise. Fed rate surprises have historically been a good indicator of the return from U.S. Treasury bonds (Chart 11). We expect to see the 10-year yield reach 3.3-3.5% by early next year. We therefore remain underweight duration, and prefer TIPS over nominal bonds. We recently lowered our weighting in corporate credit to neutral (within the underweight fixed-income category). Junk bonds have continued to perform well, thanks to their 250 basis point default-adjusted spread over Treasuries. But spreads typically start to widen one to two quarters before equities peak, so we think caution is already warranted, particularly in the light of the higher leverage, longer duration, and falling average credit rating which currently characterize the U.S. corporate credit market. Currencies: As described above, mainly because of divergent growth and monetary policy, we expect the U.S. dollar to strengthen further, but more against emerging market currencies than against the yen or euro. Short-term, however, the dollar may have overshot and speculative positions are significantly dollar-long (Chart 12), so a temporary pullback would not be surprising. Chart 11More Fed Hikes Means Higher Long-Term Rates Chart 12Are Investors Too Dollar Bullish? Chart 13Dollar And China Hurting Commodities Commodities: Industrial metals prices have declined sharply over the past few months, on the back of the stronger dollar and slowdown in China (Chart 13). We expect this to continue. Gold, we have long argued, has a place in a portfolio as an inflation hedge. But it is also negatively impacted by rises in the dollar and real interest rates, and these are likely to continue to be a drag on performance. The oil price is currently being driven by supply dynamics: How much more oil will Saudi Arabia produce? Will the E.U. and Japan follow the U.S. in imposing sanctions on Iran? Will Venezuelan production fall further? These will make the crude oil price more volatile, but our energy strategists see Brent softening a little to average $70 in H2 this year, but with potential upside surprises taking it up to an average of $80 in 2019. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 For details on why we think massive stimulus is unlikely, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?" Parts One and Two, dated 8 August 2018 and 15 August 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Special Report

Highlights We decompose the fed funds rate cycle into four phases based on the interaction between the level of the fed funds rate and its direction to examine monetary policy's impact on equities. The policy backdrop matters for equity returns. All of the S&P 500's price gains over the last six decades have accrued while policy settings have been accommodative. From a policy perspective, equities have been in an extended sweet spot ever since the Fed began aggressively cutting rates to combat the crisis. We estimate that they will remain there for close to another year. The fed funds rate cycle is only one of the variables we consider when calibrating investment strategy. Its bullish message faces resistance from decelerating growth, full valuations, and trade tensions between China and the U.S. The net impact of the individual crosscurrents is subject to spirited debate within BCA. Feature You really can't fight the Fed. As longtime U.S. Investment Strategy readers know, the fed funds rate cycle has been a consistently robust predictor of the direction and magnitude of equity returns. Over nearly six decades, the S&P 500 has risen at a 10% annualized clip when policy is easy; it's scratched out just a percentage point a year when it's tight. Adjusted for inflation, the easy/tight performance disparity has been even wider. In this Special Report, we update and revise the full-scale analysis we first performed nearly five years ago. In this iteration, we evaluate performance for each phase of the cycle on the basis of chained aggregate returns, rather than in terms of means and medians. That tweak expands our sample size to 685 months from 60 cycle phases, and eliminates the individual phases' sensitivity to short-term outliers. We have also revised the demarcation of the cycle phases to correct for a flaw in our historical effective fed funds rate data feed.1 The Fed Funds Rate Cycle We decompose the fed funds rate cycle into four phases based on the interaction between the level of rates and their direction, as follows: Phase I represents the early stage of the withdrawal of monetary stimulus. This phase begins with the first rate hike of a new tightening cycle and ends when the fed funds rate crosses above our estimate of the equilibrium rate2 (shown as a dashed line in Chart 1 and Chart 2). Chart 1It's Easiest To Be Easy Chart 2The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Phase II represents the latter stages of the tightening cycle, when the Fed hikes its target rate above equilibrium in a deliberate effort to cool an overheating economy. Phase III represents the early stage of the easing cycle. It begins with the first rate cut from the peak and lasts until the Fed cuts its target rate below equilibrium. Phase IV represents the late stage of the easing cycle. It encompasses both the period when the fed funds rate breaks below its equilibrium level, and the subsequent adjustment period when the Fed remains on hold at the cycle trough in an effort to kick start an economic recovery. What Is The Equilibrium Fed Funds Rate? The equilibrium fed funds rate is the policy rate that neither encourages nor discourages economic activity. That is a simple enough idea, but we note that the equilibrium rate is just a concept. No one can put a blood pressure cuff around the economy's arm, or stick a thermometer in its mouth, to determine the rate objectively and precisely. Our equilibrium rate, which uses potential GDP growth to adjust a smoothed and filtered long-run series of the actual fed funds rate, is simply the modeled estimate of a concept. Why Bother Pursuing Such Elusive Quarry? 70 years ago, BCA sprang from our founder's insight that investors might be able to intuit a good deal about the future direction of the economy and financial markets by studying the flow of credit through the banking system. The Bank Credit Analyst owes its name and existence to the proposition that money flows matter. Tracking monetary conditions is in our DNA, and the fed funds rate is the foremost input into standard monetary conditions models. The empirical record suggests that the monetary backdrop holds such powerful sway over financial markets that tracking the equilibrium rate's relationship to the actual fed funds rate is worthwhile even if our ability to pin it down in real time is limited. Stocks And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle History convincingly demonstrates that the monetary backdrop matters, and that the level of rates (accommodative or restrictive) exerts far more influence on equity returns than their direction (higher or lower). Table 1 presents annualized price returns for the S&P 500 by fed funds cycle phase for the nearly 60 years covered by our equilibrium fed funds rate estimate. When policy is easy, as in Phases I and IV, the S&P has appreciated at a 10% annual rate; when it's tight, as in Phases II and III, it's barely advanced. Table 2 adjusts the nominal returns for inflation, making the easy/tight policy divide even starker - in real terms, the S&P 500 has lost considerable ground when the fed funds rate has exceeded our estimate of equilibrium. Table 1Tight Policy Is Hazardous To Stocks' Health, ... Table 2... Especially In Real Terms, ... Estimated Earnings And Forward Multiples Although overall equity returns are a function of the level of rates, their underlying components - earnings growth and the multiple investors are willing to pay for future earnings - are more sensitive to rates' direction. Earnings estimates are directly related to rate moves - they rise more when rates rise than they do when rates fall (Table 3). The direct relationship follows from the countercyclical nature of monetary policy. If the Fed is cutting rates, it must anticipate a softer growth environment in which estimates should be revised lower, whereas if it's hiking them, it must foresee such robust growth that it fears the economy could overheat. Table 3... But Earnings Thrive When The Fed Hikes Multiples are inversely related to the direction of rates; they contract in the aggregate when rates rise, and expand when they fall (Table 4). Although multiples are constrained by their mean-reverting properties, their movement around the mean adheres to a tidal pattern: ebbing when the Fed's trying to rein in the economy with rate hikes (and future earnings are subject to an increasing discount factor), and rising when it's trying to give it a boost (and the discount factor is falling). Multiples' action vis-à-vis the rate cycle suggests that they are forward-looking - moving in accordance with the Fed's intentions - while estimates are backward-looking, primarily extrapolating from actual results. In terms of S&P 500 returns, estimates' and multiples' tendency to counter one another when policy is tight has maintained the overall easy/tight dynamic over the four decades covered by forward earnings data (Table 5). Table 4Stocks De-Rate When Rates Rise, ##br##And Re-Rate When They Fall Table 5A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats, But Easy Phases Still Lead The Way Why Does The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Work? For all of its import, monetary policy is a blunt instrument that works with indeterminate lags. Its shortcomings heavily influence the way the Fed deploys it, and impose a predictable pattern on its economic and market impacts. In this analysis we focus on the Fed's inability to make targeted, precise adjustments; its uncertainty over when its effects will take hold; and its mandate's explicit focus on managing inflation, a lagging indicator. All of these factors come into play when the Fed embarks on a rate-hiking campaign, kicking off a new iteration of the policy rate cycle. New rate cycles begin from the previous cycle's trough level, when the Fed's primary concern is to avoid revisiting the adversity that inspired accommodation. It does not want to induce a double-dip by being too aggressive, especially when inflation readings are tame (Table 6). The Fed does not begin Phase I, or proceed very far with it, until it is all but certain that the economy can withstand higher rates. It therefore predictably embarks upon Phase I with a bias to err on the side of being too easy. Table 6Has The Tail Been Wagging The Dog? This bias gives the economy a chance to build up momentum in Phase I, consonant with a cycle peak in earnings growth (Chart 3, third panel). In markets, that momentum helps to feed meaningful excess returns in spread product,3 and sizable outperformance among late-cyclical equity sectors at home and abroad,4 as well as outsized returns in the S&P 500. Left unchecked, the momentum could promote higher inflation. Inflation can move stealthily because of its lagging nature, and the Fed is often compelled to intervene forcefully to counter it. Chart 3Monetary Policy Matters, A Lot Forceful intervention brings about Phase II of the cycle, when economic activity may still be expanding at a good clip, as indicated by double-digit earnings growth. Wielding a blunt instrument that works with a lag, however, the Fed is at risk of going too far, and Phase II hikes often induce a recession. Investors begin to sniff out the looming downturn and de-rate equities. By the time the Fed backs off and initiates a new easing campaign (Phase III), earnings growth has stalled out and measured inflation is peaking (Chart 3, bottom panel). Equities mark time (Chart 3, first and second panels) and spread product generates negative excess returns until, with the recession plainly evident and measured inflation sliding, there is nothing stopping the Fed from full-on accommodation (Phase IV), and it maintains market-friendly settings until the economy begins to look too strong, and the Fed intervenes to hold it back (Phase II). This stylized example focused on the Fed and markets, but monetary policy impacts all aspects of the real economy. Consumer demand for homes and other durable goods that have to be financed, along with businesses' appetite for investment, are keenly sensitive to monetary conditions. There is a powerful self-reinforcing dynamic that joins corporate earnings, business expansion and hiring, and consumption. The links between equity performance and the fed funds rate cycle are real and lasting. Investment Implications In its current setting, the fed funds rate cycle is issuing a risk-friendly signal. Even if it were our only guide to asset allocation and investment strategy, however, we would need to heed a couple of caveats before rushing out to overweight equities and other risk assets. First of all, estimates of the equilibrium fed funds rate are notoriously imprecise - equilibrium is a concept that can only be observed after the fact. Secondly, there is no guarantee that asset returns in this iteration of the fed funds rate cycle will continue to hew closely to the historical record. Following 10-plus years of accommodation, equity valuations are at fairly demanding levels. We continue to have a constructive view of the business, market and policy cycles, but the current environment carries significant risks. Activity is broadly decelerating outside of the U.S., public-market valuations are full nearly everywhere around the world, and the unsettled trade picture has the potential to upend financial markets. BCA is closely monitoring China to see whether or not it will provide monetary or fiscal stimulus that might help mitigate the forces threatening to undermine global trade and the economies that rely upon it. We remain on hold, recommending a benchmark equity allocation, while underweighting bonds and overweighting cash, in line with the house view. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 A bug in our third-party provider's conversion of daily effective fed funds rate data into monthly data slightly skewed our previous phase definitions. 2 Potential GDP growth is the key input to our model estimating the equilibrium policy rate level. 3 Please see the May 27, 2014 U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "Bonds and the Fed Funds Rate Cycle." Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see the July 3, 2017 Global ETF Strategy Model Portfolios Review, "Overhauling the U.S. Equity Exposures," and the May 11, 2018 Global Alpha Sector Strategy Special Report, "Global Equity Sectors and the Fed Funds Rate Cycle."Available at getf.bcaresearch.com and gss.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The global 6-month credit impulse is likely to turn up in the fourth quarter. This warrants profit-taking in some pro-defensive equity sector, regional, and country allocation... ...for example, in the 35 percent outperformance of European healthcare versus banks in just seven months. But do not become aggressively pro-cyclical until the 10-year yield on the Italian BTP (now at 3.2) moves closer to 3... ...and the sum of the 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund and JGB (now at 3.4) also moves closer to 3. Chart Of The WeekThe Cycle Is About To Turn Feature One of the most common questions we get is, when will the cycle turn? And our response is always, which cycle? The cycle that most people focus on is the so-called business cycle, which describes multi-year economic expansions punctuated by recessions. However, the business cycle - to the extent that it is a cycle - is very irregular. Its upswings and downswings vary greatly in length (Chart I-2). This irregularity is one reason why economists are useless at calling the turns. Nevertheless, investors still obsess with calling the business cycle because they think this is the only cycle that drives the financial markets. Chart I-2The Business Cycle Is Very Irregular We disagree. Nature bestows us with a multitude of cycles with different periodicities: the daily tides, the monthly phases of the moon, the annual seasons, and the multi-year climate cycles. So it would be unnatural, and somewhat arrogant, to assume the economy and financial markets possess only one cycle. In fact, just as in nature, the economy and financial markets experience a multitude of cycles with different periodicities. There Is Not One Cycle In The Economy, There Are Many If you plotted yearly changes in temperature, you would get a flat line and you would think there were no seasons! The point being that you cannot see a yearly cycle if you look at yearly changes. To see the cyclicality of the seasons, you must plot 6-month changes in temperature. Likewise, you cannot see the shorter-term cycles in the economy and financial markets using analysis, such as yearly changes, designed to see longer-term cycles. Once you grasp this basic maths, the mini-cycles in the economy and financial markets will stare you in the face (Chart I-3), and a whole new world of investment opportunities will open up. Chart I-3The Mini-Cycle Is Very Regular As we advised on January 4: "Global growth experiences remarkably consistent - and therefore predictable - 'mini-cycles', with half-cycle lengths averaging eight months. As the current mini-upswing started in May 2017 we can infer that it is likely to end at some point in early 2018. So one surprise could be that global growth will lose steam in the first half of 2018 rather than in the second half, contrary to what the consensus is expecting... Pare back exposure to cyclicals and redeploy to defensives" The advice proved to be very prescient. The global economy did enter a mini-downswing sourced in the emerging markets (Charts I-4 - I-6). Chart I-4The U.S. Mini-Downswing Was Muted... Chart I-5...The Euro Area Mini-Downswing Was Also Muted... Chart I-6...But The China Mini-Downswing Was Severe Nevertheless, the global nature of financial markets meant that the German 10-year bund yield declined by 40 bps, while European healthcare equities outperformed banks by a mouth-watering 35 percent, and materials by 15 percent (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Some of these performances are as large as can be gained in a full business cycle begging the question: Why obsess with the impossible-to-predict business cycle when there are equally rich pickings in the easier-to-predict mini-cycle? Chart I-7Banks Vs. Healthcare Tracks The Mini-Cycle Chart I-8Materials Vs. Healthcare Tracks The Mini-Cycle Furthermore, if you get the equity sector calls right, you will get the equity regional and country calls right too. As cyclicals have underperformed, the less cyclically-exposed S&P500 has been the star performer of the major regional indexes. And cyclical-heavy stock markets like Italy's MIB have strongly underperformed defensive-heavy stock markets like Denmark's OMX (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Italy Vs. Denmark = Banks Vs. Healthcare It follows that the evolution of the global economic mini-cycle is pivotal in every investment decision (Box 1). BOX 1 The Theory Of Economic And Market Mini-Cycles The academic foundation of the global economic mini-cycles is a model called the Cobweb Theorem.1 When bond yields rise, interest rate sensitive sectors in the economy feel a headwind, but with a lag. Similarly, when bond yields decline, interest rate sensitive sectors feel a tailwind, but again with a lag. The lag occurs because credit demand leads credit supply by several months. As credit demand leads credit supply, the turning point in the price of credit (the bond yield) always leads the quantity of credit supplied (the credit impulse). The result is a perpetual mini-cycle oscillation in both economic variables. And because the quantity of credit supplied is a marginal driver of economic activity, this also creates mini-cycles in economic activity. These mini-cycles are remarkably regular with half-cycle lengths averaging around eight months and the regularity creates predictability. Moreover, as most investors are unaware of this predictability, the next turning point is not discounted in financial market prices - providing a compelling investment opportunity for those who do recognise the existence and predictability of these cycles. The Mini-Cycle Will Soon Turn Up The global 6-month credit impulse entered its current mini-downswing in January. Given that mini-downswings tend to last around eight months, we should expect the global economy to exit its mini-downswing in September, the escape valve being the recent decline in bond yields (Chart Of The Week). The caveat is that bond yields were slow to react to the mini-downswing and the decline in 10-year yields, averaging around 40 bps from the peak, has been pretty shallow. It follows that the next mini-upswing could be delayed to October/November, and be somewhat muted. Nevertheless, the surprise could be that global growth will stabilise in the fourth quarter of 2018, contrary to what the consensus is expecting. And this would suggest taking some of the most mouth-watering profits in pro-defensive equity sector, regional, and country allocation - for example, in the 35 percent outperformance of European healthcare versus banks (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Banks Have Severely Underperformed Healthcare Would we go a step further and become pro-cyclical? Not yet. One reason is that there is a limit to how far bond yields can rise before destabilising the very rich valuations of all risk-assets. This is captured in our 'rule of 4' which says that when the sum of the 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund, and Japanese government bond (JGB) exceeds 4 - which broadly equates to the global 10-year yield exceeding 2 percent - it is time to go underweight equities. With the sum now equal to 3.4, yields can rise by only 25-30 bps before hurting risk-assets. Another reason for circumspection is that the investment landscape is still scattered with a large number of landmines, one of which has its own rule of 4. The Other 'Rule Of 4': The Italian 10-Year Bond Yield When Italian bond prices decline, it erodes the value of Italian banks' €350 billion portfolio of BTPs and weakens the banks' balance sheets. Investors start to get nervous about a bank's solvency when equity capital no longer covers net non-performing loans (NPLs). On this basis, the largest Italian banks now have €160 billion of equity capital against €130 billion of net NPLs, implying excess capital of €30 billion (Chart I-11). It follows that the markets would start to worry about Italian banks' mark-to-market solvency if their bond valuations sustained a drop of around a tenth from the recent peak. We estimate this equates to the 10-year BTP yield breaching and remaining above 4 percent (Chart I-12).2 Chart I-11Italian Banks' Equity Capital Exceeds Net NPLs By 30 Bn Euro Chart I-12Italian Banks' Solvency Would Be In Question If The 10-Year Yield Breached 4% Today the 10-year BTP yield stands just shy of 3.2 percent, but it is about to enter a testing period. The Italian government must agree its 2019 budget by September and present a draft to the European Commission by mid-October. The budget must tread a fine line. Cutting the structural deficit to appease the Commission would diminish the credibility of the populist government. It would also be terrible economics, making it harder for Italy to escape its decade-long stagnation.3 On the other hand, locking horns with Brussels and aggressively increasing the structural deficit might panic the bond market. The optimal outcome would be to leave the structural deficit broadly where it is now. To sum up, the global 6-month credit impulse is likely to turn up in the fourth quarter, warranting some profit-taking in pro-defensive positions. But we do not advise aggressive pro-cyclical sector, regional, and country allocation until the 10-year yield on the Italian BTP (now at 3.2) - and the sum of the 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, German bund and JGB (now at 3.4) - both move closer to 3. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'The Cobweb Theory And Market Cycles' published on January 11 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Assuming that the average maturity of Italian banks' BTPs is around 5 years. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'Monetarists Vs Keynesians: The 21st Century Battle' July 12 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal trading Model* In support of the preceding fundamental analysis, the outperformance of healthcare versus banks is technically extended. Its 130-day fractal dimension is at the lower bound which has reliably signalled previous trend exhaustions. On this basis we would position for a 10% reversal with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, long PLN/USD reached the end of its 65-day holding period comfortably in profit, and is now closed. This leaves six open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-13 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Two key issues will remain important drivers of global financial markets in the coming quarters: the direction of the dollar and Chinese policy stimulus. Policy and growth divergences will remain tailwinds for the dollar and there is little the Trump Administration can do to reverse the upward trend. Dollar strength is exposing poor macro fundamentals in many emerging market economies. The problems facing EM economies run deep, and will not disappear anytime soon. Expect more EM fireworks. EM market turmoil could pause the Fed's tightening campaign, but this would require evidence that the U.S. economy and/or financial markets are being negatively affected. Chinese stimulus is a risk to our base-case outlook. A growth impulse might keep the RMB from weakening further, boost commodity prices and support EM exports. However, we believe that Chinese stimulus will not be a 'game changer', and might even cause more problems if the authorities push the RMB lower. The U.S. economy and financial system are less exposed to emerging markets than in the Eurozone. An excellent profit backdrop also provides U.S. risk assets with a strong tailwind. Nonetheless, the U.S. is not immune to EM woes. Poor valuation implies a meaningful correction in U.S. risk assets on any flight-to-quality event. Stay cautious on asset allocation. Fed Chair Powell is willing to wait for the "whites of the eyes" of inflation before becoming alarmed, almost ensuring that the FOMC will fall behind the inflation curve. Evidence of labor market overheating is accumulating. Bond yields will rise as the FOMC tries to catch up and long-term inflation expectations bounce. We believe that investors are underestimating the upside in U.S. inflation risks over the medium term. We recommend below-benchmark duration, although government bonds would temporarily rally if EM turbulence sparks a flight-to-quality. We still expect the supply/demand balance in the world oil market to tighten later this year. Stay positioned for higher oil prices. Japanese corporate profits have been stellar, but that will soon change. EPS growth is likely to soften in the Eurozone too. Favor the U.S. market in unhedged terms. Feature There are numerous key issues on the investment landscape, but two stand out at the moment because they both have wide-ranging global implications: (1) Will the U.S. dollar continue to appreciate; and (2) Will Chinese policymakers place structural reform on the back burner and 'go for growth' in the near term? The latest U.S. economic and profit data provide a strong tailwind for American risk assets. Nonetheless, the mighty U.S. dollar is casting a dark shadow over the heavily-indebted emerging market economies, sparking comparisons with the late 1990s. Could Turkey be the start of a 'domino' effect, similar to Thailand's plunge into financial crisis in 1997 that eventually spread to Brazil and Russia, and finally contributed to the demise of Long-Term Capital Management in the fall of 1998? On the global growth front, the story has not changed much from our assessment last month. Growth is solid, but slowing, in part due to a deceleration in developed-economy capital spending. The global expansion has become less synchronized and relative growth dynamics are pointing to more upside for the greenback (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Cyclical Divergence Is Still Dollar Bullish As in the late 1990s, the Fed is likely to ignore turbulence in EM financial markets and will continue on its tightening path until it begins to affect the U.S. economy or asset prices. The path of least resistance for the dollar is up until something breaks. A major policy impulse from China could alter the feedback loop between the strengthening dollar and EM asset prices. A growth pickup would lift China's imports and commodity prices, both of which would support emerging market economies and asset prices. There is plenty of uncertainty regarding the size of the recently-announced Chinese stimulus measures, but our take is that they are likely to underwhelm because a major growth push would undermine the authorities' structural initiatives. The implication is that the global backdrop will remain unfriendly to emerging market assets at a time when they are more vulnerable than the consensus believes. The risk of a financial accident is escalating. The good news is that the U.S. earnings picture remains excellent, which precludes us from being underweight on risk assets. Nonetheless, investors should have no more than a benchmark allocation to equities and corporate bonds in the major advanced economies. We are upgrading government bonds to neutral at the expense of cash on a tactical basis, to reflect the rising possibility of a global flight-to-quality. The First Domino Turkey has had all the hallmarks of a crisis for a long while. Erdogan's slim hold on power has motivated several populist policy decisions that have stretched Turkey's macro fundamentals. The central bank has been forced to provide large injections of liquidity into the banking system, despite double-digit inflation readings. The country suffers from a classic "twin deficit" problem. Turkish private sector external debt stands at 40% of GDP, of which 13% of GDP is short-term, the highest among EM countries. Erdogan wants economic growth at all costs, but has done little in terms of the structural reforms necessary to lift the country's growth potential. The Lira has lost almost 26% of its value versus the dollar since August 1 and Turkish spreads have blown out. It appears that a lot of bad news has been discounted, but our EM strategists do not see this as a buying opportunity. One risk is that Erdogan imposes capital controls next. Our emerging market team's long held caution on EM is rooted in concern for failing fundamentals.1 They emphasize that Turkey was the catalyst, not the main cause, for the broader financial stress observed across EM assets in August. BCA has highlighted for some time that EM debt is a ticking time bomb. Chart I-2 shows that EM dollar-denominated debt is now as high as it was in the late 1990s as a share of both GDP and exports. Chart I-3 highlights the most vulnerable EM economies in terms of the foreign currency funding requirement, and the foreign debt-servicing obligation relative to total exports. Turkey stands out as the most vulnerable, along with Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Chile, and Colombia. Chart I-2Debt Makes EM Vulnerable Chart I-3EM Debt Exposure In all previous major EM selloffs, any decoupling between different EM regions proved to be unsustainable. And it certainly does not help that the Fed remains on its tightening path; EM equities usually fall when U.S. financial conditions tighten (Chart I-4). The combination of a strong dollar and weak RMB is a deadly combination for highly-indebted emerging market economies. Chart I-4EM Highly Sensitive To U.S. Financial Conditions... Investors should expect contagion to intensify. China To The Rescue? Some investors are hoping that China will 'save the day' by providing a major dose of policy stimulus, as it did in 2015, the last time that EM was close to a tipping point. We doubt China will be able to play the same stabilizing role. The Chinese authorities are committed to their long-term structural goals. They have been trying to reorient the economy toward consumption and away from investment and exports, as well as undertake other reforms to reduce financial risk, pollution, poverty and corruption. China kept policy on the tight side until recently, which resulted in a gradual growth slowdown. The Li Keqiang index (LKI) is a good coincident indicator for economic growth (Chart I-5). This index has ticked up in recent months, along with imports, but this likely reflects industrial activity designed to fill foreign orders before the new U.S. tariffs take effect. Our LKI model, based on money and credit, points to further economic weakness ahead. Chart I-5China: Watch Credit And Fiscal Impulse The escalation of the trade war with the U.S. is forcing the Chinese authorities to provide some short-term policy stimulus in order to pre-empt any resulting economic damage. A flurry of policy announcements over the past month has given investors the impression that Beijing has cranked up the policy dial, including cuts to short-term interest rates, a decrease in reserve requirements, liquidity provision to the banking system, and promises of various forms of fiscal stimulus. Chinese stimulus has historically been positive for commodity prices and EM assets. However, we are less sanguine this time. First, the authorities are not abandoning structural reforms, which means that the associated growth headwinds will not disappear. Second, our China experts believe that Chinese policy is only turning moderately reflationary; this is not the 'big bang' that followed the Great Recession in the late 2000s, or the same level of stimulus provided following the 2015-16 global manufacturing downturn. There will no doubt be some fiscal stimulus, but we do not expect a major expansion in bank credit to the private sector because of the government's crackdown on shadow banking, excessive leverage and growing non-performing loans. The change in the policy stance amounts to 'taking the foot off the brake' rather than pressing firmly on the accelerator.2 Third, and perhaps most importantly, the authorities may rely even more on the currency lever to do the heavy lifting if the economy continues to slow and/or the tariff war escalates further. This would be negative for commodity demand because a weaker RMB will make commodities dearer for Chinese producers. Metals prices are particularly at risk. China's competitors will also feel the sting of a cheaper RMB. It will be critical to watch the Chinese money and credit data in the coming months to gauge whether our view on the policy stimulus is correct. We will also be watching the combined credit and fiscal impulse which, at the moment, points to continued weakening in import growth in the near term (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Slower EM growth and/or more financial market turbulence is likely to take a larger toll on the euro area than the United States. Exports to emerging markets account for only 3.6% of GDP for the U.S., compared to 9.7% of GDP for the euro area. Euro area banks also have more exposure to emerging markets than U.S. banks (Chart I-6). Notably, Spanish banks - BBVA in particular - has sizable exposure to Turkey. Meanwhile, Italian assets have come under pressure as the rift between the European Commission and the new populist government widens and Italian banks become increasingly wary of financing their government. Chart I-6DM Bank Exposure To EM European growth will therefore likely continue to trail that of the U.S. Our base case does not see euro area growth falling below a trend pace in the coming quarters, but relative growth momentum and the ongoing policy divergence will favor the dollar over the euro. FOMC: No Urgency The key message from the latest FOMC Minutes and Chairman Powell's Jackson Hole speech is that policymakers are sticking with the "gradual" approach to tightening, despite the late-cycle acceleration in economic growth. The blowout second-quarter GDP report supports the view that fiscal stimulus is stoking the economy at a time when there is little slack. Evidence that the labor market is overheating is not simply anecdotal anymore. In past cycles, an acceleration in growth at a time when inflation is already at target and unemployment is below estimates of full employment would have sparked aggressive Fed action. But the Minutes and Powell's speech revealed no sense of urgency. Powell made the case that the Fed must proceed carefully in an environment where there is much uncertainty about the level of the neutral policy rate, the natural rate of unemployment and the slope of the Phillips curve. Moreover, long-term inflation expectations are still hovering below a level that is consistent with meeting the 2% target over the medium term. Some FOMC policymakers believe that this fact justifies taking chances with an inflation overshoot in the coming quarters. Another reason for the FOMC to proceed cautiously is the wage picture, which is confusing even to economic experts because the official measures paint a mixed picture (Chart I-7). The Employment Cost Index for private sector workers continues to march higher. However, growth in compensation per hour, average hourly earnings (AHE) and unit labor costs have all eased a little this year. The Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, one of the cleanest measures of wages, reveals an even more significant pullback. The softening in wage growth has been fairly widespread across age cohorts, educational attainment and regions, according to the Atlanta Fed data (Chart I-8). Part-time workers appear to be the only segment that has bucked the trend. It is not clear why workers in the 16-24 age group, as well as those with bachelor's degrees (of any age), have seen the most pronounced softening in wage growth this year. Chart I-7Mixed U.S. Wage Data Chart I-8U.S. Wage Slowdown Broadly-Based Which measure is telling the correct story: the ECI or the Atlanta Wage Tracker? Both are a relatively clean measure of wages and it is difficult to tell based on the relative merits of each index alone. Nonetheless, there is little doubt that the labor market is now very tight by historical standards. Small business owners' compensation plans remained near record levels in July, while concerns about the "quality of labor" have never been higher (Chart I-9). Chart I-10 shows that the ratio of the level of job openings to unemployed workers has surpassed the pre-recession level in all but one sector according to the Jolts survey. Indeed, in most cases this ratio is well above the previous peak. Unemployment is now below the estimated level of full-employment in more than 80% of U.S. states. Chart I-9U.S. Labor Shortage Is Growing Chart I-10JOLTS Signals Very Tight Jobs Market No Evidence Of U.S. Overheating? Labor shortages first appeared for skilled workers, helping to explain why highly-skilled workers have enjoyed the fastest wage gains in recent years. But this year's Fed Beige Books have noted that many businesses are now having trouble finding low- and middle-skilled workers, as listed in Table I-1. These industries roughly line up with the ones that reveal above-average growth in average hourly earnings, and with the ones where labor market tightness is the most acute according to the Jolts survey (second and third columns in the table). The shortages appear to be broadly based, ranging from truck transportation to financial services, manufacturing and construction. This makes it all the more curious that Chairman Powell finds that there is no evidence of overheating in the labor market. The evidence seems pretty conclusive to us and it even features in the Fed's own Beige Book. Keep in mind that inflation is not always the 'cost push' type, beginning in the labor market and traveling to consumer prices. Sometimes inflation can begin in the market for goods and services, and then affect wage demands. U.S. consumer price inflation appears to be headed higher based on the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge (Chart I-11). Our CPI diffusion index shows that inflation is accelerating in a majority of categories. Other measures of underlying inflation, such as the Sticky Price Index, the Trimmed Mean, and the Median inflation rate are all in a solid uptrend. Dollar strength this year will eventually put downward pressure on core goods inflation, but that will take some time; non-energy goods inflation is more likely to rise in the near term as it catches up to the previous acceleration in imported goods prices (Chart I-11, bottom panel). Table I-1Labor 'Shortages' Identified In The Beige Book Chart I-11U.S. Underlying Inflation Is Rising U.S. Inflation To Surprise On Upside We believe that the market is underestimating the risk of a meaningful inflation overshoot over the medium term. Investors still do not believe that the Fed will be able to consistently meet the 2% target over the long-term, based on CPI swaps and TIPS breakeven rates. BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, penned a two-part Special Report in August on the potential for upside inflation surprises over the coming years.3 First, increasing political pressure on the major central banks is worrying. Second, policymakers are coming around to the idea that there may be an exploitable trade-off between higher inflation and lower unemployment. This was a mistake last made in the inflationary 1970s. Finally, the pressure to keep monetary policy accommodative until the "whites of the eyes" of inflation are visible will remain strong. Bonds are in for some trouble if we are correct on the inflation outlook. We recommend that investors with a 6-12 month investor horizon remain short in duration and overweight TIPS versus conventional Treasurys. That said, we cannot rule out a flight-to-quality episode at some point, possibly reflecting trade tensions and/or EM turmoil, which would send Treasury yields temporarily lower. The Fed may be forced to place rate hikes on hold if financial conditions tighten too quickly. No Margin Peak Yet In The U.S.... The S&P 500 was unfazed by the turmoil in emerging markets and the re-widening in Italian bond spreads in August, likely because of continuing good news on the profit front. Corporate earnings remained in a sweet spot in the second quarter. Nominal GDP grew by a whopping 5.4% from a year ago, helping to boost the top line for the corporate sector. The lagged effect of previous dollar depreciation is still flattering earnings, although this only accounts for about two percentage points according to our model (Chart I-12). Meanwhile, equity buybacks have kicked into overdrive (Chart I-13). Chart I-12U.S. Dollar Impact On EPS Growth Chart I-13U.S. Equity Buyback In Overdrive Margins continued their impressive ascent in the second quarter to well above the pre-Lehman peak (Chart I-14). A lot of the increase is related to the tax cuts; EBITDA margins are still substantially below the 2007 peak according to the S&P data. It is disconcerting that all of the surge in S&P 500 margins is due to the Tech sector (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Excluding Tech, S&P after-tax margins have simply moved sideways since 2010. Looking ahead, the tailwind from previous dollar depreciation will shift to a headwind by mid-2019. Chart I-12 shows that the contribution from changes in the dollar to EPS growth will shift from a positive two percentage points to a drag of 1½ percentage points if the dollar is flat from today's level in broad trade-weighted terms. If the dollar rises by another 5% this year, then next year's drag on EPS growth will reach three percentage points. Moreover, the impact of the tax cuts on after-tax profits will fade next year. Wage pressures are building and this should eventually squeeze profit margins. That said, a margin peak does not appear to be imminent. Last month we introduced some macro indicators for profit margins (Chart I-15). Most appeared to be rolling over a month ago, but they have all since ticked up. Chart I-14Tech And Taxes Driving Profit Margins Chart I-15U.S. Margin Indicators Have Turned Up The bottom line is that we continue to expect a mean reversion in U.S. profit margins in the coming years, but this is not a risk for at least the rest of 2018. ...But Profit Outlook Darkening In Japan Second quarter earnings season was also a good one for Japanese companies. Twelve-month forward earnings estimates have been in a steep incline and margins have been rising (Chart I-16). Despite this, the Nikkei has only managed to move sideways this year in local currency terms. Concerns over trade and global growth have perhaps weighed on Japanese stock performance. Company profits have a high beta with respect to global growth. Things are looking shaky on the domestic front too. Domestic demand growth is decelerating, consistent with a weakening Economy Watcher's Survey. Some of the weakness may be related to poor weather, but the LEI suggests that this trend will continue in the coming quarters (Chart I-17, bottom panel). Chart I-16Japan: Trailing Earnings Are Solid... Chart I-17...But Profit Margins Will Narrow Chart I-17 presents some of the variables that have helped to explain historical trends in Japanese EPS. Industrial production growth, a good proxy for top line growth, is decelerating. Nominal GDP growth has fallen to just 1.1% year-over-year, at a time when total labor compensation has surged by more than 4%. The difference between these two, a proxy for profit margins, has therefore plunged. Previous shifts in the yen have not had a large impact on EPS growth over the past year and we do not expect that to change much in 2019. On a positive note, Japanese stocks are attractively valued now that the 12-month forward P/E ratio has fallen below 13 (Chart I-16, bottom panel). It is also constructive that the Bank of Japan is the only central bank that is not backing away from monetary stimulus. The recent widening of the trading band for the 10-year JGB yield was a technical change meant to give the central bank more flexibility, not a signal that policymakers are planning to change tack. Nonetheless, we believe that earnings growth and margins will disappoint market expectations over the next year. The story is much the same for the Eurozone. Both trailing and forward profit margins have been in a strong uptrend. Twelve-month forward EPS growth has been holding at a solid 9%. Nonetheless, the data that feed into our Eurozone profit model point to some softening ahead, including industrial production and the difference between nominal GDP and the aggregate wage bill (not shown). The Eurozone's credit impulse turned negative even before concerns about EM and Italian politics exploded onto the scene. Thus, home-grown profit generation is likely to moderate along with foreign-sourced earnings. For the moment, the BCA House View remains at benchmark on Japanese and Eurozone stocks in currency-hedged terms. In unhedged terms, we prefer the U.S. market to these other bourses because of our bullish dollar bias. Investment Conclusions: Two key issues will remain important drivers of global financial markets in the coming months and quarters: the direction of the dollar and Chinese policy stimulus. We believe that the U.S. dollar has additional upside potential due to growth and policy divergences. There is some speculation in the financial community that President Trump might resort to currency intervention. However, any intervention would be sterilized by the Fed. The only way to shift currencies on a sustained basis would be to organize a coordinated change in monetary or fiscal policies among the U.S. and its main trading partners. This is highly unlikely. Thus, the path of least resistance is up for the U.S. dollar. Dollar strength is exposing poor macro fundamentals in many emerging market economies. The problems facing EM economies run deep, and will not disappear anytime soon because high debt levels make these economies vulnerable to any weakness in global growth, commodity prices or global liquidity conditions. EM financial market turmoil could cause the Fed tightening campaign to go on hold, but this would require evidence that the former is negatively affecting the U.S. economy and/or financial markets. In other words, we need to see some pain before the Fed blinks. Chinese stimulus is a risk to our base-case EM outlook. Policy stimulus might keep the RMB from weakening further, boost commodity prices and support EM exports. This would not change the EM debt situation, but would at least give emerging economies a temporary reprieve. Careful analysis suggests that Chinese stimulus will not be a 'game changer', and might even cause problems if the authorities push the RMB lower. But it will be critical to monitor the next couple of money and credit reports. The U.S. economy and financial system are less exposed to further EM turmoil than in the Eurozone. But as the LTCM event demonstrated in 1998, the U.S. is not immune. Moreover, U.S. equity prices are more expensive than they were during previous EM selloffs that have occurred since the Great Recession. This could mean a larger equity re-rating on any flight-to-quality. This is not to say that we expect a bear market in DM risk assets to get underway in the near future. A U.S./global recession before 2020 is unlikely. Nonetheless, the risk of a meaningful correction is elevated enough that caution is warranted, especially at a time when all risk assets appear expensive. Chart I-18 updates our valuation measures for some major asset classes. All appear to be expensive, especially U.S. equities, raw materials and gold. EM sovereigns and equities are at the cheaper end of the spectrum, but are still not cheap in absolute terms even after the recent selloff. Chart I-18Major Asset Valuation Comparison Treasurys rallied briefly after Chairman Powell signaled that he is not willing to accelerate the pace of rate hikes in light of the U.S. economy's growth acceleration. He is willing to wait until he sees the "whites of the eyes" of inflation before becoming alarmed, almost ensuring that the FOMC will fall behind the inflation curve. Bond yields will rise as the FOMC tries to catch up and long-term inflation expectations bounce. Over the medium term, we believe that investors are underestimating the upside in U.S. inflation risks. We recommend below-benchmark duration, although bonds may temporarily rally if EM turbulence sparks a flight-to-quality. We still expect the supply/demand balance in the world oil market to tighten later this year. Stay positioned for higher oil prices. Finally, as we go to press, the U.S. is trying to force Canada to sign on to the U.S./Mexico 'agreement in principal' by August 31. A framework deal with Canada would likely leave many tough issues unresolved. There is also a chance that Canada misses the deadline and that the existing trilateral deal will not survive. It is technically possible that Canada's refusal to join the U.S.-Mexico bilateral deal will delay its ratification well into next year. In the meantime, Trump could raise the stakes for Canada by boosting tariffs on Canadian autos and/or by suspending NAFTA altogether. As a result, we decided to go ahead and publish our Special Report on U.S. equity sector implications if NAFTA is not ratified and tariffs rise to WTO levels. The report begins on page 20. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst August 30, 2018 Next Report: September 27, 2018 1 Please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report "What's Really Driving The EM Selloff?"dated June 28, 2018, available on ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China is Easing Up On The Brake, Not Pressing The Accelerator," dated July 26, 2018, available on cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Reports: "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? Parts I and II," dated August 10 and 24, 2018, available on gis.bcaresearch.com II. What If NAFTA Is Not A Done Deal? U.S. Equity Implications This Special Report examines the impact of a NAFTA cancelation on 21 level-three GICs industries. While the latest news on the NAFTA renegotiation with Mexico is positive as we go to press, there is still a non-negligible risk that the existing trilateral deal will not survive. The U.S.-Mexico bilateral deal is an "agreement in principle" and will take time to ratify. Meanwhile, a framework deal with Canada would leave many thorny issues to be resolved. President Trump can still revert to his tough tactics on Canada ahead of the U.S. mid-term elections. If the President does not gain major concessions that can be presented as "victories" to voters, he is likely to take an aggressive stand in order to fire up his political base. The probability of Trump triggering Article 2205 and threatening to walk away from the suspended U.S.-Canada free trade agreement is still not trivial, despite the deal with Mexico. By itself, the cancelation of NAFTA would not be devastating for any particular U.S. industry because the size of the tariff increases would be fairly small as long as all parties stick with MFN tariff levels. That said, the impact would not be trivial, especially for those industries that have extensive supply lines that run between the three countries involved (especially Autos). We approached the issue from four different perspectives; international supply chains, a model-based approach, and an analysis of foreign revenue exposure and input cost exposure. The broad conclusion is that there are no winners from a NAFTA cancelation for the U.S. manufacturing GICs industries. Pharmaceuticals, Health Care Equipment & Supplies, Personal Products and Construction Materials are lower on the risk scale, but cannot be considered beneficiaries of a NAFTA collapse. The remaining industries are all moderately-to-highly exposed. Considering the four perspectives as a group, the most vulnerable industries are Automobiles, Automobile Components, Metals & Mining, Food Products, Beverages, and Textiles & Apparel. Our U.S. equity sector specialists recommend overweight positions in Defense and Financials; while neither stands to benefit from a NAFTA abrogation, they should at least be relative outperformers. They recommend underweight positions on Auto Components, Steel and Electrical Components & Equipment as relative (and probably absolute) underperformers should NAFTA disappear. While the latest news on the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is positive as we go to press, there is still a non-negligible risk that President Trump could revert to his tough tactics ahead of the U.S. mid-term elections.1 Even if Canada signs on to a framework deal, a lot of thorny details will have to be worked out. A presidential proclamation triggering Article 2205 of the NAFTA agreement (as opposed to tweeting that the U.S. will withdraw) would initiate a six-month "exit" period. Trump could use this deadline, and the threat of canceling the underlying U.S.-Canada FTA, to put pressure on Canada (if not Mexico) to concede to U.S. demands, just as he could revoke his exit announcement anytime within the six-month period. While some market volatility would ensue upon any exit announcement, even a total withdrawal at the end of the six months would have a limited macro-economic impact as long as the U.S. continued to respect its WTO commitments and lifted tariffs only to Most Favored Nation (MFN) levels. Nonetheless, a modest tariff hike is not assured given the Administration's "America First" policy, its looming threat of Section 232 tariffs on auto imports, its warnings against the WTO itself, and the steep tariffs it has already imposed on Canada, including a 20% tariff on softwood lumber and the 300% tariff on Bombardier CSeries jets. Moreover, even a small rise in tariffs to MFN levels would have a significant negative impact on industries that are heavily integrated across borders. Our first report on the evolving U.S. trade situation analyzed the implications of the U.S.-China trade war for the 24 level two U.S. GICs equity sectors. This Special Report examines the impact of a NAFTA cancelation on 21 level three GICs industries (finer detail is required since NAFTA covers mostly goods industries). We find that there are no "winners" among the U.S. equity sectors because the negative impact would outweigh any positive effects. The hardest hit U.S. industries would be Autos, Metals & Mining, Food Products, Beverages, and Textiles and Apparel, but many others are heavily exposed to a failure of the free trade agreement. Out Of Time President Trump is seeking a new NAFTA deal ahead of the U.S. midterms in November. While this timing may yet prove too ambitious, the U.S. has made progress in recent bilateral negotiations with Mexico, raising the potential that Trump will be able to tout a new NAFTA framework deal by November 6. Yet, investors should be prepared for additional volatility. There are technical issues with the bilateral U.S.-Mexico deal that could delay ratification in Congress until mid-2019. The new Mexican Congress must ratify the deal by December 1 if outgoing President Enrique Peña Nieto is to sign off. Otherwise, the incoming Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador may still want to revise any deal he signs, prolonging the process. Meanwhile, it would be surprising if the Canadians signed onto a U.S.-Mexico deal they had no part in negotiating without insisting on any adjustments.2 The important point is that President Trump's economic and legal constraints on withdrawing from NAFTA have fallen even further with the Mexican deal. If Trump does not get major concessions that can be presented as "victories" to voters, he is likely to take an aggressive stand in order to fire up his political base, as a gray area of "continuing talks" will not inspire voters. This could mean imposing the threatened auto tariffs or threatening to cancel the existing trade agreements with Canada. Thus, the risk of Trump triggering Article 2205 is still not trivial. A bilateral Mexican trade deal is not the same as NAFTA. Announcing withdrawal automatically nullifies much of the 1993 NAFTA Implementation Act. Some provisions of NAFTA under this act may continue, but the bulk would cease to have effect, and the White House could refuse to enforce the rest. The potential saving grace for trade with Canada was that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), which took effect in 1989, was incorporated into NAFTA. The U.S. and Canada agreed to suspend CUSFTA's operation when NAFTA was created, but the suspension only lasts as long as NAFTA is in effect. However, Trump may walk away from both CUSFTA and NAFTA in the same proclamation. In that event, WTO rules for preferential trade would require the U.S. and Canada to raise tariffs on trade with each other to Most Favored Nation (MFN) levels. These tariff levels are shown in Charts II-1A and II-1B. The Charts also show the maximum tariff that could potentially be applied under WTO rules. The latter are much higher than the MFN levels, underscoring that the situation could get really ugly if a full trade war scenario somehow still emerged among these three trading partners. Chart II-1AU.S.: MFN Tariff Rates By GICS Industry (2017) Chart II-1BMexico & Canada: MFN Tariff Rates By GICS Industry (2017) Current tariffs are set at zero for virtually all of these GICs industries, which means that the MFN levels also indicate how much tariffs will rise at a minimum if NAFTA is cancelled. Tariffs would rise the most for Automobiles, Textiles & Apparel, and Food Products (especially agricultural products), and Beverages. U.S. tariffs under the WTO are not significantly higher than NAFTA's rates; the average MFN tariff in 2016 was 3½%, which compares to 4.1% for the average Canadian MFN tariff. Would MFN Tariffs Be Painful? An increase in tariff rates of 3-4 percentage points may seem like small potatoes. Nonetheless, even this could have an outsized impact on some industries because tariffs are levied on trade flows, not on production. A substantial amount of trade today is in intermediate goods due to well-integrated supply chains. Charts II-2A and II-2B present a measure of integration. Exports and imports are quite large relative to total production in some industries. The most integrated U.S. GICs sectors include Automobiles & Components, Materials, Capital Goods and Electrical & Optical Equipment. Higher tariffs would slam those intermediate goods that cross the border multiple times at different stages of production. For example, studies of particular automobile models have found that "parts and components may cross the NAFTA countries' borders as many as eight times before being installed in a final assembly in one of the three partner countries."3 Tariffs would apply each time these parts cross the border if NAFTA fails. Chart II-2AU.S./Canada Supply Chain Integration Chart II-2BU.S./Mexico Supply Chain Integration Appendix Tables II-1 to II-4 show bilateral trade by product between the U.S. and Canada, and the U.S. and Mexico. In 2017, the U.S. imported almost $300b in goods from Canada, and exported $282b to that country, resulting in a small U.S. bilateral trade deficit. The bilateral deficit with Mexico is larger, with $314b in U.S. imports and $243b in exports. The largest trade categories include motor vehicles, machinery, and petroleum products. Telecom equipment and food products also rank highly. As mentioned above, the impact of rising tariffs is outsized to the extent that a substantial portion of trade in North America is in intermediate goods. Box II-1 reviews the five main channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry. Box II-1 Trade Channels There are at least five channels through which rising tariffs can affect U.S. industry: (1) The Direct Effect: This can be positive or negative. The impact is positive for those industries that do not export much but are provided relief from stiff import competition via higher import tariffs. The impact is negative for those firms facing higher tariffs on their exports, as well as for those firms facing higher costs for imported inputs to their production process. These firms would be forced to absorb some of import tariffs via lower profit margins. Some industries will fall into both positive and negative camps. U.S. washing machines are a good example. Whirlpool's stock price jumped after President Trump announced an import tariff on washing machines, but it subsequently fell back when the Administration imposed an import tariff on steel and aluminum (that are used in the production of washing machines). NAFTA also eliminated many non-tariff barriers, especially in service industries. Cancelling the agreement could thus see a return of these barriers to trade; (2) Indirect Effect: The higher costs for imported goods are passed along the supply chain within an industry and to other industries that are not directly affected by rising tariffs. This will undermine profit margins in these indirectly-affected industries to the extent that they cannot fully pass along the higher input costs. There would also be a loss of economies-of-scale and comparative advantage to the extent that firms are no longer able to use an "optimal" supply network that crosses borders, further raising the cost of doing business; (3) Foreign Direct Investment: Some U.S. imports emanate from U.S. multinationals' subsidiaries outside the U.S., or by foreign OEM suppliers for U.S. firms. NAFTA eliminated many national barriers to FDI, expanded basic protections for companies' FDI in other member nations, and established a dispute-settlement procedure. The Canadian and Mexican authorities could make life more difficult for those U.S. firms that have undertaken significant FDI in retaliation for NAFTA's cancellation; (4) Macro Effect: The end of NAFTA, especially if it were to lead to a trade war that results in tariffs in excess of the MFN levels, would take a toll on North American trade and reduce GDP growth across the three countries. Besides the negative effect of uncertainty on business confidence and, thus, capital spending, rising prices for both consumer and capital goods will reduce the volume of spending in both cases. Moreover, corporate profits have a high beta with respect to economic activity. The macro effect would probably not be large to the extent that tariffs only rise to MFN levels; (5) Currency Effect: To the extent that a trade war pushes up the dollar relative to the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso, it would undermine export-oriented industries and benefit those that import. However, while we are bullish the dollar due to diverging monetary policy, the dollar may not benefit much from trade friction given that tariffs would rise for all three countries. Chart II-3 is a scatter chart of GICs industries that compares the average MFN tariff on U.S. imports to the average MFN tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports from the U.S. A U.S. industry may benefit if it garners significant import protection but does not face a higher tariff on its exports to the other two countries. Unfortunately, there are no industries that fall into the north-west portion of the chart. The opposite corner, signifying low import protection but high tariffs on exports, includes Beverages, Household Durables, Household Products, Personal Products and Machinery. Chart II-3Import And Export Tariffs Faced By U.S. GICS Industries Model-Based Approach The C.D. Howe Institute has employed a general equilibrium model to estimate the impact of a NAFTA failure at the industrial level.4 The model is able to capture the impact on trade conducted through foreign affiliates. The study captures the direct implications of higher tariffs, but also includes a negative shock to business investment that would stem from heightened uncertainty about the future of market access for cross-border trade. It also takes into consideration non-tariff barriers affecting services. Table II-1Impact Of NAFTA Cancellation By Industry As with most studies of this type, the Howe report finds that the level of GDP falls by a relatively small amount relative to the baseline in all three countries - i.e. there are no winners if NAFTA goes down. Moreover, the U.S. is not even able to reduce its external deficit. While the trade barriers trim U.S. imports from NAFTA parties by $60b, exports to Canada and Mexico fall by $62b. At the industry level, the model sums the impacts of the NAFTA shock on imports, exports and domestic market share to arrive at the estimated change in total shipments (Table II-1). It is possible that an industry will enjoy a boost to total shipments if a larger domestic market share outweighs the damage to exports. However, the vast majority of U.S. industries would suffer a decline in total shipments according to this study, because the estimated gain in domestic market share is simply not large enough. Beef, Pork & Poultry and Dairy would see a 1-2% drop in total shipments relative to the baseline forecast. Next on the list are textiles & apparel, food products and automotive products. Even some service industries suffer a small decline in business, due to indirect income effects. Foreign-Sourced Revenue And Input Cost Approach Another way to approach this issue is to identify the U.S. industries that garner the largest proportion of total revenues from Mexico and Canada. Unfortunately, few companies provide much country detail on where their foreign revenues are derived. Many simply split U.S. and non-U.S. revenues, or North American and non-North American revenues. Table II-2 presents the proportion of total revenues that is generated from operations outside the U.S. for the top five companies in the industry by market cap (in some cases the proportion that is generated outside of North America was used as a proxy for foreign- sourced revenues). While this approach is not perfect, it does provide a good indication of how exposed a U.S. industry is to Canada and Mexico. This is because any company that has "gone global" will very likely be doing substantial business in these two countries. Table II-2Foreign Revenue Exposure At the top of the list are the Metals & Mining, Personal Products, and Auto Component industries. Between 62% and 81% of revenues in these three industries is derived from foreign sources. Following that is Household Durables, Leisure Products, Chemicals and Tobacco. Indeed, all of the level three GICs industries we are analyzing are moderately-to-highly globally-oriented, with the sole exception of Construction Materials. Table II-3Import Tariff Exposure U.S. companies are also exposed to U.S. tariffs that boost the price of imported inputs to the production process. This can occur directly when firm A imports a good from abroad, and indirectly, when firm A then sells its intermediate good to firm B at a higher price, and then on to firm C. In order to capture the entire process, we used the information contained in the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Input/Output tables. We estimated the proportion of each industry's total inputs that would be affected by a rise in tariffs to MFN levels. We then allocated the industries contained in the input/output tables to the 21 GICs level 3 industries we are considering, in order to obtain an import exposure ranking in S&P industry space (Table II-3). All 21 industries are significantly vulnerable to rising input costs, which is not surprising given that we are focusing on the manufacturing-based GICs industries and NAFTA focused on trade in goods. The vast majority of the industries could face a cost increase on 50% or more of their intermediate inputs to the production process. The Automobile industry is at the top of the list, with 72% of its intermediate inputs potentially affected by the shift up in tariffs (Automobile Components is down the list, at 56%). Containers & Packaging, Oil & Gas, Aerospace & Defense, Textiles and Food Products are also highly exposed to tariff increases. The automobile industry is a special case because of the safeguards built into NAFTA regarding rules-of-origin and the associated tracing list. The U.S. is seeking significant changes in both in order to tilt the playing field toward U.S. production, but this could severely undermine the intricate supply chain linking the three countries. Box II-2 provides more details. Box II-2 Automotive Production In NAFTA; Update Required We are focused on two key aspects to the renegotiation of the NAFTA rules that could have far reaching implications for automakers and the auto component maker supply base: the tracing list and country of origin rules. Regarding the first of these, the Trump administration has a legitimate gripe when it comes to automotive production. A tracing list was written in the early-1990's to define automotive components such that the rules of origin (ROO) could be easily met; anything not on the list is deemed originating in North America. As anyone who has driven a vehicle of early-1990's vintage and one of late-2010's vintage can attest, high tech components (largely not included on the tracing list) have grown exponentially as a percentage of the cost of the vehicle and, at least with respect to electronic and display components, are sourced mostly from overseas. Updating the tracing list would force auto makers to source a significantly greater amount of components domestically, almost certainly raising the cost of the vehicle and either hurting margins or hurting competitiveness through higher prices. The current NAFTA ROO require that 62.5% of the content of a vehicle must be sourced in North America, with no distinction between any of the member nations. The result of this legislation has been the creation of a highly integrated supply base that sees components move back and forth across borders through each stage of the manufacturing process. Early proposals from the Trump administration for a NAFTA rework included a country of origin provision for as much as 50% U.S. content. Such a provision would certainly cause a massive disruption in the automotive supply chain with components manufacturers forced to relocate or automakers electing to source overseas and pay the 2.5% MFN tariff on exports within North America. Either scenario presents a headwind to the tightly woven auto components base, underscoring BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy's underweight recommendation on the sector. The recently announced bilateral trade deal with Mexico raises the ROO content requirements to 75% from the 62.5% contemplated under NAFTA but, importantly, no country of origin provisions appear in the new deal. Still, given how quickly this is evolving, a final NAFTA deal could be significantly different. Chart II-4 presents a scatter diagram that compares import tariff exposure (horizontal axis) with foreign revenue exposure (vertical axis). The industries in the north-east corner of the diagram are the most exposed to NAFTA failure. The problem is that there are so many in this region that it is difficult to choose the top two or three, although Metals & Mining stands out from the rest. It is easier to identify the industries that face less risk in relative terms: Pharmaceuticals, Construction Materials, Health Care & Supplies, Leisure Products and, perhaps, Machinery. The rest rank highly in terms of both foreign revenue exposure and import tariff exposure. Chart II-4Foreign Revenue And Import Tariff Exposure Conclusions: By itself, a total cancelation of NAFTA would not be devastating for any particular U.S. industry because the size of the tariff increases would be fairly small as long as all parties stick with MFN tariff levels. That said, the impact would not be trivial, especially for those industries that have extensive supply lines that run between the three countries involved. The negative impact on GDP growth would likely be worse for Canada (and Mexico if its bilateral somehow fell through), but U.S. exporters would see some loss of business. We approached the issue from four different perspectives; international supply chains, a model-based approach, and an analysis of foreign revenue exposure and import tariff exposure. The broad conclusion is that there are no winners from a NAFTA cancelation for the U.S. manufacturing GICs industries. Pharmaceuticals, Health Care Equipment & Supplies, Personal Products and Construction Materials are lower on the risk scale, but cannot be considered beneficiaries of a NAFTA collapse. The remaining industries are all moderately-to-highly exposed. Considering the four perspectives as a group, the most vulnerable industries are Automobiles, Automobile Components, Metals & Mining, Food Products, Beverages, and Textiles & Apparel. Our U.S. equity sector specialists recommend overweight positions in Defense and Financials; while neither stands to benefit from a NAFTA abrogation, they should at least be relative outperformers. They recommend underweight positions on Auto Components, Steel and Electrical Components & Equipment as relative (and probably absolute) underperformers should NAFTA disappear. As we go to press, rapid developments are taking place in the NAFTA negotiations. The U.S. and Mexico have completed a bilateral agreement in principle and a Canadian team is looking into whether to sign onto the agreement by a U.S.-imposed August 31 deadline. This deadline would enable the current U.S. Congress to proceed to ratification before turning over its seats in January, though it is not a hard deadline. It is possible that the negotiations will conclude this week and the crisis will be averted. But the lack of constraints on President Trump's trade authority gives reason for pause. If Canada demurs, Trump could move to raise the cost through auto tariffs or announcements that he intends to withdraw from existing U.S.-Canada agreements in advance of November 6. While Mexico has now tentatively secured bilaterals with both countries through the new U.S. deal and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which includes Canada), it still stands to suffer if a trilateral agreement is not in place. Moreover it is technically possible that Canada's refusal to join the U.S.-Mexico bilateral could delay the latter's ratification well into next year. Therefore, we treat Mexico the same as Canada in our analysis, despite the fact that Mexican assets stand to benefit in relative terms from having a floor put under them by the Trump Administration's more constructive posture and this week's framework deal. If Trump does not pursue a hard line with Canada, then it will be an important sign that he is adjusting his trade policy to contain the degree of confrontation with the developed nations and allies and instead focus squarely on China, where we expect trade risks to increase in the coming months. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Matt Gertken Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Chris Bowes Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy APPENDIX TABLE II-1 U.S. Imports From Canada (2017) APPENDIX TABLE II-2 U.S. Exports To Canada (2017) APPENDIX TABLE II-3 U.S. Imports From Mexico (2017) APPENDIX TABLE II-4 U.S. Exports To Mexico (2017) 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO," dated June 28, 2018, and Weekly Report, "Are You 'Sick Of Winning' Yet?" dated June 20, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Working Together: Economic Ties Between the United States and Mexico. Christopher E. Wilson, November 2011. 4 The NAFTA Renegotiation: What if the U.S. Walks Away? The C.D. Howe Institute Working Paper. November 2017. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our equity indicators continue to signal that caution is warranted, but U.S. profits have been so strong recently as to dominate any negative market forces. Our Monetary Indicator is hovering at a low level by historical standards, suggesting that liquidity conditions have tightened. It is constructive that our Composite Technical Indicator has hooked up, narrowly avoiding a technical break below the zero line. It is also positive that our Composite Sentiment Indicator is rising, but not yet to a level that would signal trouble for stocks from a contrary perspective. However, our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator continues to erode, and the Japanese WTP appears to be rolling over. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Flows into the U.S. stock market are waning, and those into the Japanese market are wavering. Flows into European stocks have flattened off. Moreover, our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on a 'sell' signal in August. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. Our indicators thus suggest that the underlying health of the U.S. equity bull market is fraying at the edges. Nonetheless, robust U.S. profits figures have sparked a euphoric late-cycle blow-off phase. The net revisions ratio is still in positive territory, and the net earnings surprises index has surged to an all-time high. Not much has changed on the U.S. Treasury front. The 10-year bond is slightly on the cheap side according to our model, and oversold conditions have not yet been worked off. This month's Overview section discusses the potential for upside inflation surprises in the U.S. that will place the FOMC "behind the curve". The term premium and long-term inflation expectations are still too low. This year's dollar rally has taken it to very expensive levels according to our purchasing power parity estimate. The long-term trend in the dollar is down, but economic and policy divergences vis-à-vis the U.S. and the other major economies suggests that the dollar is likely to continue moving higher in the near term. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Lesson 1: Inflation is a non-linear phenomenon. Lesson 2: Beware government interference in monetary policy. Lesson 3: An emerging markets shock is deflationary for developed markets. Lesson 4: The 'Rule of 4' for equities and bonds. Feature We took a much needed holiday last week, hoping that financial markets would enter a midsummer slumber. Our hopes were dashed. The timing of the Turkish lira crisis reminded us of the old adage: time, tide - and financial markets - wait for no man. But on reflection, our summer holiday gave us the time for some, well... reflection: a precious quality in a world that is rapidly neglecting the value of reasoned analysis. The addiction to minute-by-minute commentary and knee-jerk reaction - epitomised by the Twitterati - means that we are 'thinking fast', when we should be 'thinking slow'. So here, after some reflection, are four long-term lessons from the Turkish lira crisis. Lesson 1: Inflation Is A Non-Linear Phenomenon. Turkey's recent experience clearly demonstrates that inflation is non-linear - meaning that inflation doesn't move in a gradual or controlled fashion. Non-linear phenomena experience sudden and explosive phase-shifts (Chart I-2). In Turkey's case, a major cause of its currency crisis was that inflation recently phase-shifted out of a well-established channel to its current 16 percent rate (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekTurkish Inflation Experienced A Non-Linearity Chart I-2Inflation Can Experience A Phase-Shift People struggle with the concept of non-linearity because the vast majority of our day to day experiences are linear, meaning the output is proportionate to the input. The speed of our car depends linearly on the pressure on the accelerator pedal; the temperature in our home depends linearly on the thermostat setting; the volume of music in our headphones depends linearly on the volume setting; and so on. Likewise, the vast majority of economic models - including the infamous DSGE inflation models used by central banks - assume linear relationships.1 But some phenomena are non-linear. An example you might relate to is trying to get a small amount of tomato ketchup out of crusted-over squeezy bottle. It is impossible. You squeeze and no ketchup comes out; you squeeze harder and still nothing comes out; and then suddenly you get the explosive phase-shift: the entire bottle empties on your plate! Inflation also experiences violent phase-shifts. The main reason is that people cannot perceive small changes in inflation, making inflation expectations very sticky, which is to say non-linear. The Turkish people might not perceive inflation rising from 8 percent to 10 percent, but they would certainly perceive it rising to 16 percent. Hence, as policymakers squeeze the ketchup bottle, nothing happens at first. But at a tipping point, the self-reinforcement of inflation expectations becomes explosive. Whereupon, the whole bottle comes out. The broad money supply, M, gaps up because it becomes rational for banks to lend as much as possible. And its velocity, V, also gaps up because it becomes rational to spend the money - both newly created and pre-existing balances - as quickly as possible (Chart I-3-Chart I-6). So the product MV, which equals nominal GDP, experiences an even sharper non-linearity. Chart I-3The Velocity Of Money... Chart I-4...Is A Non-Linear Phenomenon Chart I-5The Money Multiplier... Chart I-6...Is A Non-Linear Phenomenon This begs the question: when should we worry about a sudden phase-shift in developed market inflation rates? The answer comes from Lesson 2. Lesson 2: Beware Government Interference In Monetary Policy. An economy's broad money supply, M, is dominated by loans. So to expand the broad money supply, somebody has to borrow money. This means that the danger of an inflation phase-shift rises sharply if the government can borrow and spend money at will, with the central bank creating it.2 Over the past few centuries, the British government - by periodically leaving the gold standard - did exactly this to pay for the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War and the First World War (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The British Government Created Inflation To Pay For Wars Which answers the question of when to worry. The government has to get into cahoots with the central bank. In other words, the central bank loses its independence and fiscal policy has the scope to become ultra-loose. This describes the situation in Turkey, where President Erdogan has forced the central bank to suppress interest rates, while putting his son-in-law in charge of the Turkish treasury. Could something similar happen in developed economies? President Trump's fiscal stimulus combined with his recent attempt to influence Federal Reserve policy (to more dovish) is a small step in this direction. Nevertheless, the major developed market central banks are on a hawkish path. They are squeezing less on the ketchup bottle. Therefore, the real risk of a phase-shift in developed market inflation will arise not before the next global downturn, but after it - when desperate policymakers might resort to desperate measures. In the near term, we expect developed market inflation to remain contained, and one supporting reason comes from Lesson 3. Lesson 3: An Emerging Markets Shock Is Deflationary For Developed Markets. The slowdown and recent shock in emerging markets has caused the dollar and yen to surge. Even the euro - on a broad trade-weighted basis - has held up very well through the Turkish lira crisis and is up 2 percent in 2018 (Chart I-8). Chart I-8An EM Shock Boosts DM Currencies... Meanwhile, since May, industrial metal prices have plunged 20 percent (Chart I-9) and even the crude oil price is down by 10 percent. Chart I-9...And Depresses Industrial Commodity Prices An emerging market shock also threatens the developed market banking system by impairing its foreign loans. Thereby, it risks stifling domestic credit creation. The combination of stronger currencies, lower commodity prices, and potentially weaker bank credit creation is a disinflationary headwind for developed markets in the near term. Lesson 4: The 'Rule of 4' For Equities And Bonds. If developed market inflation remains contained in the near term, it should also keep a lid on bond yields. This is significant because our non-consensus call is that the main threat to developed market risk-assets comes not from trade wars and/or a global economic slowdown; it comes from rich valuations which will become dangerously unstable if bond yields march much higher. The bond yield that matters is the global long bond yield. Effectively, this is the weighted average of its three main components: the 10-year yields on the U.S. T-bond, the German bund and the Japanese government bond (JGB). But for a useful rule of thumb, just sum the three yields. A sum above 4 - which broadly equates to the global 10-year yield rising above 2 percent - means it is time to go underweight equities. A sum between 3.5 and 4 means a neutral stance to equities. A sum well below 3.5 means an overweight stance to equities - because it would justify even richer valuations. Investment Recommendations Asset allocation: Our 'rule of 4' sum now stands at 3.3, indicating a close to neutral stance to equities. For bonds, we have since May recommended an overweight position in a portfolio of high-quality government 30-year bonds. The recommendation is performing well, and it is appropriate to stick with it for the time being. Sector allocation: Stay overweight the classical defensives versus the classical cyclicals: materials, industrials and banks. This recommendation has fared spectacularly well. Healthcare has outperformed banks by 20 percent since February, so the pressing question is: when to take profits? We anticipate at some point in the fourth quarter. Within the cyclical sectors, prefer banks over oil and gas. Regional and country equity allocation: the geographical allocation of equities follows directly from the sector allocation. Our preferred ranking of sectors necessarily means that our preferred ranking of major equity markets is: S&P500 first, Eurostoxx50 and Nikkei225 second (tied), FTSE100 third. Again, this recommendation has performed extremely well. Currency allocation: Since February, our main currency recommendations have been short EUR/JPY, long EUR/USD, and long EUR/CNY. In effect the recommendations reduce to: long JPY/USD and long EUR/CNY, and this combination has proved to be an excellent 'all-weather' position (Chart I-10). Stick with it for the time being. Chart I-10Long JPY/USD And EUR/CNY Has Been##br## A Good 'All-Weather Combination' Finally, our long-standing short Turkish lira versus South African rand position has returned a mouth-watering 73 percent in four years.3 It is time to close the short Turkish lira position and bank the profits. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium models. 2 For example, by giving all public sector workers a 50% pay rise! 3 After the cost of carry, based on interest rate differentials. Fractal Trading Model* Market reaction to the Turkish lira crisis caused our two most recent trades to hit their stop-losses, but it has also created new opportunities. The aggressive sell-off in industrial commodities appears technically extended. So this week's recommended trade is an intra-cyclical equity sector pair-trade: long global basic resources, short global chemicals. The profit target is 3.5% with a symmetric 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 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields 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

Dear Client, There will be no U.S. Bond Strategy report next week. Our regular publishing schedule will resume on September 4th. Best regards, Ryan Swift Highlights Global Growth Divergences: The impact of weak foreign growth will eventually be felt in the U.S. and could even result in the Fed pausing its rate hike cycle for a time. But history tells us that the resulting decline in Treasury yields will not last long. Investors should hedge the risk of weak foreign growth by maintaining only a neutral allocation to spread product, but should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Corporates: As global growth divergences deepen and the dollar strengthens, corporate profit growth will eventually fade and corporate leverage and defaults will rise. Accelerating wages will exacerbate the problem, much like in the late 1990s. Municipal Bonds: Municipal bonds offer attractive yields relative to corporate bonds, especially considering that they are more insulated from weakening foreign growth. Remain overweight municipal bonds. Feature "It is just not credible that the United States can remain an oasis of prosperity unaffected by a world that is experiencing greatly increased stress." - Alan Greenspan, September 19981 Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan uttered the above sentence in early September 1998. Russia had just defaulted on its government debt and a few weeks later the heavily-exposed hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management would require a bail-out, kicking off a period of turmoil in U.S. financial markets. The Federal Reserve responded by cutting interest rates by 75 basis points between September 30th and November 4th, despite a domestic labor market that Chairman Greenspan described as "unusually tight." We recall this tumultuous period because a divergence between strong U.S. and weak non-U.S. growth is once again putting upward pressure on the U.S. dollar, leading to pain in emerging markets. So far it is the Turkish lira bearing the brunt of the sell-off, but the lesson from the late 1990s is that other EMs, and eventually the U.S., are also vulnerable. A joint Special Report, published last week, from our Foreign Exchange Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy services provides a blow-by-blow account of the late 1990s period, with implications for today's currency markets.2 In this week's report, we focus on what divergences between strong U.S. growth and weak non-U.S. growth mean for U.S. bond portfolios. A History Of False Starts The divergence between strong U.S. and weak non-U.S. growth is illustrated in Chart 1. The shaded regions in the chart correspond to periods when the Global (ex. U.S) leading economic indicator (LEI) is contracting while the U.S. LEI continues to rise. There have been 10 such episodes since 1966. In the four instances that occurred prior to 1993, the U.S. economy remained insulated from flagging growth in the rest of the world. That is, the U.S. LEI continued to expand and the Global (ex. U.S.) LEI eventually recovered into positive territory. However, since 1993, every time the Global (ex. U.S) LEI has dipped below zero the U.S. LEI has eventually followed. In other words, prior to 1993 the U.S. economy acted very much like an oasis of prosperity. But global events have become much more important since then. Chairman Greenspan's claim was correct in 1998 and remains relevant today. Case Study: 1997 Two of the post-1993 growth divergence episodes are particularly relevant for bond investors today. The first occurred in 1997 (Chart 2). The Fed tried to kick off a rate hike cycle in March 1997, but the combination of a Fed rate hike and weak foreign growth led to a surge in the dollar. Eventually, the strong dollar dragged our Fed Monitor below zero and the Fed was forced to abandon rate hikes until June 1999. In the interim, the Fed's dovish turn caused the dollar to halt its uptrend (Chart 2, panel 3). Treasury yields collapsed and then recovered (Chart 2, panel 4). Credit spreads moved in line with the exchange rate (Chart 2, bottom panel), widening alongside a stronger dollar in 1997/98, and then leveling off as the Fed eased policy and the dollar moved sideways. The end result of the 1997 episode is that Treasury yields took a round trip, falling as the Fed backed away from its rate hike path, then rising again once rate hikes resumed. Credit spreads, however, never fully recovered their 1997 tights. Case Study: 2015 More recently, growth divergences flared again in 2015 (Chart 3). This time, our Fed Monitor was already recommending rate cuts in late-2015, but the Fed pressed on and delivered the first rate hike of the cycle that December. Once again, the combination of a hawkish Fed and weak foreign growth put upward pressure on the dollar (Chart 3, panel 3), and the Fed was forced to pause its rate hike cycle. Chart 1The Weight Of The World Chart 2False Start 1997 Chart 3False Start 2015 Much like in 1997, Treasury yields declined as the Fed went on hold and then started to rise again as rate hikes resumed (Chart 3, panel 4). Also like 1997, credit spreads widened alongside the strengthening dollar, though this time they actually managed to tighten back to new lows when the Fed went on hold and the upward pressure on the dollar abated in 2016/17 (Chart 3, bottom panel). Implications For The Present Day Chart 4Inflation Is Much Closer To Target What lessons can we take away from these two episodes? The first is that if growth divergences continue to worsen and the dollar continues to appreciate, it will eventually cause our Fed Monitor to dip below zero and the Fed will likely pause its rate hike cycle. Such a dovish pause will lead to a decline in Treasury yields and a flattening-off, or even depreciation, of the dollar. However, we also know from history that any decline in Treasury yields is likely to prove fleeting. Once dovish Fed action takes the shine off the dollar, foreign economic growth will improve and the Fed will soon be able to resume rate hikes. This was the case in both 1997 and 2015. There is even reason to believe that any pause in Fed rate hikes could be particularly short-lived this time around. Inflation is already closing-in on the Fed's target and there is some evidence that long-dated inflation expectations have become stickier. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have not fallen much in recent weeks, even as weakening foreign growth has dragged down commodity prices (Chart 4). As for credit spreads, history shows that they are likely to widen as global growth divergences deepen and the dollar appreciates. Then, any pause in Fed rate hikes will improve credit's outlook for a time. Once again, because relatively strong inflation will limit the length of time that the Fed can pause lifting rates, we think any period of spread tightening that coincides with more dovish Fed policy will be short-lived. We also see similarities with the 1997 episode in terms of the outlook for corporate defaults. Such similarities bode ill for credit spreads, as is discussed in the next section. Bottom Line: The impact of weak foreign growth will eventually be felt in the U.S. and could even result in the Fed pausing its rate hike cycle for a time. However, history tells us that the resulting decline in Treasury yields will not last long. Investors should hedge the risk of weak foreign growth by maintaining only a neutral allocation to spread product, but should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Corporate Defaults: Look To The Late 1990s Considering the two case studies presented above, the reason corporate bonds performed worse in 1997 compared to 2015 is that in 1997 corporate leverage and defaults started to creep higher and did not peak until the 2001 recession. In contrast, corporate leverage flattened-off and defaults fell once the Fed paused its rate hike cycle in 2016 (Chart 5). Chart 5Corporate Defaults: The Late 1990s Roadmap Looking closer, the bottom panel of Chart 5 shows that once profit growth fell below the rate of debt growth in 1997 it continued to trend down. In 2015/16, profit growth was again dragged lower by the strong dollar, but it quickly rebounded once the Fed turned dovish. In our view, if global growth divergences continue to worsen and the dollar continues to strengthen, the next increase in corporate leverage will probably look more like 1997. To see why, we consider the two reasons why profit growth decelerated in 1997. The first is the obvious reason that the strong dollar started to weigh on corporate revenues. The growth in business sales moderated and the PMI dipped below 50 (Chart 6). Today, we have not yet seen enough dollar strength to weigh on business sales or the manufacturing PMI, which is still hovering around 60 (Chart 6, bottom panel). But this will change as the emerging market turmoil spreads and eventually impacts the U.S. business sector. The second reason why the 1997 corporate default episode is the most comparable to the present day is that much like in 1997, but unlike in 2015, the labor market is extremely tight and wages are starting to accelerate (Chart 7). The growth in unit labor costs started to outpace the growth in corporate selling prices in 1997, and this caused our Profit Margin Proxy to fall (Chart 7, panel 2). At present, our Profit Margin Proxy is very close to the zero line, but with a sub-4% unemployment rate further downside is likely. Finally, much like in 1997, small businesses are increasingly citing labor quality as a more important problem than lack of sales (Chart 7, bottom panel). The difference between the rankings of these two problems has done a good job tracking profit growth historically. This indicator is currently at levels that are much more reminiscent of the late 1990s. Chart 6Dollar Strength Drags Down Revenue Chart 7Wages Will Weigh On Profits Bottom Line: As global growth divergences deepen and the dollar strengthens, corporate profit growth will eventually fade and corporate leverage and defaults will rise. Accelerating wage growth will exacerbate the problem, much like in the late 1990s. Take Shelter In Municipal Bonds Chart 8Munis As A Safe Haven Another implication of the divergence in growth between the U.S. and the rest of the world is that fixed income sectors that are more exposed to the domestic U.S. economy and less exposed to foreign growth and the exchange rate should fare better. In this regard, municipal bonds are an obvious candidate. While state & local government net borrowing has flattened off at a relatively high level during the past few quarters, state governments have recently re-committed to austerity (Chart 8). Data from the National Association of State Budget Officers show that states enacted a net $9.9 billion increase in revenues in fiscal year 2018, with another $2.8 billion planned for fiscal year 2019. Historically, revenue raises of this magnitude have led to declines in net borrowing, which should ensure that municipal ratings upgrades continue to outpace downgrades for the time being (Chart 8, bottom panel). But there's an even better reason for investors to favor municipal bonds. Quite simply, yields remain attractive compared to the riskier corporate alternatives, particularly at longer maturities. The top section of Table 1 shows relevant statistics for the 5-year, 10-year and 20-year tax-exempt Bloomberg Barclays Municipal bond indexes, along with the closest comparable indexes from the investment grade corporate sector. We observe that a 5-year Aa-rated municipal bond carries a yield of 2.18% versus a yield of 3.26% for a comparable corporate bond index. This implies that an investor with an effective tax rate of 33% should be indifferent between the two bonds. Any investor exposed to an effective tax rate above 33% should favor the municipal bond, even before considering the differences in risk between the two sectors. Moving further out the curve, the breakeven tax rate falls to 24% at the 10-year maturity point and to either 13% or 21% at the 20-year maturity point, depending on whether you use Aa-rated or A-rated corporate debt as the relevant comparable. We also find that High-Yield municipal debt looks attractive compared to the corporate alternative. The Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield Muni Index (excluding Puerto Rico) trades at a breakeven tax rate of 18% relative to a Ba-rated corporate bond, and 33% relative to a B-rated corporate bond. Even the taxable municipal space is attractive. The bottom section of Table 1 shows that the average yield on the 1-5 year taxable municipal bond index is slightly higher than that of the closest comparable corporate bond index. The same goes for the 5-10 year taxable muni index. Table 1A Comparison Of Municipal And Corporate Bond Yields Finally, drawing on work we presented in a recent Special Report, we provide total return forecasts for different municipal bond indexes along with the comparable corporate sector indexes (Table 2).3 We show results for three different effective tax rates, depending on how many rate hikes you expect from the Fed during the next 12 months and whether you expect Municipal / Treasury yield ratios to remain flat, widen to their post-2016 highs, or tighten to their post-2016 lows. Table 2Municipal Bonds Total Return Forecasts Vs. Corporate Sector Comparables For example, in an environment where the Fed delivers four rate hikes during the next 12 months and Municipal / Treasury yield ratios remain flat, an investor with a 24% effective tax rate can expect a total return of 2.81% from the 10-year Municipal bond index. If we adjust returns using the top marginal tax rate of 37% the expected total return rises to 3.52%. In the same scenario, where corporate spreads also remain flat, investors can expect a total return of 2.86% from a corporate bond with similar duration and credit rating. Bottom Line: Municipal bonds offer attractive yields relative to corporate bonds, especially considering that they are more insulated from weakening foreign growth. Remain overweight municipal bonds. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/1998/19980904.htm 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy / Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Bear And The Two Travelers", dated August 17, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing", dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Looming inflation, the synchronized global capex upcycle and rising real Treasury yields all argue for preferring oil-related to gold-exposed equities. Recent Changes Initiate a long S&P oil & gas exploration & production / short global gold miners pair trade today. Table 1 Feature Chart 1No Contagion Yet Stocks recovered smartly from the Turkey induced pullback last week, and continue to flirt with all-time highs. While the risk of contagion remains acute, three key high-frequency financial market metrics suggest that the SPX will likely escape unscathed. The second panel of Chart 1 shows that both the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc, the two ultimate safe havens, have barely budged vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar and also the junk bond market remains extremely calm (third panel, Chart 1). We will continue to closely monitor these indicators to gauge the risk of contagion in U.S. equities. The greatest risk, however, is China's economic footing, particularly its foreign exchange policy (bottom panel, Chart 1). Any further steep devaluation in the renminbi will prove destabilizing and bring back memories of August 2015 when Chinese policy easing caused the dollar to spike and short-circuited SPX EPS growth. Relatedly, there is also a risk that China moves forward more aggressively on capital account liberalization, likely leading to a renminbi devaluation at least initially. Re-reading this Bank For International Settlements paper (starting on page 35 penned by Mitsuhiro Fukao, an ex-Director of Economic Research at the Bank of Japan) and taking a cue from Japan's experience was insightful.1 But, it remains difficult to predict what China's ultimate reaction function to Trump's trade rhetoric will be (Mathieu Savary, BCA's foreign exchange strategist, will be addressing this in one of his upcoming reports). While a tactical 5-10% pullback cannot be ruled out as the seasonally weak month of September is nearing, from a cyclical perspective our strategy would be to "buy the dip" if one were to materialize. Importantly, this bulletproof equity market that refuses to go down has two stealthy allies on its side: pension plans that are forced into equities and corporate treasurers that execute buybacks. Granted, EPS have delivered and suggest that upbeat fundamentals remain the key market support pillars. As a result, the S&P 500 is on track to register a tenth consecutive positive total return year, which is unprecedented in previous expansions. The only other time that the (reconstructed) SPX rose every year for 10 years in a row was in the late 1940s, however, two recessions occurred during that equity market run (Chart 2). While we are undoubtedly in the later stages of the bull market and the business cycle, there is a big difference between "late-cycle" and "end-of-cycle". Keep in mind that the current backdrop is unusual. A large fiscal package has hit late in the game likely extending the cycle. Thus, gauging where we are in the cycle is important. Chart 3 shows a stylized liquidity cycle and our sense is that we are in the early innings of the inflation stage. The handoff from reflation to inflation has happened and during this stage excesses take root eventually morphing, more often than not, into a mania. Chart 2Impressive Streak Continues Chart 3Liquidity Cycle From a macro perspective inflation is slated to rear its ugly head. Nominal GDP is far exceeding the 10-year Treasury yield, and this yield curve type steepening is bullish for SPX top line growth (Chart 4). As a reminder, in Q2 the GDP deflator jumped to 3.35% pushing nominal GDP growth to 7.41%. Money velocity2 is also enjoying a slingshot recovery. Nominal GDP growth is outpacing M2 money supply growth by roughly 150bps. The U.S. money multiplier (M2 over the monetary base, not shown) is also at a 5-year high. This is an inflationary backdrop (bottom panel, Chart 5) and should also boost SPX revenues and thus continue to underpin the broad equity market. Similarly, the NY Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge (UIG) is firing on all cylinders and is a harbinger of a further pickup in core inflation in the coming months. As a result, SPX sales growth remains on a solid foundation (Chart 6). Chart 4SPX Sales Rest On Solid Foundations Chart 5A Little Bit Of Inflation... Chart 6...Is A Boon For The SPX This week we are initiating a market and asset class neutral pair trade to benefit from the inflationary backdrop. Initiate A Long Oil & Gas E&P / Short Gold Miners Pair Trade One way to benefit from this onset of the inflation stage/mania phase is to go long oil & gas exploration & production/short global gold miners. On the underlying commodity front, the handoff from reflation to inflation has historically been a boon to the oil/gold ratio (OGR). Importantly, the prices paid subcomponent of the ISM manufacturing survey has gone parabolic compared with the new order sub index, roughly doubling since the 2016 nadir. This depicts an inflationary backdrop and is signaling that the OGR will play catch up in the coming months (Chart 7). Chart 7CHART 7 Reflation To Inflation Handoff Similarly, another surging inflation indicator also suggests that the OGR has ample room to run. The GDP deflator has recently eclipsed the 3% mark and since exiting deflation following the end of the recent global manufacturing recession it is up over 370bps. Chart 8 shows that if this multi-decade positive correlation were to hold then the OGR could double from current levels. Chart 8GDP Deflator On The Rise Finally, the NY Fed's UIG is also closely correlated with OGR momentum, corroborates the other firming inflation signals and hints that more gains are in store for the OGR (bottom panel, Chart 9). Global macro tailwinds are also clearly in favor of oil at the expense of gold. BCA's global industrial production gauge of 40 DM and EM countries continues to expand at a healthy clip. Oil is a global growth barometer, whereas gold represents one of the few true safe havens in times of duress. Taken together, the implication is that a catch up phase looms for the OGR (middle panel, Chart 9). The relative commodity backdrop is the most important determinant of relative share prices as it dictates the direction of relative profitability (middle panel, Chart 10). Therefore, as the OGR goes so do relative share prices. Chart 9Enticing Global Macro Backdrop Chart 10Buy Oil & Gas E&P... Beyond this enticing relative commodity complex outlook, the synchronized global capex upcycle, one of BCA's key themes for the year, is underpinning the relative share price ratio. U.S. capex in particular is outpacing GDP growth and oil & gas investment is the key driver. The V-shaped recovery in the Baker Hughes oil & gas rig count data (bottom panel, Chart 10) confirms this upbeat energy capital outlay backdrop. Moreover, capex intentions from the Dallas Fed survey point to more upside in relative share prices (bottom panel, Chart 11). Meanwhile, keep in mind that the U.S. has been at full employment for 18 months now (in other words the unemployment gap closed in February of 2017) and the economy is firing on all cylinders. Real rates have also shot the lights out recently. In fact the 5-year real Treasury yield is perched near 1%, a multi-year high. Given that gold does not yield any income, it suffers when real yields rise and vice versa (for additional details on the relationship between gold and interest rates, please refer to the early-May piece penned by our sister publication U.S. Bond Strategy titled "A Signal From Gold?").3 Similarly, relative share prices thrive when real yields advance and retreat when the TIPS yield sinks (top panel, Chart 12). Chart 11...At The Expense Of Gold Miners Chart 12Bullion TIPS Over Unsurprisingly, the Fed has been tightening monetary policy since December 2015. Nevertheless, the "Fed Spread" (2-year Treasury yield compared with the fed funds rate) is steepening and continues to point to additional gains in the share price ratio (bottom panel, Chart 12). Given that both the ECB and the BoJ have remained ultra-accommodative, a hawkish Fed has boosted the U.S. dollar. However, most commodities are priced in greenbacks, thus the currency effect is a washout and is neither closely correlated to the OGR nor to the share price ratio. Two risks to this high octane, high momentum pair trade are: an EM accident induced risk off phase and a global recession likely due to a flare up in the global trade war (policy uncertainty shown inverted, top panel, Chart 9). In either of these scenarios, investors will likely seek the refuge of bullion's perceived safety as the bond market will almost immediately start pricing in easier monetary policy with investors flocking into the ultimate safe haven asset, U.S. Treasurys. Netting it all out, an enticing macro backdrop with the onset of the inflation stage, the synchronized global capex upcycle and rising real Treasury yields all argue for preferring oil-related to gold-exposed equities. Bottom Line: Initiate a market- and currency-neutral long S&P oil & gas exploration & production/short global gold miners pair trade today. The ETF ticker symbols the S&P oil & gas exploration & production and the global gold mining index are: XOP and GDX, respectively. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 BIS Papers No 15 "China's capital account liberalisation: international perspectives", Monetary and Economic Department, April 2003. 2 "The velocity of money is the frequency at which one unit of currency is used to purchase domestically- produced goods and services within a given time period. In other words, it is the number of times one dollar is spent to buy goods and services per unit of time. If the velocity of money is increasing, then more transactions are occurring between individuals in an economy". Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?" dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights The Turkish economy is in disarray, ... : The lira's plunge has reminded some investors of the Thai baht's in 1997, but we do not foresee a replay of the Asian Crisis. ... highlighting emerging markets' vulnerability to external factors: EM economies may be on firmer footing than they were 20 years ago, but the vicissitudes of dollar-denominated debt remain their Achilles' heel. Fraught times around the world justify paring back portfolio risk, ... : Increased caution is appropriate in the face of potential EM distress. Multiples are elevated and spreads are tight, leaving stocks and bonds susceptible to a pickup in risk aversion. ... even if domestic data indicate that the U.S. expansion is alive and well: Global concerns did nothing to dim small businesses' rosy outlook, but the dirty little secret within the July NFIB survey is that rising cost pressures will keep the Fed from backing off of its tightening plans. Feature Dear Client, This is our final report for the month of August. We will resume our regular publication schedule the first week of September. We wish everyone an enjoyable rest of the summer. Best regards, Doug Peta, Chief U.S. Investment Strategist What a difference a year makes. If 2017 was all about synchronized global growth, 2018 has been a study in desynchronization. While the list of sputtering international economies grows longer with every passing month, the U.S. economy continues to gather steam. The fact that it is leaving the laggards choking on its exhaust as it speeds by, trampling the conventions of the postwar international order the U.S. itself established, and tightening the screws on dollar borrowers, is bruising feelings from Ankara and Beijing to Ottawa and Brussels. There is nothing on the horizon to indicate that the desynchronization trend is about to end. Surreal as it may be for baby boomers and other pre-millennials, trade barriers are an essential plank in the Republicans' midterm election platform. Our geopolitical strategists caution that there is little reason to expect the anti-trade rhetoric out of Washington to die down before November. The associated headwinds for multinational corporations and economies more reliant on global trade are likely to persist for at least a few more months. The other global policy irritant comes from the Fed. Although it is not blind to the impact of its policies on other economies, its America First mandate is firmly entrenched. Confronted with a domestic economy that is being force-fed stimulus when it is already showing signs of bumping up against supply constraints, the Fed has very little room to relax its vigilance. Investors counting on an "EM put" to alter the course of rate hikes should recognize that that put is way out of the money: it will take a great deal of EM pain for the Fed to back away from its projected course. Turkey's Tenuous Model Before the Asian Crisis, the growth of the Asian Tiger economies was the envy of the world. The formula was simple and effective: take ample supplies of cheap labor, mix with developed-world capital to finance a buildup of manufacturing capacity, and watch eye-popping growth ensue. All was well until too much excitement led to hard-currency-debt-financed investment in overcapacity. When exchange-rate pegs fell, domestic borrowers became unable to meet their obligations and the Asian Miracle imploded. The Turkish lira's plunge has put many investors in mind of the Thai baht's 1997 collapse that set the Asian Crisis in motion. The EM contagion eventually found its way to Russia in the summer of 1998, felling hedge fund titan Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) and thoroughly rattling several of its Wall Street enablers. Investors would be foolish to ignore the problems in Turkey, which could well ripple out into other EM economies and the developed world. However, our current base-case scenario does not call for anything on the order of the Asian Crisis. Chart of the WeekTurkey Is A Clear Outlier Today ... Chart 2... But It Would Have Been In The Thick Of Things In 1997 Turkey's dependency on external capital flows is reminiscent of the Asian Tigers', but it is an outlier in today's more conservative context (Chart of the Week). On the eve of the Asian Crisis, Turkey's external financing profile, on both a flow (current-account balance as a share of GDP) and a stock (external private debt as a share of GDP) basis, would have placed it squarely within the smart set (Chart 2). In retrospect, the Asian Miracle template of the early and mid '90s was an accident waiting to happen. Currency pegs are seen as a naïve relic, and exporters assiduously build up reserve war chests to prevent currency panics from taking root. Chart 3U.S. Banks Have Modest EM Exposure The key issue for U.S. investors is the potential for contagion to the U.S. banking system and its markets. It is almost impossible to identify an LTCM in advance, but the fact that the banking system is on a much tighter leash following the crisis means that it is far less vulnerable than it was in the late '90s. As our f/x strategists point out,1 European banks (especially Spain's BBVA) have considerably more exposure to Turkey and other fragile EM economies (Chart 3). Sentiment is the most likely transmission mechanism, and U.S. assets would seem to be last in line for multiple de-rating and spread widening, given the strength of the U.S. economy and its comparative remove from the rest of the world. Bottom Line: The magnitude of Turkey's financing excesses is not representative of the entire EM complex. U.S. investors should operate with a heightened sense of caution, but they should not panic. Emerging Markets' Achilles' Heel The magnitude of Turkey's reliance on external financing is unusual, but the direction is common. The vast bulk of the world's wealth is held in developed economies, and EM projects necessarily source capital from DM investors. Over 90% of all EM corporate debt is denominated in hard currency, of which the vast majority is denominated in U.S. dollars. For EM corporates with mainly domestic revenues, moves in the dollar exchange rate exert disproportionate influence over how comfortably they can service their debt. Exchange rates are determined by many factors, but real interest rate differentials are among the most prominent drivers. When the Fed hikes the fed funds rate while other central banks are easing policy or standing pat, the dollar tends to appreciate. A rising dollar pressures EM corporate borrowers, and hasn't been good for EM stock prices, either (Chart 4). If the Fed were to lift the fed funds rate all the way to 3.5% by the end of 2019, as we expect, several EM borrowers could find themselves in the crosshairs. Chart 4Tighter Fed Policy Squeezes EM Equities, Too Meaningful Chinese stimulus could go a long way to offsetting Fed tightening pressures. A more robust Chinese economy would trade more and consume more natural resources. Increased export volumes and higher commodity prices would boost EM exports and commodity prices, helping to support exchange rates. Unfortunately for Asian and Latin American EMs, the jury is still out as to whether or not the Chinese cavalry will ride to the rescue. Our China strategists have observed that a sizable stimulus injection would run counter to policy makers' commitment to reining in shadow banking excesses and cooling off the property market. If the trade war with the U.S. really starts to bite, however, reform may become a lesser priority. The powers that be have been circumspect with stimulus so far (Chart 5), weakening the currency to defend exports (Chart 6) rather than attempting to boost domestic activity via government spending. We will keep a close eye on Chinese policy developments as they unfold. Chart 5Instead Of Helping The EM Bloc With Reflation,... Chart 6...China Has Been Exporting Deflation Bottom Line: Chinese stimulus could help cushion the blow from a stronger dollar, but policy makers have yet to show their hand. Stay tuned. The View From Main Street Despite the global challenges, the July NFIB survey underlined the point that the U.S. economy is flying high. The headline Optimism Index is a single tick below its all-time high (Chart 7, top panel), the Hiring Plans (Chart 7, second panel) and Job Openings components (Chart 7, third panel) are at or near all-time highs, and the Good Time to Expand component is just off the high it set in May (Chart 7, bottom panel). All in all, the view from Main Street is the best it's ever been over the survey's 44-year history. All of the readings in Chart 7 are so good (two-plus standard deviations above the mean), that there is little scope for improvement. Mean reversion may well begin to assert itself, but it is likely to be a slow process. Overall optimism peaks well ahead of downturns, and tends to take its time deteriorating. It lends support to the message from our recession indicator2 that the expansion has at least another year to run. All good things come to an end, however, and the downside to the gangbusters survey results is that they foreshadow the expansion's eventual demise. Respondents' reports of price changes and future intentions to raise them correlate closely with PCE inflation (Chart 8). Record strength in job openings and hiring intentions indicates the labor market is tight enough to squeak, suggesting that firms will soon have to bid up wages to attract new employees. Taken together, the inflation-related measures imply that the Fed will not be able to let up, supporting the house view that the fed funds rate will surprise to the upside. Chart 7A Roaring Economy... Chart 8...Carries The Seeds Of Its Own Demise Bottom Line: The end of the expansion is not at hand, but its strength will eventually compel the Fed to step in to cut it off. Investment Implications Fiscal stimulus and monetary policy still support the expansion and the bull markets in equities and corporate debt, but they will not do so indefinitely. Stimulus is not sustainable from a budgetary standpoint, and gathering inflationary pressures will eventually inspire the Fed to wield its policy tools to bring the curtain down on the business cycle. The shift to restrictive policy will mark an inflection point in risk-asset performance, and investors should pursue more defensive portfolio positioning when it arrives. Although the cyclical inflection point is not yet upon us, the uncertain outcome of trade tensions and emerging market vulnerabilities merit dialing back portfolio risk in the near term. In line with the BCA house view, we recommend overweighting cash and underweighting bonds, while maintaining benchmark positioning in equities. Treasuries will likely outperform if the EM rumblings turn into something more serious, but we would view any decline in yields as a temporary respite from a Treasury bear market that has already been in place for two years. Depending on when, or if, the current global pressures abate, the equity bull market may still have some juice, and we are keeping an open mind about moving stocks back to overweight for the final push. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the August 17, 2018 Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The Bear And The Two Travelers," available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the August 13, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "How Much Longer Can The Bull Market Last?" available at usis.bcaresearch.com.