Corporate Profits

Highlights Some caution warranted here. Hurricane Harvey's impact on the economy and markets. Tensions in North Korea will linger. NIPA and S&P now telling same story on profits, margins. Is the August employment report enough for the Fed? Feature The impact of Hurricane Harvey will ripple through the economic data in the coming months, but will not impact the overall trajectory of the economy or the Fed. However, elevated equity valuations, escalating tensions in North Korea, a widening disconnect between the bond market and the Fed and profit growth that is poised to peak in the second half of the year warrants careful attention from investors. Nonetheless, we remain slightly overweight stocks and favor stocks over bonds. Caution On Risk Assets We recommend that clients be prudent, paring back any overweight positions and holding some safe-haven assets within diversified portfolios. BCA research has demonstrated that U.S. Treasuries, Swiss bonds and JGBs were the best performers during a crisis (Chart 1). The same is true for the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen, such that the currency exposure should not be hedged in these cases. The dollar is more nuanced. It tends to perform well during financial crises, but not in geopolitical crises or recessions. Chart 1Gold Loves Geopolitical Crises Shelter From The Storm Shelter From The Storm Gold tends to perform well in geopolitical events, although not in recessions or financial crunches. Our base case projects stocks outperforming cash and bonds over the next 6-12 months. BCA's dollar and duration positions have disappointed so far this year. Much hinges on U.S. inflation. Investors appear to have adopted the stance that structural headwinds to inflation will forever dominate the cyclical pressures. Therefore, the bond market is totally unprepared for any upside shocks on the inflation landscape. Admittedly, a rise in bond yields may not be imminent, but the risks appear to be predominantly to the upside. Harvey's Lingering Aftermath History shows that natural disasters such as Hurricane Harvey have a temporary effect on the U.S. economy, the financial markets and the Fed. Ultimately, the macro environment in place before the storm will reassert itself. Nonetheless, it may be a few months before investors determine the long-term impact of the record rainfall and flooding in Houston. Chart 2 shows the ranking of Harvey's preliminary damage estimate of $30B versus other storms of similar magnitude. We are still several weeks away from the peak of the Atlantic hurricane season (mid-September) and two of the most destructive storms in the past 25 years made landfall in mid-to-late October (Wilma and Sandy). Chart 2Economic Impact From Major Hurricanes Economic Impact From Major Hurricanes Economic Impact From Major Hurricanes Chart 3 shows the performance of key economic, inflation and financial market indicators in the past two years and also around five major hurricanes since 1992. Most of the activity-related economic statistics are volatile in the aftermath of the storms and then they recover. The Citi economic surprise index initially moves higher after a storm, and then fades (Chart 3A). There are big swings in housing starts and industrial production and employment growth slows. Inflation tends to climb post-landfall (Chart 3B). In prior episodes, core PCE and core CPI have accelerated along with gasoline prices. Consumer confidence dips initially, but then recovers. Wages are volatile, but tend to accelerate after several months. Chart 3C shows that stocks drift lower for several months following hurricanes and subsequently recoup the losses. The stock-to-bond ratio also moved lower, but regains its pre-storm heights about two months later. Treasury yields fall after storms, but we note that yields have been in a secular decline for 25 years. Chart 3AMajor Hurricane Impact##BR##On Activity Data Major Hurricane Impact On Activity Data Major Hurricane Impact On Activity Data Chart 3BMajor Hurricane Impact On##BR##Sentiment And Inflation Data Major Hurricane Impact On Sentiment And Inflation Data Major Hurricane Impact On Sentiment And Inflation Data Chart 3CMajor Hurricane Impact On##BR##Financial Markets & The Fed Major Hurricane Impact On Financial Markets & The Fed Major Hurricane Impact On Financial Markets & The Fed Hurricane Harvey will not shake the Fed. Nonetheless, the central bank will acknowledge the disaster in the FOMC statement, the FOMC minutes, and/or in Fed Chair Janet Yellen's news conference. We are unchanged in our view that policymakers will begin to pare its balance sheet later this month and bump up rates again in December, assuming that core inflation shows some signs of strength between now and then. History shows (Chart 3C) that, on average, the Fed funds rate tends to move higher in the months after storms hit, but the primary message is that the Fed just continues to do whatever it was doing before the storm. The Fed cut rates in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in 1992 in what turned out to be the final rate reduction of the cycle that began in 1989. Ivan hit in September 2004, but the monetary authority raised rates in the final three FOMC meetings of 2004, including at the meeting only a week after the hurricane made landfall. Similarly, the Fed clung to its rate hike regime after Wilma in October 2005. In 2008, Ike arrived in Texas two days before Lehman Brothers collapsed in mid-September. The Fed, which had been cutting rates since September 2007, lowered rates in the final months of 2008. The Fed announced QE3 in late summer 2012 and continued with the program after Sandy came ashore at the end of October 2012. Harvey will be a game changer in some respects: the devastation reduces the odds of a government shutdown or of failing to increase the debt ceiling. We have maintained that there were extremely low odds that the debt ceiling would not be raised. We stated that there was a 25% chance of a government shutdown between October 1, when the current funding expires, and sometime in mid-October when the debt ceiling will hit according to the Congressional Budget Office. However, it would be unfathomable to shut down the government and force the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to cease operations. The resulting outrage would damage the Republicans, especially in Texas. Bottom Line: Harvey may have a near-term impact on the economy, but the Fed will stick to its plan. The catastrophe makes it increasingly likely that the debt ceiling will be raised and a resolution will be passed to keep the government operating into the new fiscal year. Thus, equity investors can safely ignore these two risks, and focus on the key risk in the outlook: North Korea. North Korea Could Linger Over Markets BCA believes that the probability of a war on the Korean Peninsula is very low,1 but it may take a while before the uncertainty in Northeast Asia is resolved. Between now (escalating tensions) and then (a negotiated settlement), there will be more provocations and market volatility. There are long-standing constraints to war. The first is a potentially high death toll: Pyongyang can inflict massive civilian casualties in Seoul with a conventional artillery barrage. Furthermore, U.S. troops, and Japanese forces and civilians, would also suffer. Secondly, China is unlikely to remain neutral. Strategically, China will not tolerate a U.S. presence on its border with North Korea. Nevertheless, Washington must establish a credible threat of military action if it is to convince Pyongyang that negotiations offer a superior outcome. It is unclear how long it will take Trump to convince North Korea that the threat of a U.S. preemptive strike is credible. Chart 4 shows the arc of diplomacy2 that the U.S. took with Iran between 2010 and 2014. From an investor perspective, it will be difficult to gauge whether the brinkmanship and military posturing are part of this territorial threat display or evidence of real preparations for an actual attack. More market volatility may occur, but for the time being, we do not think that the tensions in the Korean peninsula will end the bull market in global equities. Positions in traditional safe-haven assets, such as gold, U.S. Treasuries, Swiss francs and (perhaps) Japanese yen, should be considered as hedges against increased market swings. Chart 4Arc Of Diplomacy: Tensions Ramp Up As Nuclear Negotiations Begin Shelter From The Storm Shelter From The Storm Update: Equity Valuations, Sentiment And Technicals U.S. equity valuations are stretched, but elevated valuations alone are not enough to prompt a sell-off in stocks. The BCA valuation indicator is in overvalued territory, where it has been since late 2013. History shows3 that stocks can stay overvalued for extended periods, even when the Fed is raising rates, but policy is still accommodative as it is today. BCA's composite valuation indicator is still shy of the +1 standard deviation level that defines extremely over-valued (Chart 5). However, this is due to the components that compare equity prices with bond yields. The other three elements of the equity indicator, which are unrelated to bond yields, suggest that stock valuation is stretched (Chart 5 panels 2, 3 and 4). That said, equities are attractively priced relative to competing assets, such as corporate bonds and Treasuries (Chart 6). Chart 5U.S. Equities##BR##Are Overvalued... U.S. Equities Are Overvalued... U.S. Equities Are Overvalued... Chart 6...But Look Less Expensive##BR##Relative To Competing Assets ...But Look Less Expensive Relative To Competing Assets ...But Look Less Expensive Relative To Competing Assets Valuation is not a reliable tool to time market turning points and, absent a significant deterioration in the economic, profit and margin environment, we do not forecast a sustained pullback in stocks. Looking beyond BCA's tactical 6-12 month window, above-average market multiples alone imply below-average returns for stocks across a strategic time horizon. Chart 7No Strong Signal From##BR##Sentiment Or Technicals No Strong Signal From Sentiment Or Technicals No Strong Signal From Sentiment Or Technicals BCA's technical and sentiment indicators are not at extremes (Chart 7). The BCA technical indicator, while above zero, is not at a level that in the past has triggered a stock pullback. Similarly, the BCA investor sentiment composite index, while at the top end of its bull market range, is not at an extreme. Moreover, only 50% of the stocks in the NYSE composite are above their 10-week moving average, a level which has not been previously associated with major equity sell-offs. Bottom Line: The solid earnings backdrop remains in place for U.S. stocks as measured by either the S&P or the national accounts. We anticipate that profit growth has peaked according to S&P 500 data on a 4-quarter moving total basis due to tough comparisons although it will slip only modestly in the second half of the year. Next year will see EPS growth drop back into the mid-single digit range. The consensus estimate for 2018 EPS growth is 11%. While valuations are elevated, neither sentiment nor technical indicators are flashing red. We recommend stocks over bonds in the next 6-12 months, but acknowledge that risks to BCA's stance are climbing. A Reconnection In Q2 The Q2 data show that the NIPA and S&P earnings measures have reconnected. In our July 3, 2017 Weekly Report "Summer Stress Out"4 we highlighted the apparent disconnect between the S&P and NIPA, sales earnings and margin data through Q1 2017. The release of the Q2 corporate profits data in the national accounts and the end the Q2 S&P 500 reporting season allow us to provide an update. The year-over-year reading on the NIPA earnings measure ticked up in Q2 while the S&P-based metric ticked down. That said, while there are marked differences in annual growth rates between the two measures, the levels were close to the same point in the second quarter of 2017 (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 9 shows that a wide difference persists between corporate sales measured by S&P and the national accounts. Margins calculated on the S&P basis climbed in Q2 while NIPA margins held steady. Even so, a modest gap still remains between NIPA margins at 15.2% and S&P margins at 13.2%. Most of the divergence is related to the denominator of the calculation. The NIPA denominator is corporate sector Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This is a value-added concept that is different from sales. It is not clear why, but GDP has grown much faster than sales since the end of 2014. Chart 8S&P And NIPA##BR##Profit Comparison S&P And NIPA Profit Comparison S&P And NIPA Profit Comparison Chart 9Denominator Explains##BR##S&P/NIPA Margin Divergence Denominator Explains S&P/NIPA Margin Divergence Denominator Explains S&P/NIPA Margin Divergence We believe that the S&P statistics are painting a more accurate picture because sales are easier to measure while value-added is more complicated. The slow growth of sales is not a bullish point for stocks. Nonetheless, it does not appear that financial engineering has distorted bottom-up company data to such an extent that the S&P readings are falsely signaling strong profit growth. We expect the secular mean-reversion of margins to re-assert itself in the S&P data, perhaps beginning early in 2018. Nonetheless, the profit backdrop is positive for stocks for now. Is The August Jobs Report Enough For The Fed? Chart 10Labor Market Conditions##BR##Favor Risk Assets Labor Market Conditions Favor Risk Assets Labor Market Conditions Favor Risk Assets U.S. payrolls expanded by 156,000 in August. Relative to the underlying growth rate in the labor force, this is still a healthy pace of jobs growth. Nevertheless, it fell short of expectations for a 180,000 increase and the prior two months saw a cumulative downward revision of 41,000. The August data were not impacted by Hurricane Harvey. Aggregate hours worked, a measure of total labor inputs based on changes in employment and the workweek, fell by 0.2% m/m. That said, aggregate hours worked are up 1.3% at a quarterly annualized rate thus far in Q3. This is consistent with GDP growth of a bit over 2%, which has been the trend in the current economic expansion. Meanwhile, wage gains remain muted. Average hourly earnings rose just 0.1% m/m. Annual wage inflation has been steady at 2.5% for several months now (Chart 10, bottom panel). If productivity is expanding modestly around 1%, the current pace of wage gains would suggest that unit labor costs are growing around 1.5%. This will make it difficult for general price inflation to accelerate to the Fed 2% target. Nonetheless, the reacceleration in the 3-month change in average hourly earnings from 1.9% in January 2017 to 2.6% in August supports the Fed's view on inflation. Finally, the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.4% from 4.3%. This was because the separate household survey showed a 74,000 drop in employment. The participation rate held steady at 62.9% in August. Bottom Line: While falling short of expectations in August, U.S. employment growth remains solid and job gains are continuing at a pace consistent with the 2% GDP growth rate of recent years. However, muted wage gains mean that progress to the Fed's 2% inflation target is looking suspect. We anticipate that the Fed will announce the process of running down its balance sheet at the September FOMC meeting. Rate hikes are on hold at least until the December FOMC meeting, and even then only if core inflation shows some signs of strength in the next few months. U.S. risk assets should continue to benefit from moderate growth, low inflation and a "go slow" approach by the Fed. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?", August 16, 2017. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets? ,"May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Sizing Up The Second Half", July 10, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Summer Stress Out", July 3, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Dear Client, In addition to this Special Report written by my colleague Mark McClellan, we are sending you an abbreviated weekly report, which includes the Tactical Global Asset Allocation Monthly Update. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to one school of thought, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation. If true, it could mean that central banks are almost powerless to reach their inflation targets. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. In theory, positive supply shocks should not have more than a temporary impact on inflation if the price level is indeed a monetary phenomenon in the long term. But a series of positive supply shocks could make it appear for quite a while that low inflation is structural in nature. We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence at the macro level. The admittedly inadequate measures of online prices available today do not suggest that e-commerce sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points. Moreover, it does not appear that the disinflationary impact of competition in the retail sector has intensified over the years. Today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. However, the fact that retail margins are near secular highs outside of department stores argues against this thesis. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High profit margins for the overall corporate sector and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. Feature Anecdotal evidence is all around us. The global economy is evolving and it seems that all of the major changes are deflationary. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. Central banks in the major advanced economies are having difficulty meeting their inflation targets, even in the U.S. where the labor market is tight by historical standards. Based on the depressed level of bond yields, it appears that the majority of investors believe that inflation headwinds will remain formidable for a long time. One school of thought is that low inflation reflects a lack of demand growth in the post-Great Financial Crisis (GFC) period. Another school points to the supply side of the economy. A recent report by Prudential Financial highlights "...obvious examples of ... new business models and new organizational structures, whereby higher-cost traditional methods of production, transportation, and distribution are displaced by more nontraditional cost-effective ways of conducting business." 1 A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to this school, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation (i.e., the Phillips Curve). Employees are less aggressive in their wage demands in a world where robots are threatening humans in a broadening array of industrial categories. Many feel lucky just to have a job. In a highly sensationalized article called "How The Internet Economy Killed Inflation," Forbes argued that "the internet has reduced many of the traditional barriers to entry that protect companies from competition and created a race to the bottom for prices in a number of categories." Forbes believes that new technologies are placing downward pressure on inflation by depressing wages, increasing productivity and encouraging competition. There are many factors that have the potential to weigh on prices, but analysts are mainly focusing on e-commerce, robotics, artificial intelligence, and the gig economy. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. The latter refers to the advent of new business models that cut out layers of middlemen between producers and consumers. Amazonification E-commerce has grown at a compound annual rate of more than 9% over the past 15 years, and now accounts for about 8½% of total U.S. retail sales (Chart 1). Amazon has been leading the charge, accounting for 43% of all online sales in 2016 (Chart 2). Amazon's business model not only cuts costs by eliminating middlemen and (until recently) avoiding expensive showrooms, but it also provides a platform for improved price discovery on an extremely broad array of goods. In 2013, Amazon carried 230 million items for sale in the United States, nearly 30 times the number sold by Walmart, one of the largest retailers in the world. Chart 1E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share Chart 2Amazon Dominates Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? With the use of a smartphone, consumers can check the price of an item on Amazon while shopping in a physical store. Studies show that it does not require a large price gap for shoppers to buy online rather than in-store. Amazon appears to be impacting other retailers' ability to pass though cost increases, leading to a rash of retail outlet closings. Sears alone announced the closure of 300 retail outlets this year. The devastation that Amazon inflicted on the book industry is well known. It is no wonder then, that Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods Market, a grocery chain, sent shivers down the spines of CEOs not only in the food industry, but in the broader retail industry as well. What would prevent Amazon from applying its model to furniture and appliances, electronics or drugstores? It seems that no retail space is safe. A Little Theory Before we turn to the evidence, let's review the macro theory related to positive supply shocks. The internet could be lowering prices by moving product markets toward the "perfect competition" model. The internet trims search costs, improves price transparency and reduces barriers to entry. The internet also allows for shorter supply chains, as layers of wholesalers and other intermediaries are removed and e-commerce companies allow more direct contact between consumers and producers. Fewer inventories and a smaller "brick and mortar" infrastructure take additional costs out of the system. Economic theory suggests that the result of this positive supply shock will be greater product market competition, increased productivity and reduced profitability. In the long run, workers should benefit from the productivity boost via real wage gains (even if nominal wage growth is lackluster). Workers may lower their reservation wage if they feel that increased competitive pressures or technology threaten their jobs. The internet is also likely to improve job matching between the unemployed and available vacancies, which should lead to a fall in the full-employment level of unemployment (NAIRU). Nonetheless, the internet should not have a permanent impact on inflation. The lower level of NAIRU and the direct effects of the internet on consumer prices discussed above allow inflation to fall below the central bank's target. The bank responds by lowering interest rates, stimulating demand and thereby driving unemployment down to the new lower level of NAIRU. Over time, inflation will drift back up toward target. In other words, a greater degree of the competition should boost the supply side of the economy and lower NAIRU, but it should not result in a permanently lower rate of inflation if inflation is indeed a monetary phenomenon and central banks strive to meet their targets. Still, one could imagine a series of supply shocks that are spread out over time, with each having a temporary negative impact on prices such that it appears for a while that inflation has been permanently depressed. This could be an accurate description of the current situation in the U.S. and some of the other major countries. We have sympathy for the view that the internet and new business models are increasing competition, cutting costs and thereby limiting price increases in some areas. But is there any hard evidence? Is the competitive effect that large, and is it any more intense than in the past? There are a number of reasons to be skeptical because most of the evidence does not support Forbes' claim that the internet has killed inflation. 1. E-commerce affects only a small part of the Consumer Price Index As mentioned above, online shopping for goods represents 8.5% of total retail sales in the U.S. E-commerce is concentrated in four kinds of businesses (Table 1): Furniture & Home Furnishings (7% of total retail sales), Electronics & Appliances (20%), Health & Personal Care (15%), and Clothing (10%). Since goods make up 40% of the CPI, then 3.2% (8% times 40%) is a ballpark estimate for the size of goods e-commerce in the CPI. Table 1E-Commerce Market Share Of Goods Sector Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? Table 2 shows the relative size of e-commerce in the service sector. The analysis is complicated by the fact that the data on services includes B-to-B sales in addition to B-to-C.2 However, e-commerce represents almost 4% of total sales for the service categories tracked by the BLS. Services make up 60% of the CPI, but the size drops to 26% if we exclude shelter (which is probably not affected by online shopping). Thus, e-commerce in the service sector likely affects 1% (3.9% times 26%) of the CPI. Table 2E-Commerce Market Share Of Service Sector Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? Adding goods and services, online shopping affects about 4.2% of the CPI index at most. The bottom line is that the relatively small size of e-commerce at the consumer level limits any estimate of the impact of online sales on the broad inflation rate. 2. Most of the deceleration in inflation since 2007 has been in areas unaffected by e-commerce Table 3 compares the average contribution to annual average CPI inflation during 2000-2007 with that of 2007-2016. Average annual inflation fell from 2.9% in the seven years before the Great Recession to 1.8% after, for a total decline of just over 1 percentage point. The deceleration is almost fully explained by Energy, Food and Owners' Equivalent Rent. The bottom part of Table 3 highlights that the sectors with the greatest exposure to e-commerce had a negligible impact on the inflation slowdown. Table 3Comparison Of Pre- And Post-Lehman Inflation Rates Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? 3. The cost advantages for online sellers are overstated Bain & Company, a U.S. consultancy, argues that e-commerce will not grow in importance indefinitely and come to dominate consumer spending.3 E-commerce sales are already slowing. Market share is following a classic S-shaped curve that, Bain estimates, will top out at under 30% by 2030. First, not everyone wants to buy everything online. Products that are well known to consumers and purchased on a regular basis are well suited to online shopping. But for many other products, consumers need to see and feel the product in person before making a purchase. Second, the cost savings of online selling versus traditional brick and mortar stores is not as great as many believe. Bain claims that many e-commerce businesses struggle to make a profit. The information technology, distribution centers, shipping, and returns processing required by e-commerce companies can cost as much as running physical stores in some cases. E-tailers often cannot ship directly from manufacturers to consumers; they need large and expensive fulfillment centers and a very generous returns policy. Moreover, online and offline sales models are becoming blurred. Retailers with physical stores are growing their e-commerce operations, while previously pure e-commerce plays are adding stores or negotiating space in other retailers' stores. Even Amazon now has storefronts. The shift toward an "multichannel" selling model underscores that there are benefits to traditional brick-and-mortar stores that will ensure that they will not completely disappear. 4. E-commerce is not the first revolution in the retail sector The retail sector has changed significantly over the decades and it is not clear that the disinflationary effect of the latest revolution, e-commerce, is any more intense than in the past. Economists at Goldman Sachs point out that the growth of Amazon's market share in recent years still lags that of Walmart and other "big box" stores in the 1990s (Chart 3).4 This fact suggests that "Amazonification" may not be as disinflationary as the previous big-box revolution. 5. Weak productivity growth and high profit margins are inconsistent with a large supply-side benefit from e-commerce As discussed above, economic theory suggests that a positive supply shock that cuts costs and boosts competition should trim profit margins and lift productivity. The problem is that the margins and productivity have moved in the opposite direction that economic theory would suggest (Chart 4). Chart 3Comparison Of Pre- And Post-Lehman Inflation Rates Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? Chart 4Incompatible With A Supply Shock Incompatible With A Supply Shock Incompatible With A Supply Shock By definition, productivity rises when firms can produce the same output with fewer or cheaper inputs. However, it is well documented that productivity growth has been in a downtrend since the 1990s, and has been dismally low since the Great Recession. A Special Report from BCA's Global Investment Strategy 5 service makes a convincing case that mismeasurement is not behind the low productivity figures. In fact, in many industries it appears that productivity is over-estimated. If e-commerce is big enough to "move the dial" on overall inflation, it should be big enough to see in the aggregate productivity figures. Chart 5Retail Margin Squeeze Only In Department Stores Retail Margin Squeeze Only In Department Stores Retail Margin Squeeze Only In Department Stores One would also expect to see a margin squeeze across industries if e-commerce is indeed generating a lot of deflationary competitive pressure. Despite dismally depressed productivity, however, corporate profit margins are at the high end of the historical range across most of the sectors of the S&P 500. This is the case even in the retailing sector outside of department stores (Chart 5). These facts argue against the idea that the internet has moved the economy further toward a disinflationary "perfect competition" model. 6. Online price setting is characterized by frictions comparable to traditional retail We would expect to observe a low price dispersion across online vendors since the internet has apparently lowered the cost of monitoring competitors' prices and the cost of searching for the lowest price. We would also expect to see fairly synchronized price adjustments; if one vendor adjusts its price due to changing market conditions, then the rest should quickly follow to avoid suffering a massive loss of market share. However, a recent study of price-setting practices in the U.S. and U.K. found that this is not the case.6 The dataset covered a broad spectrum of consumer goods and sellers over a two-year period, comparing online with offline prices. The researchers found that market pricing "frictions" are surprisingly elevated in the online world. Price dispersion is high in absolute terms and on par with offline pricing. Academics for years have puzzled over high price rigidities and dispersion in retail stores in the context of an apparently stiff competitive environment, and it appears that online pricing is not much better. The study did not cover a long enough period to see if frictions were even worse in the past. Nonetheless, the evidence available suggests that the lower cost of monitoring prices afforded by the internet has not led to significant price convergence across sellers online or offline. Another study compared online and offline prices for multichannel retailers, using the massive database provided by the Billion Prices Project at MIT.7 The database covers prices across 10 countries. The study found that retailers charged the same price online as in-store in 72% of cases. The average discount was 4% for those cases in which there was a markdown online. If the observations with identical prices are included, the average online/offline price difference was just 1%. 7. Some measures of online prices have grown at about the same pace as the CPI index The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does include online sales when constructing the Consumer Price Index. It even includes peer-to-peer sales by companies such as Airbnb and Uber. However, the BLS admits that its sample lags the popularity of such services by a few years. Moreover, while the BLS is trying to capture the rising proportion of sales done via e-commerce, "outlet bias" means that the CPI does not capture the price effect in cases where consumers are finding cheaper prices online. This is because the BLS weights the growth rate of online and offline prices, not the price levels. While there may be level differences, there is no reason to believe that the inflation rates for similar goods sold online and offline differ significantly. If the inflation rates are close, then the growing share of online sales will not affect overall inflation based on the BLS methodology. The BLS argues that any bias in the CPI due to outlet bias is mitigated to the extent that physical stores offer a higher level of service. Thus, price differences may not be that great after quality-adjustment. All this suggests that the actual consumer price inflation rate could be somewhat lower than the official rate. Nonetheless, it does not necessarily mean that inflation, properly measured, is being depressed by e-commerce to a meaningful extent. Indeed, Chart 6 highlights that the U.S. component of the Billion Prices Index rose at a faster pace than the overall CPI between 2009 and 2014. The Online Price Index fell in absolute and relative terms from 2014 to mid-2016, but rose sharply toward the end of 2016. Applying our guesstimate of the weight of e-commerce in the CPI (3.2% for goods), online price inflation added to overall annual CPI inflation by about 0.3 percentage points in 2016 (bottom panel of Chart 6). There is more deflation evident in the BLS' index of prices for Electronic Shopping and Mail Order Houses (Chart 7). Online prices fell relative to the overall CPI for most of the time since the early 1990s, with the relative price decline accelerating since the GFC. However, our estimate of the contribution to overall annual CPI inflation is only about -0.15 percentage points in June 2017, and has never been more than -0.3 percentage points. This could be an underestimate because it does not include the impact of services, although the service e-commerce share of the CPI is very small. Chart 6Online Price Index Online Price Index Online Price Index Chart 7Electronic Shopping Price Index Electronic Shopping Price Index Electronic Shopping Price Index Another way to approach this question is to focus on the parts of the CPI that are most exposed to e-commerce. It is impossible to separate the effect of e-commerce on inflation from other drivers of productivity. Nonetheless, if online shopping is having a significant deflationary impact on overall inflation, we should see large and persistent negative contributions from these parts of the CPI. We combined the components of the CPI that most closely matched the sectors that have high e-commerce exposure according to the BLS' annual Retail Survey (Chart 8). The sectors in our aggregate e-commerce price proxy include hotels/motels, taxicabs, books & magazines, clothing, computer hardware, drugs, health & beauty aids, electronics & appliances, alcoholic beverages, furniture & home furnishings, sporting goods, air transportation, travel arrangement and reservation services, educational services and other merchandise. The sectors are weighted based on their respective weights in the CPI. Our e-commerce price proxy has generally fallen relative to the overall CPI index since 2000. However, while the average contribution of these sectors to the overall annual CPI inflation rate has fallen in the post GFC period relative to the 2000-2007 period, the average difference is only 0.2 percentage points. The contribution has hovered around the zero mark for the past 2½ years. Surprisingly, price indexes have increased by more than the overall CPI since 2000 in some sectors where one would have expected to see significant relative price deflation, such as taxis, hotels, travel arrangement and even books. One could argue that significant measurement error must be a factor. How could the price of books have gone up faster than the CPI? Sectors displaying the most relative price declines are clothing, computers, electronics, furniture, sporting goods, air travel and other goods. We recalculated our e-commerce proxy using only these deflating sectors, but we boosted their weights such that the overall weight of the proxy in the CPI is kept the same as our full e-commerce proxy discussed above. In other words, this approach implicitly assumes that the excluded sectors (taxis, books, hotels and travel arrangement) actually deflated at the average pace of the sectors that remain in the index. Our adjusted e-commerce proxy suggests that online pricing reduced overall CPI inflation by about 0.1-to-0.2 percentage points in recent years (Chart 9). This contribution is below the long-term average of the series, but the drag was even greater several times in the past. Chart 8BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index Chart 9BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index Admittedly, data limitations mean that all of the above estimates of the impact of e-commerce are ballpark figures. Conclusions We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence. The available data are admittedly far from ideal for confirming or disproving the "Amazonification" thesis. Perhaps better measures of e-commerce pricing will emerge in the future. Nonetheless, the measures available today do not suggest that online sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points, and it does not appear that the disinflationary impact has intensified by much. One could argue that lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. Nonetheless, if this were the case, then we would expect to see significant margin compression in the retail sector. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High corporate profit margins and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Finally, today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. Rising online activity means that we need fewer shopping malls and big box outlets to support a given level of consumer spending. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. To the extent that central banks were slow to recognize that equilibrium rates had fallen to extremely low levels, then policy was behind the curve and this might have contributed to the current low inflation environment. Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Robert F. DeLucia, "Economic Perspective: A Nontraditional Analysis of Inflation," Prudential Capital Group (August 21, 2017). 2 Business to business, and business to consumer. 3 Aaron Cheris, Darrell Rigby and Suzanne Tager, "The Power Of Omnichannel Stores," Bain & Company Insights: Retail Holiday Newsletter 2016-2017 (December 19, 2016) 4 "US Daily: The Internet and Inflation: How Big is the Amazon Effect?" Goldman Sachs Economic Research (August 2, 2017). 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame the Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Viacheslav Sheremirov, and Oleksandr Talavera, "Price Setting In Online Markets: Does IT Click?" Journal of the European Economic Association (July 2016). 7 Alberto Cavallo, "Are Online and Offline Prices Similar? Evidence from Large Multi-Channel Retailers," NBER Working Paper No. 22142 (March 2016).

Highlights Financial markets have slipped into a 'risk off' phase. The upbeat second quarter earnings season in the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone was overwhelmed by a number of negative events. Equity bear markets are usually associated with recessions. On that score, we do not see any warning signs of an economic downturn. However, geopolitical risks are rising at a time when valuation measures suggest that risk assets are vulnerable. We do not see the debt ceiling or the failure of movement on U.S. tax reform as posing large risks for financial markets. However, trade protectionism and, especially, North Korea are major wildcards. We don't believe the tensions in the Korean peninsula will end the cyclical bull market in global equities. Nonetheless, investors should expect to be tested numerous times over the next year to 18 months. BCA Strategists debated trimming equity exposure to neutral. However, the majority felt that, while there will be near-term volatility, the main equity indexes are likely to be higher on a 6-12 month horizon. Riding out the volatility is a better approach than trying to time the short-term ups and downs. That said, it appears prudent to be well shy of max overweight positions and to hold some safe haven assets within diversified portfolios. On a positive note, we have upgraded our EPS growth forecasts, except in the Eurozone where currency strength will be a significant drag in the near term. The Fed faced a similar low inflation/tight labor market environment in 1999. Policymakers acted pre-emptively and began to tighten before inflation turned up. This time, the FOMC will want to see at least a small increase in inflation just to be sure. Wages may be a lagging indicator for inflation in this cycle. Watch a handful of other indicators we identify that led inflection points in inflation in previous long economic expansions. This year's euro strength is unlikely to delay the next installment of ECB tapering, which we expect in early in 2018. Investors seem to be taking an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude toward the U.S. inflation outlook, which has led to very lopsided rate expectations. Keep duration short. Feature Chart I-1Trump Popularity Headwind For Tax Reform September 2017 September 2017 A 'risk off' flavor swept over financial markets in August. The upbeat second quarter earnings season in the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone was overwhelmed by a number of negative events, from President Trump's Charlottesville controversy to the never-ending staff changes in the White House to North Korean tensions to the Texas flood and the terror attack in Spain. Trump's popularity rating is steadily declining, even now among Republican voters (Chart I-1). This has raised concerns that none of his business-friendly policies, tax cuts or initiatives to boost growth will be successfully enacted. It is even possible that the debt ceiling will be used as a bargaining chip among the various Republican factions. The political risks are multiplying at a time when the equity and corporate bond markets are pricey. Valuation measures do not help with timing, but they do inform on the potential downside risk if things head south. At the moment, we do not see any single risk as justifying a full retreat into safe havens and a cut in risk asset allocation to neutral or below. Nonetheless, there is certainly a case to be cautious and hold some traditional safe haven assets. Timing The Next Equity Bear Market It is rare to have an equity bear market without a recession in the U.S. There have been plenty of market setbacks that did not quite meet the 20% bear-market threshold, but were nonetheless painful even in the absence of recession (Black Monday, LTCM crisis, U.S. debt ceiling showdown and euro crises). Unfortunately, these corrections are very difficult to predict. At least with recessions, investors have a fighting chance in timing the exit from risk exposure. The slope of the yield curve and the Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) are classic recession indicators, and for good reason (Chart I-2). Over the past 50 years they have both successfully called all seven recessions with just one false positive. We can eliminate the false positive signals by combining the two indicators and follow a rule that both must be in the red to herald a recession.1 Chart I-2The Traditional Recession Indicators Have Worked Well The Traditional Recession Indicators Have Worked Well The Traditional Recession Indicators Have Worked Well It will be almost impossible for the yield curve to invert until the fed funds rate is significantly higher than it is today. Thus, it may be the case that a negative reading on the LEI, together with a flattening (but not yet inverted) yield curve, will be a powerful signal that a recession is on the way. Neither of these two indicators are warning of a recession. Global PMIs are hovering at a level that is consistent with robust growth. The erosion in the Global ZEW and the drop in the diffusion index of the Global LEI are worrying signs, but at the moment are consistent with a growth slowdown at worst (Chart I-3). Financial conditions remain growth-friendly and subdued inflation is allowing central banks to proceed cautiously when tightening (in the case of the Fed and Bank of Canada) or tapering (ECB). As highlighted in last month's Overview, the global economy has entered a synchronized upturn that should persist for the next year. The U.S. will be the first major economy to enter the next recession, but that should not occur until 2019 or 2020, barring any shocks in the near term. That said, risk asset prices have been bid up sharply and are therefore vulnerable to a correction. Below, we discuss five key risks to the equity bull market. (1) Is All Lost For U.S. Tax Cuts? Our recent client meetings highlight that investors are skeptical that any fiscal stimulus or tax cuts will see the light of day in the U.S. Tax cuts and infrastructure spending appear to have been priced out of the equity market, according to the index ratios shown in Chart I-4. We still expect a modest package to eventually be passed, although time is running out for this year. Tax reform is a major component of Trump's and congressional Republicans' agenda. If it fails, Republicans will have to go to their home districts empty-handed to campaign for the November 2018 midterm elections. Chart I-3Some Worrying Signs On Growth Some Worrying Signs On Growth Some Worrying Signs On Growth Chart I-4Fiscal Stimulus Largely Priced Out Fiscal Stimulus Largely Priced Out Fiscal Stimulus Largely Priced Out One implication of Tropical Storm Harvey is that it might force Democrats and Republicans to cooperate on an infrastructure bill for rebuilding. Even a modest spending boost or tax reduction would be equity-market positive given that so little is currently discounted. The dollar should also receive a lift, especially given that the Fed might respond to any fiscally-driven growth impulse with higher interest rates. (2) Who Will Lead The Fed? There is a significant chance that either Yellen will refuse to stay on when her term expires next February or that Trump will appoint someone else anyway. In this case, we would expect the President to do everything he can to ensure that the Fed retains its dovish bias. This means that he is likely to favor a non-economist and a loyal adviser, like Gary Cohn, over any of the more traditional, and hawkish, Republican candidates. Cohn could not arrive at the Fed and change the course of monetary policy on day one. The FOMC votes on rate changes, but in reality decisions are formed by consensus (with one or two dissents). The only way Cohn could implement an abrupt change in policy is if the Administration stacks the Fed Governors with appointees that are prepared to "toe the line" (the Administration does not appoint Regional Fed Presidents). Stacking the Governorships would take time. Nonetheless, it is not clear why President Trump would take a heavy hand in monetary policy when the current FOMC has been very cautious in tightening policy. The bottom line is that we would not see Cohn's appointment to the Fed Chair as signaling a major shift in monetary policy one way or the other. (3) The Debt Ceiling A more immediate threat is the debt ceiling. Recent fights over Obamacare and tax reform have pit fiscally conservative Republicans against the moderates, and it is possible that the debt ceiling is used as a bargaining chip in this battle. While government shutdowns have occurred in the past, the debt ceiling has never been breached. At the end of the day, the debt ceiling will always be raised because no government could stand the popular pressure that would result from social security checks not being mailed out to seniors or a halt to other entitlement programs. Even the Freedom Caucus, the most fiscally conservative grouping in the House, is considerably divided on the issue. This augurs well for a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling as the Republican majority in the House is 22 and the Freedom Caucus has 31 members. Democrats will not stand in the way of passage in the Senate. The worst-case scenario for the market would be a two-week shutdown in the first half of October, just before the debt ceiling is hit. We would not expect a shutdown to have any lasting impact on the economy, although it could provide an excuse for the equity market to correct. That said, the risk of even a shutdown has been diminished by events in Houston. It would be very difficult and damaging politically to shut down the government during a humanitarian emergency. (4) Trade And Protectionism The removal of White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon signals a shift in power toward the Goldman clique within the Trump Administration. National Economic Council President Gary Cohn, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross are now firmly in charge of economic policy. The mainstream media has interpreted this shift within the Administration as reducing the risk of trade friction. We do not see it that way. President Trump still sounds hawkish on trade, particularly with respect to China. Our geopolitical experts point out that there are few constraints on the President to imposing trade sanctions on China or other countries. He could use such action to boost his popularity among his base heading into next year's midterm elections. On NAFTA, the Administration took a hard line as negotiations kicked off in August. This could be no more than a negotiating tactic. Our base case is that it will be some time before investors find out if negotiations are going off the rails. That said, the situation is volatile for both NAFTA and China, and we can't rule out a trade-related risk-off phase in financial markets over the next year. (5) North Korea North Korea's missile launch over Japan highlights that the tense situation is a long way from a resolution. The U.S. is unlikely to use military force to resolve the standoff. There are long-standing constraints to war, including the likelihood of a high death toll in Seoul. Moreover, China is unlikely to remain neutral in any conflict. However, the U.S. will attempt to establish a credible threat in order to contain Kim Jong-un. From an investor's perspective, it will be difficult to gauge whether the brinkmanship and military displays are simply posturing or evidence of real preparations for war.2 We don't believe the tensions in the Korean peninsula will end the cyclical bull market in global equities. Nonetheless, investors should expect to be tested numerous times over the next year to 18 months. Adding it all up, there is no shortage of things to keep investors awake at night. We would be de-risking our recommended portfolio were it not for the favorable earnings backdrop in the major advanced economies. Profit Outlook Update Chart I-5EPS Growth Outlook EPS Growth Outlook EPS Growth Outlook Second quarter earnings season came in even stronger than our upbeat models suggested in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan. This led to upward revisions to our EPS growth forecast, except in the Eurozone where currency strength will be a significant drag in the near term. The U.S. equity market enjoyed another quarter of margin expansion in Q2 2017 and the good news was broadly based. Earnings per share were higher versus Q2 2016 in all 11 sectors. Results were particularly strong in energy, technology and financials. Looking ahead, an update of our top-down model suggests the EPS growth will peak just under 20% late this year on a 4-quarter moving average basis, before falling to mid-single digits by the end of 2018 (Chart I-5). The peak is predicted to be a little higher than we previously forecast largely due to the feed-through of this year's pullback in the dollar. In Japan, a solid 70% of reporting firms beat estimates. Chart I-6 shows that Japan led all other major stock markets in positive earnings surprises in the second quarter. Manufacturing sectors, such as iron & steel, chemicals and machinery & electronics, were particularly impressive in the quarter, reflecting yen weakness and robust overseas demand. Japanese earnings are highly geared to the rebound in global industrial production. Moreover, Japan's nominal GDP growth accelerated in the second quarter and the latest PPI report suggested that corporate pricing power has improved. Twelve-month forward EPS estimates have risen to fresh all times highs, and have outperformed the U.S. in local currencies so far this year. Corporate governance reform - a key element of Abenomics - can take some credit for the good news on earnings. The share of companies with at least two independent directors rose from 18% in 2013 to 78% in 2016. The number of companies with performance-linked pay increased from 640 to 941, while the number that publish disclosure policies jumped from 679 to 1055. Analysts have been slow to factor in these positive developments. We expect trailing EPS growth to peak at about 25% in the first half of 2018 on a 4-quarter moving total basis, before edging lower by the end of the year. This is one reason why we like the Japanese market over the U.S. in local currency terms. Second quarter results in the Eurozone were solid, although not as impressive as in the U.S. and Japan. The 6% rise in the trade-weighted euro this year has resulted in a drop in the earnings revisions ratio into negative territory. Our previous forecast pointed to a continued rise in the 4-quarter moving average growth rate into the first half of 2018. However, we now expect the growth rate to dip by year end, before picking up somewhat next year. If the euro is flat from today's level, our model suggests that the drag on EPS growth will hover at 3-4 percentage points through the first half of next year as the negative impact feeds through (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Chart I-6Japan Led In Q2 Earning Surprises September 2017 September 2017 Chart I-7Currency Effects On Eurozone EPS Currency Effects On Eurozone EPS Currency Effects On Eurozone EPS Our top-down EPS model highlights that Eurozone earnings are quite sensitive to swings in the currency. In Chart I-7, we present alternative scenarios based on the euro weakening to EUR/USD 1.10 and strengthening to EUR/USD 1.30. For demonstration purposes we make the extreme assumption that the trade-weighted value of the euro rises and falls by the same amount in percentage terms. Profit growth decelerates by the end of 2017 in all three scenarios because of the lagged effect of currency swings. The projections begin to diverge only in 2018. EPS growth surges to around 20% by the end of next year in the euro-bear case, as the tailwind from the weakening currency combines with continuing robust economic growth. Conversely, trailing earnings growth hovers in the 5-8% range in the euro bull scenario, which is substantially less than we expect in the U.S. and Japan over the next year. EPS growth remains in positive territory because the assumed strength in European and global growth dominates the drag from the euro. The strong euro scenario would be negative for Eurozone equity relative performance versus global stocks in local currencies, although Europe might outperform on a common currency basis. The bottom line is that 12-month forward earnings estimates should remain in an uptrend in the three major economies. This means that, absent a negative political shock, the equity bull phase should resume in the coming months. Monetary policy is unlikely to spoil the party for risk assets, although the bond market is a source of risk because investors seem unprepared for even a modest rise in inflation. FOMC Has Seen This Before The Minutes from the July FOMC meeting highlighted that the key debate still centers on the relationship between labor market tightness and inflation, the timing of the next Fed rate hike and how policy should adjust to changing financial conditions. Chart I-8The FOMC Has Been Here Before The FOMC Has Been Here Before The FOMC Has Been Here Before The majority of policymakers are willing for now to believe that this year's soft inflation readings are driven largely by temporary 'one-off' factors. The hawks worry that a further undershoot of unemployment below estimates of full employment could suddenly generate a surge of inflation. They also point to the risk that low bond yields are promoting excess risk taking in financial markets. Moreover, the recent easing in financial conditions is stimulative and should be counterbalanced by additional Fed tightening. The hawks are thus anxious to resume tightening, despite current inflation readings. Others are worried that inflation softness could reflect structural factors, such as restraints on pricing power from global developments and from innovations to business models spurred by advances in technology. In this month's Special Report beginning on page 18, we have a close look at the impact of "Amazonification" in holding down overall inflation. We do not find the evidence regarding e-commerce compelling, but the jury is still out on the impact of other technologies. If robots and new business strategies are indeed weighing on inflation, it would mean that the Phillips curve is very flat or that the full employment level of unemployment is lower than the Fed estimates (or both). Either way, the doves would like to see the whites-of-the-eyes of inflation before resuming rate hikes. The last time the Fed was perplexed by a low level of inflation despite a tight labor market was in the late 1990s (Chart I-8). The FOMC cut rates following the LTCM financial crisis in late 1998, and then held the fed funds rate unchanged at 4¾% until June 1999. Core inflation was roughly flat during the on-hold period at 1% to 1½%, even as the unemployment rate steadily declined and various measures pointed to growing labor shortages. The FOMC 's internal debate in the first half of 1999 sounded very familiar. The minutes from meetings at that time noted that some policymakers pointed to the widespread inability of firms to raise prices because of strong competitive pressures in domestic and global markets. Some argued that significant cost saving efforts and new technologies also contributed to the low inflation environment for both consumer prices and wages. One difference from today is that productivity growth was solid at that time. The FOMC decided to hike rates in June 1999 by a quarter point, despite the absence of any clear indication that inflation had turned up. Policymakers described the tightening as "a small preemptive move... (that) would provide a degree of insurance against worsening inflation later". The Fed went on to lift the fed funds rate to 6½% by May 2000. Interestingly, the unemployment rate in June 1999 was 4.3%, exactly the same as the current rate. There are undoubtedly important differences in today's macro backdrop. The Fed is also more fearful of making a policy mistake in the aftermath of the Great Recession and financial crisis. Nonetheless, the point is that the Fed has faced a similar low inflation/tight labor market environment before, but in the end patience ran out and policymakers acted pre-emptively. Inflation Warning Signs During Long-Expansions We have noted in previous research that inflation pressures are slower to emerge in 'slow burn' recoveries, such as the 1980s and 1990s. In Chart I-9, we compare the core PCE inflation rate in the current cycle with the average of the previous two long expansion episodes (the inflection point for inflation in the previous cycles are aligned with June 2017 for comparison purposes). The other panels in the chart highlight that, in the 1980s and 1990s, wage growth was a lagging indicator. Economic commentators often assume that inflation is driven exclusively by "cost push" effects, such that the direction of causation runs from wage pressure to price pressure. However, causation runs in the other direction as well. Households see rising prices and then demand better wages to compensate for the added cost of living. This is not to say that we should totally disregard wage information. But it does mean that we must keep an eye on a wider set of data. Indicators that provided some leading information in the previous two long cycles are shown in Chart I-10. To this list we would also add the St. Louis Fed's Price Pressure index, which is not shown in Chart I-10 because it does not have enough history. At the moment, the headline PPI, ISM Prices Paid and BCA's pipeline inflation pressure index are all warning that inflation pressures are gradually building. However, this message is not confirmed by the St. Louis Fed's index and corporate selling prices. We are also watching the velocity of money, which has been a reasonably good leading indicator for U.S. inflation since 2000 (Chart I-11). Chart I-9In The 80s & 90s Wage Growth ##br##Gave No Early Warning On Inflation In The 80s & 90s Wage Growth Gave No Early Warning On Inflation In The 80s & 90s Wage Growth Gave No Early Warning On Inflation Chart I-10Leading Indicators Of Inflation ##br##In "Slow Burn" Recoveries Leading Indicators Of Inflation In "Slow Burn" Recoveries Leading Indicators Of Inflation In "Slow Burn" Recoveries Chart I-11Money Velocity And Inflation Money Velocity And Inflation Money Velocity And Inflation Our Fed view remains unchanged from last month; the FOMC will announce its balance sheet diet plan in September and the next rate hike will take place in December. Nonetheless, this forecast hangs on the assumption that core inflation edges higher in the coming months. Some indicators are pointing in that direction and recent dollar weakness will help. Wake Me When Inflation Picks Up Investors seem to be taking an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude toward the U.S. inflation outlook. They also believe that persistent economic headwinds mean that monetary policy will need to stay highly accommodative for a very long time. Only one Fed rate hike is discounted between now and the end of 2018, and implied forward real short-term rates are negative until 2022. While we do not foresee surging inflation, the risks for market expectations appear quite lopsided. We expect one rate hike by year end, followed by at least another 50 basis points of tightening in 2018. The U.S. 10-year yield is also about almost 50 basis points below our short-term fair value estimate (Chart I-12). Moreover, over the medium- and long-term, reduced central bank bond purchases will impart gentle upward pressure on equilibrium bond yields. Twenty-eighteen will be the first time in four years in which the net supply of government bonds available to private investors will rise, taking the U.S., U.K., Eurozone and Japanese markets as a group. This year's euro strength is unlikely to delay the next installment of ECB tapering, which we expect in early in 2018. The currency appreciation will keep a lid on inflation in the near term. However, we see the euro's ascent as reflective of the booming economy, rather than a major headwind that will derail the growth story. Overall financial conditions have tightened this year, but only back to levels that persisted through 2016 (Chart I-13). Chart I-12U.S. 10-year Yield Is Below Fair Value U.S. 10-year Yield Is Below Fair Value U.S. 10-year Yield Is Below Fair Value Chart I-13Financial Conditions Financial Conditions Financial Conditions It will take clear signs that the economy is being negatively affected by currency strength for the ECB to back away from tapering. Indeed, the central bank has little choice because the bond buying program is approaching important technical limits. European corporate and peripheral bond spreads are likely to widen versus bunds as a result. The implication is that global yields have significant upside potential relative to forward rates, especially in the U.S. market. Duration should be kept short. JGBs are the only safe place to hide if global yields shift up because the Bank of Japan is a long way from abandoning its 10-year yield peg. Treasury yields should lead the way higher, which will finally place a bottom under the beleaguered dollar. Nonetheless, we are tactically at neutral on the greenback. Conclusions Chart I-14Gold Loves Geopolitical Crises September 2017 September 2017 In light of rising geopolitical risk, the BCA Strategists recently debated trimming equity exposure to neutral. Some argued that the risk/reward balance has deteriorated; the upside is limited by poor valuation, while there is significant downside potential if the North Korean situation deteriorates alarmingly. However, the majority felt that, while there will be near-term volatility, the main equity indexes are likely to be higher on a 6-12 month horizon. Riding out the volatility is a better approach than trying to time the short-term ups and downs. That said, it appears prudent to be well shy of max overweight positions and to hold some safe haven assets within diversified portfolios. BCA research has demonstrated that U.S. Treasurys, Swiss bonds and JGBs have been the best performers in times of crisis (Chart I-14).3 The same is true for the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen, such that the currency exposure should not be hedged in these cases. The dollar is more nuanced. It tends to perform well during financial crises, but not in geopolitical crises or recessions. Gold has tended to perform well in geopolitical events and recessions, although not in financial crises. We continue to prefer Japanese to U.S. stocks in local currency terms, given that EPS growth will likely peak in the U.S. first. Japanese stocks are also better valued. Europe is a tough call because this year's currency strength will weigh on earnings in the next quarter or two. However, the negative impact on earnings will reverse if the euro retraces as we expect. EM stocks have seen the strongest positive earnings revisions this year. We continue to worry about some of the structural headwinds facing emerging markets (high debt levels, poor governance, etc.). However, the cyclical picture remains more upbeat. Chinese H-shares remain our favorite EM market, trading at just 7.5 times 2017 earnings estimates. Our dollar and duration positions have been disappointing so far this year. Much hinges on U.S. inflation. Investors appear to have adopted the idea that structural headwinds to inflation will forever dominate the cyclical pressures. This means that the bond market is totally unprepared for any upside surprises on the inflation landscape. Admittedly, a rise in bond yields may not be imminent, but the risks appear to us to be predominantly to the upside. Lastly, crude oil inventories are shrinking as our commodity strategists predicted. They remain bullish, with a price target of USD60/bbl. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst August 31, 2017 Next Report: September 28, 2017 1 Please see BCA Global ETF Strategy, "A Guide To Spotting And Weathering Bear Markets," dated August 16, 2017, available at etf.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com II. Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to one school of thought, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation. If true, it could mean that central banks are almost powerless to reach their inflation targets. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. In theory, positive supply shocks should not have more than a temporary impact on inflation if the price level is indeed a monetary phenomenon in the long term. But a series of positive supply shocks could make it appear for quite a while that low inflation is structural in nature. We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence at the macro level. The admittedly inadequate measures of online prices available today do not suggest that e-commerce sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points. Moreover, it does not appear that the disinflationary impact of competition in the retail sector has intensified over the years. Today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. However, the fact that retail margins are near secular highs outside of department stores argues against this thesis. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High profit margins for the overall corporate sector and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. Anecdotal evidence is all around us. The global economy is evolving and it seems that all of the major changes are deflationary. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. Central banks in the major advanced economies are having difficulty meeting their inflation targets, even in the U.S. where the labor market is tight by historical standards. Based on the depressed level of bond yields, it appears that the majority of investors believe that inflation headwinds will remain formidable for a long time. One school of thought is that low inflation reflects a lack of demand growth in the post-Great Financial Crisis (GFC) period. Another school points to the supply side of the economy. A recent report by Prudential Financial highlights "...obvious examples of ... new business models and new organizational structures, whereby higher-cost traditional methods of production, transportation, and distribution are displaced by more nontraditional cost-effective ways of conducting business."1 A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to this school, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation (i.e., the Phillips Curve). Employees are less aggressive in their wage demands in a world where robots are threatening humans in a broadening array of industrial categories. Many feel lucky just to have a job. In a highly sensationalized article called "How The Internet Economy Killed Inflation," Forbes argued that "the internet has reduced many of the traditional barriers to entry that protect companies from competition and created a race to the bottom for prices in a number of categories." Forbes believes that new technologies are placing downward pressure on inflation by depressing wages, increasing productivity and encouraging competition. There are many factors that have the potential to weigh on prices, but analysts are mainly focusing on e-commerce, robotics, artificial intelligence, and the gig economy. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. The latter refers to the advent of new business models that cut out layers of middlemen between producers and consumers. Amazonification E-commerce has grown at a compound annual rate of more than 9% over the past 15 years, and now accounts for about 8½% of total U.S. retail sales (Chart II-1). Amazon has been leading the charge, accounting for 43% of all online sales in 2016 (Chart II-2). Amazon's business model not only cuts costs by eliminating middlemen and (until recently) avoiding expensive showrooms, but it also provides a platform for improved price discovery on an extremely broad array of goods. In 2013, Amazon carried 230 million items for sale in the United States, nearly 30 times the number sold by Walmart, one of the largest retailers in the world. Chart II-1E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share Chart II-2Amazon Dominates September 2017 September 2017 With the use of a smartphone, consumers can check the price of an item on Amazon while shopping in a physical store. Studies show that it does not require a large price gap for shoppers to buy online rather than in-store. Amazon appears to be impacting other retailers' ability to pass though cost increases, leading to a rash of retail outlet closings. Sears alone announced the closure of 300 retail outlets this year. The devastation that Amazon inflicted on the book industry is well known. It is no wonder then, that Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods Market, a grocery chain, sent shivers down the spines of CEOs not only in the food industry, but in the broader retail industry as well. What would prevent Amazon from applying its model to furniture and appliances, electronics or drugstores? It seems that no retail space is safe. A Little Theory Before we turn to the evidence, let's review the macro theory related to positive supply shocks. The internet could be lowering prices by moving product markets toward the "perfect competition" model. The internet trims search costs, improves price transparency and reduces barriers to entry. The internet also allows for shorter supply chains, as layers of wholesalers and other intermediaries are removed and e-commerce companies allow more direct contact between consumers and producers. Fewer inventories and a smaller "brick and mortar" infrastructure take additional costs out of the system. Economic theory suggests that the result of this positive supply shock will be greater product market competition, increased productivity and reduced profitability. In the long run, workers should benefit from the productivity boost via real wage gains (even if nominal wage growth is lackluster). Workers may lower their reservation wage if they feel that increased competitive pressures or technology threaten their jobs. The internet is also likely to improve job matching between the unemployed and available vacancies, which should lead to a fall in the full-employment level of unemployment (NAIRU). Nonetheless, the internet should not have a permanent impact on inflation. The lower level of NAIRU and the direct effects of the internet on consumer prices discussed above allow inflation to fall below the central bank's target. The bank responds by lowering interest rates, stimulating demand and thereby driving unemployment down to the new lower level of NAIRU. Over time, inflation will drift back up toward target. In other words, a greater degree of the competition should boost the supply side of the economy and lower NAIRU, but it should not result in a permanently lower rate of inflation if inflation is indeed a monetary phenomenon and central banks strive to meet their targets. Still, one could imagine a series of supply shocks that are spread out over time, with each having a temporary negative impact on prices such that it appears for a while that inflation has been permanently depressed. This could be an accurate description of the current situation in the U.S. and some of the other major countries. We have sympathy for the view that the internet and new business models are increasing competition, cutting costs and thereby limiting price increases in some areas. But is there any hard evidence? Is the competitive effect that large, and is it any more intense than in the past? There are a number of reasons to be skeptical because most of the evidence does not support Forbes' claim that the internet has killed inflation. (1) E-commerce affects only a small part of the Consumer Price Index As mentioned above, online shopping for goods represents 8.5% of total retail sales in the U.S. E-commerce is concentrated in four kinds of businesses (Table II-1): Furniture & Home Furnishings (7% of total retail sales), Electronics & Appliances (20%), Health & Personal Care (15%), and Clothing (10%). Since goods make up 40% of the CPI, then 3.2% (8% times 40%) is a ballpark estimate for the size of goods e-commerce in the CPI. Table II-1E-Commerce Market Share Of Goods Sector (2015) September 2017 September 2017 Table II-2 shows the relative size of e-commerce in the service sector. The analysis is complicated by the fact that the data on services includes B-to-B sales in addition to B-to-C.2 However, e-commerce represents almost 4% of total sales for the service categories tracked by the BLS. Services make up 60% of the CPI, but the size drops to 26% if we exclude shelter (which is probably not affected by online shopping). Thus, e-commerce in the service sector likely affects 1% (3.9% times 26%) of the CPI. Table II-2E-Commerce Market Share Of Service Sector (2015) September 2017 September 2017 Adding goods and services, online shopping affects about 4.2% of the CPI index at most. The bottom line is that the relatively small size of e-commerce at the consumer level limits any estimate of the impact of online sales on the broad inflation rate. (2) Most of the deceleration in inflation since 2007 has been in areas unaffected by e-commerce Table II-3 compares the average contribution to annual average CPI inflation during 2000-2007 with that of 2007-2016. Average annual inflation fell from 2.9% in the seven years before the Great Recession to 1.8% after, for a total decline of just over 1 percentage point. The deceleration is almost fully explained by Energy, Food and Owners' Equivalent Rent. The bottom part of Table II-3 highlights that the sectors with the greatest exposure to e-commerce had a negligible impact on the inflation slowdown. Table II-3Comparison Of Pre- and Post-Lehman Inflation Rates September 2017 September 2017 (3) The cost advantages for online sellers are overstated Bain & Company, a U.S. consultancy, argues that e-commerce will not grow in importance indefinitely and come to dominate consumer spending.3 E-commerce sales are already slowing. Market share is following a classic S-shaped curve that, Bain estimates, will top out at under 30% by 2030. First, not everyone wants to buy everything online. Products that are well known to consumers and purchased on a regular basis are well suited to online shopping. But for many other products, consumers need to see and feel the product in person before making a purchase. Second, the cost savings of online selling versus traditional brick and mortar stores is not as great as many believe. Bain claims that many e-commerce businesses struggle to make a profit. The information technology, distribution centers, shipping, and returns processing required by e-commerce companies can cost as much as running physical stores in some cases. E-tailers often cannot ship directly from manufacturers to consumers; they need large and expensive fulfillment centers and a very generous returns policy. Moreover, online and offline sales models are becoming blurred. Retailers with physical stores are growing their e-commerce operations, while previously pure e-commerce plays are adding stores or negotiating space in other retailers' stores. Even Amazon now has storefronts. The shift toward an "multichannel" selling model underscores that there are benefits to traditional brick-and-mortar stores that will ensure that they will not completely disappear. (4) E-commerce is not the first revolution in the retail sector The retail sector has changed significantly over the decades and it is not clear that the disinflationary effect of the latest revolution, e-commerce, is any more intense than in the past. Economists at Goldman Sachs point out that the growth of Amazon's market share in recent years still lags that of Walmart and other "big box" stores in the 1990s (Chart II-3).4 This fact suggests that "Amazonification" may not be as disinflationary as the previous big-box revolution. (5) Weak productivity growth and high profit margins are inconsistent with a large supply-side benefit from e-commerce As discussed above, economic theory suggests that a positive supply shock that cuts costs and boosts competition should trim profit margins and lift productivity. The problem is that the margins and productivity have moved in the opposite direction that economic theory would suggest (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Amazon Vs. Walmart: ##br##Who's More Deflationary? September 2017 September 2017 Chart II-4Incompatible With A Supply Shock Incompatible With A Supply Shock Incompatible With A Supply Shock By definition, productivity rises when firms can produce the same output with fewer or cheaper inputs. However, it is well documented that productivity growth has been in a downtrend since the 1990s, and has been dismally low since the Great Recession. A Special Report from BCA's Global Investment Strategy5 service makes a convincing case that mismeasurement is not behind the low productivity figures. In fact, in many industries it appears that productivity is over-estimated. If e-commerce is big enough to "move the dial" on overall inflation, it should be big enough to see in the aggregate productivity figures. Chart II-5Retail Margin Squeeze ##br##Only In Department Stores Retail Margin Squeeze Only In Department Stores Retail Margin Squeeze Only In Department Stores One would also expect to see a margin squeeze across industries if e-commerce is indeed generating a lot of deflationary competitive pressure. Despite dismally depressed productivity, however, corporate profit margins are at the high end of the historical range across most of the sectors of the S&P 500. This is the case even in the retailing sector outside of department stores (Chart II-5). These facts argue against the idea that the internet has moved the economy further toward a disinflationary "perfect competition" model. (6) Online price setting is characterized by frictions comparable to traditional retail We would expect to observe a low price dispersion across online vendors since the internet has apparently lowered the cost of monitoring competitors' prices and the cost of searching for the lowest price. We would also expect to see fairly synchronized price adjustments; if one vendor adjusts its price due to changing market conditions, then the rest should quickly follow to avoid suffering a massive loss of market share. However, a recent study of price-setting practices in the U.S. and U.K. found that this is not the case.6 The dataset covered a broad spectrum of consumer goods and sellers over a two-year period, comparing online with offline prices. The researchers found that market pricing "frictions" are surprisingly elevated in the online world. Price dispersion is high in absolute terms and on par with offline pricing. Academics for years have puzzled over high price rigidities and dispersion in retail stores in the context of an apparently stiff competitive environment, and it appears that online pricing is not much better. The study did not cover a long enough period to see if frictions were even worse in the past. Nonetheless, the evidence available suggests that the lower cost of monitoring prices afforded by the internet has not led to significant price convergence across sellers online or offline. Another study compared online and offline prices for multichannel retailers, using the massive database provided by the Billion Prices Project at MIT.7 The database covers prices across 10 countries. The study found that retailers charged the same price online as in-store in 72% of cases. The average discount was 4% for those cases in which there was a markdown online. If the observations with identical prices are included, the average online/offline price difference was just 1%. (7) Some measures of online prices have grown at about the same pace as the CPI index The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does include online sales when constructing the Consumer Price Index. It even includes peer-to-peer sales by companies such as Airbnb and Uber. However, the BLS admits that its sample lags the popularity of such services by a few years. Moreover, while the BLS is trying to capture the rising proportion of sales done via e-commerce, "outlet bias" means that the CPI does not capture the price effect in cases where consumers are finding cheaper prices online. This is because the BLS weights the growth rate of online and offline prices, not the price levels. While there may be level differences, there is no reason to believe that the inflation rates for similar goods sold online and offline differ significantly. If the inflation rates are close, then the growing share of online sales will not affect overall inflation based on the BLS methodology. The BLS argues that any bias in the CPI due to outlet bias is mitigated to the extent that physical stores offer a higher level of service. Thus, price differences may not be that great after quality-adjustment. All this suggests that the actual consumer price inflation rate could be somewhat lower than the official rate. Nonetheless, it does not necessarily mean that inflation, properly measured, is being depressed by e-commerce to a meaningful extent. Indeed, Chart II-6 highlights that the U.S. component of the Billion Prices Index rose at a faster pace than the overall CPI between 2009 and 2014. The Online Price Index fell in absolute and relative terms from 2014 to mid-2016, but rose sharply toward the end of 2016. Applying our guesstimate of the weight of e-commerce in the CPI (3.2% for goods), online price inflation added to overall annual CPI inflation by about 0.3 percentage points in 2016 (bottom panel of Chart II-6). There is more deflation evident in the BLS' index of prices for Electronic Shopping and Mail Order Houses (Chart II-7). Online prices fell relative to the overall CPI for most of the time since the early 1990s, with the relative price decline accelerating since the GFC. However, our estimate of the contribution to overall annual CPI inflation is only about -0.15 percentage points in June 2017, and has never been more than -0.3 percentage points. This could be an underestimate because it does not include the impact of services, although the service e-commerce share of the CPI is very small. Chart II-6Online Price Index Online Price Index Online Price Index Chart II-7Electronic Shopping Price Index Electronic Shopping Price Index Electronic Shopping Price Index Another way to approach this question is to focus on the parts of the CPI that are most exposed to e-commerce. It is impossible to separate the effect of e-commerce on inflation from other drivers of productivity. Nonetheless, if online shopping is having a significant deflationary impact on overall inflation, we should see large and persistent negative contributions from these parts of the CPI. We combined the components of the CPI that most closely matched the sectors that have high e-commerce exposure according to the BLS' annual Retail Survey (Chart II-8). The sectors in our aggregate e-commerce price proxy include hotels/motels, taxicabs, books & magazines, clothing, computer hardware, drugs, health & beauty aids, electronics & appliances, alcoholic beverages, furniture & home furnishings, sporting goods, air transportation, travel arrangement and reservation services, educational services and other merchandise. The sectors are weighted based on their respective weights in the CPI. Our e-commerce price proxy has generally fallen relative to the overall CPI index since 2000. However, while the average contribution of these sectors to the overall annual CPI inflation rate has fallen in the post GFC period relative to the 2000-2007 period, the average difference is only 0.2 percentage points. The contribution has hovered around the zero mark for the past 2½ years. Surprisingly, price indexes have increased by more than the overall CPI since 2000 in some sectors where one would have expected to see significant relative price deflation, such as taxis, hotels, travel arrangement and even books. One could argue that significant measurement error must be a factor. How could the price of books have gone up faster than the CPI? Sectors displaying the most relative price declines are clothing, computers, electronics, furniture, sporting goods, air travel and other goods. We recalculated our e-commerce proxy using only these deflating sectors, but we boosted their weights such that the overall weight of the proxy in the CPI is kept the same as our full e-commerce proxy discussed above. In other words, this approach implicitly assumes that the excluded sectors (taxis, books, hotels and travel arrangement) actually deflated at the average pace of the sectors that remain in the index. Our adjusted e-commerce proxy suggests that online pricing reduced overall CPI inflation by about 0.1-to-0.2 percentage points in recent years (Chart II-9). This contribution is below the long-term average of the series, but the drag was even greater several times in the past. Chart II-8BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index Chart II-9BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index Admittedly, data limitations mean that all of the above estimates of the impact of e-commerce are ballpark figures. Conclusions We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence. The available data are admittedly far from ideal for confirming or disproving the "Amazonification" thesis. Perhaps better measures of e-commerce pricing will emerge in the future. Nonetheless, the measures available today do not suggest that online sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points, and it does not appear that the disinflationary impact has intensified by much. One could argue that lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. Nonetheless, if this were the case, then we would expect to see significant margin compression in the retail sector. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High corporate profit margins and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Finally, today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. Rising online activity means that we need fewer shopping malls and big box outlets to support a given level of consumer spending. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. To the extent that central banks were slow to recognize that equilibrium rates had fallen to extremely low levels, then policy was behind the curve and this might have contributed to the current low inflation environment. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Robert F. DeLucia, "Economic Perspective: A Nontraditional Analysis Of Inflation," Prudential Capital Group (August 21, 2017). 2 Business to business, and business to consumer. 3 Aaron Cheris, Darrell Rigby and Suzanne Tager, "The Power Of Omnichannel Stores," Bain & Company Insights: Retail Holiday Newsletter 2016-2017 (December 19, 2016). 4 "US Daily: The Internet And Inflation: How Big Is The Amazon Effect?" Goldman Sachs Economic Research (August 2, 2017). 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Viacheslav Sheremirov, and Oleksandr Talavera, "Price Setting In Online Markets: Does IT Click?" Journal of the European Economic Association (July 2016). 7 Alberto Cavallo, "Are Online And Offline Prices Similar? Evidence From Large Multi-Channel Retailers," NBER Working Paper No. 22142 (March 2016). III. Indicators And Reference Charts Stocks struggled in August on the back of intensifying geopolitical risks, such that equity returns slipped versus bonds in the month. The earnings backdrop remains constructive for global stocks. In the U.S., 12-month forward EPS estimates continue to climb, in line with upbeat net revisions and earnings surprises. Nonetheless, the risk/reward balance has deteriorated due to escalating risks inside and outside of the U.S. Allocation to risk assets should still exceed benchmark, but should be shy of maximum settings. It is prudent to hold some of the traditional safe haven assets, including gold. Our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) remained at 100% in August, sending a bullish message for equities. We introduced the RPI in the July report. Quite simply, it 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. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks for the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The U.S. WTP topped out in June and the same occurred in August for the Japan and the Eurozone indexes. While the indicators are still bullish, they highlight that flows into the equity markets in the major countries are beginning to moderate. These indicators would have to clearly turn lower to provide a bearish signal for stocks. The VIX increased last month, but remains depressed by historical standards. This implies that the equity market is vulnerable to bad news. However, investor sentiment is close to neutral and our speculation index has pulled back from previously elevated levels. These suggest that investors are not overly long at the moment. Our monetary indicator is only slightly negative, but the equity technical indicator is close to breaking below the 9-month moving average (a negative technical sign). Bond valuation continues to hover near fair value, according to our long-standing model that is based on a simple regression of the nominal 10-year yield on short-term real interest rates and a moving average of inflation. Another model, presented in the Overview section, estimates fair value based on dollar sentiment, a measure of policy uncertainty and the global PMI. This model suggests that the 10-year yield is almost 50 basis points on the expensive side. We think that Fed rate expectations are far too benign, suggesting that bond yields will rise. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China

A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to one school of thought, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation. If true, it could mean that central banks are almost powerless to reach their inflation targets. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. In theory, positive supply shocks should not have more than a temporary impact on inflation if the price level is indeed a monetary phenomenon in the long term. But a series of positive supply shocks could make it appear for quite a while that low inflation is structural in nature. We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence at the macro level. The admittedly inadequate measures of online prices available today do not suggest that e-commerce sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points. Moreover, it does not appear that the disinflationary impact of competition in the retail sector has intensified over the years. Today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. However, the fact that retail margins are near secular highs outside of department stores argues against this thesis. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High profit margins for the overall corporate sector and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. Anecdotal evidence is all around us. The global economy is evolving and it seems that all of the major changes are deflationary. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. Central banks in the major advanced economies are having difficulty meeting their inflation targets, even in the U.S. where the labor market is tight by historical standards. Based on the depressed level of bond yields, it appears that the majority of investors believe that inflation headwinds will remain formidable for a long time. One school of thought is that low inflation reflects a lack of demand growth in the post-Great Financial Crisis (GFC) period. Another school points to the supply side of the economy. A recent report by Prudential Financial highlights "...obvious examples of ... new business models and new organizational structures, whereby higher-cost traditional methods of production, transportation, and distribution are displaced by more nontraditional cost-effective ways of conducting business."1 A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to this school, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation (i.e., the Phillips Curve). Employees are less aggressive in their wage demands in a world where robots are threatening humans in a broadening array of industrial categories. Many feel lucky just to have a job. In a highly sensationalized article called "How The Internet Economy Killed Inflation," Forbes argued that "the internet has reduced many of the traditional barriers to entry that protect companies from competition and created a race to the bottom for prices in a number of categories." Forbes believes that new technologies are placing downward pressure on inflation by depressing wages, increasing productivity and encouraging competition. There are many factors that have the potential to weigh on prices, but analysts are mainly focusing on e-commerce, robotics, artificial intelligence, and the gig economy. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. The latter refers to the advent of new business models that cut out layers of middlemen between producers and consumers. Amazonification E-commerce has grown at a compound annual rate of more than 9% over the past 15 years, and now accounts for about 8½% of total U.S. retail sales (Chart II-1). Amazon has been leading the charge, accounting for 43% of all online sales in 2016 (Chart II-2). Amazon's business model not only cuts costs by eliminating middlemen and (until recently) avoiding expensive showrooms, but it also provides a platform for improved price discovery on an extremely broad array of goods. In 2013, Amazon carried 230 million items for sale in the United States, nearly 30 times the number sold by Walmart, one of the largest retailers in the world. Chart II-1E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share Chart II-2Amazon Dominates September 2017 September 2017 With the use of a smartphone, consumers can check the price of an item on Amazon while shopping in a physical store. Studies show that it does not require a large price gap for shoppers to buy online rather than in-store. Amazon appears to be impacting other retailers' ability to pass though cost increases, leading to a rash of retail outlet closings. Sears alone announced the closure of 300 retail outlets this year. The devastation that Amazon inflicted on the book industry is well known. It is no wonder then, that Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods Market, a grocery chain, sent shivers down the spines of CEOs not only in the food industry, but in the broader retail industry as well. What would prevent Amazon from applying its model to furniture and appliances, electronics or drugstores? It seems that no retail space is safe. A Little Theory Before we turn to the evidence, let's review the macro theory related to positive supply shocks. The internet could be lowering prices by moving product markets toward the "perfect competition" model. The internet trims search costs, improves price transparency and reduces barriers to entry. The internet also allows for shorter supply chains, as layers of wholesalers and other intermediaries are removed and e-commerce companies allow more direct contact between consumers and producers. Fewer inventories and a smaller "brick and mortar" infrastructure take additional costs out of the system. Economic theory suggests that the result of this positive supply shock will be greater product market competition, increased productivity and reduced profitability. In the long run, workers should benefit from the productivity boost via real wage gains (even if nominal wage growth is lackluster). Workers may lower their reservation wage if they feel that increased competitive pressures or technology threaten their jobs. The internet is also likely to improve job matching between the unemployed and available vacancies, which should lead to a fall in the full-employment level of unemployment (NAIRU). Nonetheless, the internet should not have a permanent impact on inflation. The lower level of NAIRU and the direct effects of the internet on consumer prices discussed above allow inflation to fall below the central bank's target. The bank responds by lowering interest rates, stimulating demand and thereby driving unemployment down to the new lower level of NAIRU. Over time, inflation will drift back up toward target. In other words, a greater degree of the competition should boost the supply side of the economy and lower NAIRU, but it should not result in a permanently lower rate of inflation if inflation is indeed a monetary phenomenon and central banks strive to meet their targets. Still, one could imagine a series of supply shocks that are spread out over time, with each having a temporary negative impact on prices such that it appears for a while that inflation has been permanently depressed. This could be an accurate description of the current situation in the U.S. and some of the other major countries. We have sympathy for the view that the internet and new business models are increasing competition, cutting costs and thereby limiting price increases in some areas. But is there any hard evidence? Is the competitive effect that large, and is it any more intense than in the past? There are a number of reasons to be skeptical because most of the evidence does not support Forbes' claim that the internet has killed inflation. (1) E-commerce affects only a small part of the Consumer Price Index As mentioned above, online shopping for goods represents 8.5% of total retail sales in the U.S. E-commerce is concentrated in four kinds of businesses (Table II-1): Furniture & Home Furnishings (7% of total retail sales), Electronics & Appliances (20%), Health & Personal Care (15%), and Clothing (10%). Since goods make up 40% of the CPI, then 3.2% (8% times 40%) is a ballpark estimate for the size of goods e-commerce in the CPI. Table II-1E-Commerce Market Share Of Goods Sector (2015) September 2017 September 2017 Table II-2 shows the relative size of e-commerce in the service sector. The analysis is complicated by the fact that the data on services includes B-to-B sales in addition to B-to-C.2 However, e-commerce represents almost 4% of total sales for the service categories tracked by the BLS. Services make up 60% of the CPI, but the size drops to 26% if we exclude shelter (which is probably not affected by online shopping). Thus, e-commerce in the service sector likely affects 1% (3.9% times 26%) of the CPI. Table II-2E-Commerce Market Share Of Service Sector (2015) September 2017 September 2017 Adding goods and services, online shopping affects about 4.2% of the CPI index at most. The bottom line is that the relatively small size of e-commerce at the consumer level limits any estimate of the impact of online sales on the broad inflation rate. (2) Most of the deceleration in inflation since 2007 has been in areas unaffected by e-commerce Table II-3 compares the average contribution to annual average CPI inflation during 2000-2007 with that of 2007-2016. Average annual inflation fell from 2.9% in the seven years before the Great Recession to 1.8% after, for a total decline of just over 1 percentage point. The deceleration is almost fully explained by Energy, Food and Owners' Equivalent Rent. The bottom part of Table II-3 highlights that the sectors with the greatest exposure to e-commerce had a negligible impact on the inflation slowdown. Table II-3Comparison Of Pre- and Post-Lehman Inflation Rates September 2017 September 2017 (3) The cost advantages for online sellers are overstated Bain & Company, a U.S. consultancy, argues that e-commerce will not grow in importance indefinitely and come to dominate consumer spending.3 E-commerce sales are already slowing. Market share is following a classic S-shaped curve that, Bain estimates, will top out at under 30% by 2030. First, not everyone wants to buy everything online. Products that are well known to consumers and purchased on a regular basis are well suited to online shopping. But for many other products, consumers need to see and feel the product in person before making a purchase. Second, the cost savings of online selling versus traditional brick and mortar stores is not as great as many believe. Bain claims that many e-commerce businesses struggle to make a profit. The information technology, distribution centers, shipping, and returns processing required by e-commerce companies can cost as much as running physical stores in some cases. E-tailers often cannot ship directly from manufacturers to consumers; they need large and expensive fulfillment centers and a very generous returns policy. Moreover, online and offline sales models are becoming blurred. Retailers with physical stores are growing their e-commerce operations, while previously pure e-commerce plays are adding stores or negotiating space in other retailers' stores. Even Amazon now has storefronts. The shift toward an "multichannel" selling model underscores that there are benefits to traditional brick-and-mortar stores that will ensure that they will not completely disappear. (4) E-commerce is not the first revolution in the retail sector The retail sector has changed significantly over the decades and it is not clear that the disinflationary effect of the latest revolution, e-commerce, is any more intense than in the past. Economists at Goldman Sachs point out that the growth of Amazon's market share in recent years still lags that of Walmart and other "big box" stores in the 1990s (Chart II-3).4 This fact suggests that "Amazonification" may not be as disinflationary as the previous big-box revolution. (5) Weak productivity growth and high profit margins are inconsistent with a large supply-side benefit from e-commerce As discussed above, economic theory suggests that a positive supply shock that cuts costs and boosts competition should trim profit margins and lift productivity. The problem is that the margins and productivity have moved in the opposite direction that economic theory would suggest (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Amazon Vs. Walmart: ##br##Who's More Deflationary? September 2017 September 2017 Chart II-4Incompatible With A Supply Shock Incompatible With A Supply Shock Incompatible With A Supply Shock By definition, productivity rises when firms can produce the same output with fewer or cheaper inputs. However, it is well documented that productivity growth has been in a downtrend since the 1990s, and has been dismally low since the Great Recession. A Special Report from BCA's Global Investment Strategy5 service makes a convincing case that mismeasurement is not behind the low productivity figures. In fact, in many industries it appears that productivity is over-estimated. If e-commerce is big enough to "move the dial" on overall inflation, it should be big enough to see in the aggregate productivity figures. Chart II-5Retail Margin Squeeze ##br##Only In Department Stores Retail Margin Squeeze Only In Department Stores Retail Margin Squeeze Only In Department Stores One would also expect to see a margin squeeze across industries if e-commerce is indeed generating a lot of deflationary competitive pressure. Despite dismally depressed productivity, however, corporate profit margins are at the high end of the historical range across most of the sectors of the S&P 500. This is the case even in the retailing sector outside of department stores (Chart II-5). These facts argue against the idea that the internet has moved the economy further toward a disinflationary "perfect competition" model. (6) Online price setting is characterized by frictions comparable to traditional retail We would expect to observe a low price dispersion across online vendors since the internet has apparently lowered the cost of monitoring competitors' prices and the cost of searching for the lowest price. We would also expect to see fairly synchronized price adjustments; if one vendor adjusts its price due to changing market conditions, then the rest should quickly follow to avoid suffering a massive loss of market share. However, a recent study of price-setting practices in the U.S. and U.K. found that this is not the case.6 The dataset covered a broad spectrum of consumer goods and sellers over a two-year period, comparing online with offline prices. The researchers found that market pricing "frictions" are surprisingly elevated in the online world. Price dispersion is high in absolute terms and on par with offline pricing. Academics for years have puzzled over high price rigidities and dispersion in retail stores in the context of an apparently stiff competitive environment, and it appears that online pricing is not much better. The study did not cover a long enough period to see if frictions were even worse in the past. Nonetheless, the evidence available suggests that the lower cost of monitoring prices afforded by the internet has not led to significant price convergence across sellers online or offline. Another study compared online and offline prices for multichannel retailers, using the massive database provided by the Billion Prices Project at MIT.7 The database covers prices across 10 countries. The study found that retailers charged the same price online as in-store in 72% of cases. The average discount was 4% for those cases in which there was a markdown online. If the observations with identical prices are included, the average online/offline price difference was just 1%. (7) Some measures of online prices have grown at about the same pace as the CPI index The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does include online sales when constructing the Consumer Price Index. It even includes peer-to-peer sales by companies such as Airbnb and Uber. However, the BLS admits that its sample lags the popularity of such services by a few years. Moreover, while the BLS is trying to capture the rising proportion of sales done via e-commerce, "outlet bias" means that the CPI does not capture the price effect in cases where consumers are finding cheaper prices online. This is because the BLS weights the growth rate of online and offline prices, not the price levels. While there may be level differences, there is no reason to believe that the inflation rates for similar goods sold online and offline differ significantly. If the inflation rates are close, then the growing share of online sales will not affect overall inflation based on the BLS methodology. The BLS argues that any bias in the CPI due to outlet bias is mitigated to the extent that physical stores offer a higher level of service. Thus, price differences may not be that great after quality-adjustment. All this suggests that the actual consumer price inflation rate could be somewhat lower than the official rate. Nonetheless, it does not necessarily mean that inflation, properly measured, is being depressed by e-commerce to a meaningful extent. Indeed, Chart II-6 highlights that the U.S. component of the Billion Prices Index rose at a faster pace than the overall CPI between 2009 and 2014. The Online Price Index fell in absolute and relative terms from 2014 to mid-2016, but rose sharply toward the end of 2016. Applying our guesstimate of the weight of e-commerce in the CPI (3.2% for goods), online price inflation added to overall annual CPI inflation by about 0.3 percentage points in 2016 (bottom panel of Chart II-6). There is more deflation evident in the BLS' index of prices for Electronic Shopping and Mail Order Houses (Chart II-7). Online prices fell relative to the overall CPI for most of the time since the early 1990s, with the relative price decline accelerating since the GFC. However, our estimate of the contribution to overall annual CPI inflation is only about -0.15 percentage points in June 2017, and has never been more than -0.3 percentage points. This could be an underestimate because it does not include the impact of services, although the service e-commerce share of the CPI is very small. Chart II-6Online Price Index Online Price Index Online Price Index Chart II-7Electronic Shopping Price Index Electronic Shopping Price Index Electronic Shopping Price Index Another way to approach this question is to focus on the parts of the CPI that are most exposed to e-commerce. It is impossible to separate the effect of e-commerce on inflation from other drivers of productivity. Nonetheless, if online shopping is having a significant deflationary impact on overall inflation, we should see large and persistent negative contributions from these parts of the CPI. We combined the components of the CPI that most closely matched the sectors that have high e-commerce exposure according to the BLS' annual Retail Survey (Chart II-8). The sectors in our aggregate e-commerce price proxy include hotels/motels, taxicabs, books & magazines, clothing, computer hardware, drugs, health & beauty aids, electronics & appliances, alcoholic beverages, furniture & home furnishings, sporting goods, air transportation, travel arrangement and reservation services, educational services and other merchandise. The sectors are weighted based on their respective weights in the CPI. Our e-commerce price proxy has generally fallen relative to the overall CPI index since 2000. However, while the average contribution of these sectors to the overall annual CPI inflation rate has fallen in the post GFC period relative to the 2000-2007 period, the average difference is only 0.2 percentage points. The contribution has hovered around the zero mark for the past 2½ years. Surprisingly, price indexes have increased by more than the overall CPI since 2000 in some sectors where one would have expected to see significant relative price deflation, such as taxis, hotels, travel arrangement and even books. One could argue that significant measurement error must be a factor. How could the price of books have gone up faster than the CPI? Sectors displaying the most relative price declines are clothing, computers, electronics, furniture, sporting goods, air travel and other goods. We recalculated our e-commerce proxy using only these deflating sectors, but we boosted their weights such that the overall weight of the proxy in the CPI is kept the same as our full e-commerce proxy discussed above. In other words, this approach implicitly assumes that the excluded sectors (taxis, books, hotels and travel arrangement) actually deflated at the average pace of the sectors that remain in the index. Our adjusted e-commerce proxy suggests that online pricing reduced overall CPI inflation by about 0.1-to-0.2 percentage points in recent years (Chart II-9). This contribution is below the long-term average of the series, but the drag was even greater several times in the past. Chart II-8BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index Chart II-9BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index Admittedly, data limitations mean that all of the above estimates of the impact of e-commerce are ballpark figures. Conclusions We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence. The available data are admittedly far from ideal for confirming or disproving the "Amazonification" thesis. Perhaps better measures of e-commerce pricing will emerge in the future. Nonetheless, the measures available today do not suggest that online sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points, and it does not appear that the disinflationary impact has intensified by much. One could argue that lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. Nonetheless, if this were the case, then we would expect to see significant margin compression in the retail sector. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High corporate profit margins and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Finally, today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. Rising online activity means that we need fewer shopping malls and big box outlets to support a given level of consumer spending. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. To the extent that central banks were slow to recognize that equilibrium rates had fallen to extremely low levels, then policy was behind the curve and this might have contributed to the current low inflation environment. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Robert F. DeLucia, "Economic Perspective: A Nontraditional Analysis Of Inflation," Prudential Capital Group (August 21, 2017). 2 Business to business, and business to consumer. 3 Aaron Cheris, Darrell Rigby and Suzanne Tager, "The Power Of Omnichannel Stores," Bain & Company Insights: Retail Holiday Newsletter 2016-2017 (December 19, 2016). 4 "US Daily: The Internet And Inflation: How Big Is The Amazon Effect?" Goldman Sachs Economic Research (August 2, 2017). 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Viacheslav Sheremirov, and Oleksandr Talavera, "Price Setting In Online Markets: Does IT Click?" Journal of the European Economic Association (July 2016). 7 Alberto Cavallo, "Are Online And Offline Prices Similar? Evidence From Large Multi-Channel Retailers," NBER Working Paper No. 22142 (March 2016).

Highlights The strong labor market may be holding down wage inflation. The strength in sales and EPS is broad-based and sustainable. July FOMC minutes highlight internal debate at the Fed over inflation. Financial stability is the Fed's Third Mandate. Feature Risk assets struggled again last week but Treasury yields held steady as investors reacted to President Trump's latest controversy, the FOMC minutes, another round of solid economic data for Q3 and the final few earnings reports of the Q2 reporting season. The July FOMC minutes highlighted the internal debate at the Fed about the Phillips curve and financial stability. Nonetheless, we expect the Fed to continue to tighten policy later this year. In this week's report, we examine a study by the San Francisco Fed that highlights the negative impact of a strong labor market on wages. Profit margins continued to expand in Q2 and the BCA EPS model projects a solid 2H performance, driven by both domestic and globally oriented firms. Strong Labor Market, Weak Wages The labor market continues to tighten measures of overall labor market slack suggest that wage inflation should accelerate soon. Still, slack remains in some segments of the labor market and that may be depressing overall wage growth. The overall quit rate (2.1%) is slightly below its all-time peak and 65% of the 11 industry groups have quit rates that are at or close to pre-global financial crisis level (Chart 1). Moreover, fill rates, the ratio of hires to job openings, for most industries are at record lows, and job openings in all but the wholesale trade, information, mining & logging and construction areas have surpassed prior peaks (Chart 2). The implication is that economy-wide, there are more jobs seekers than jobs, which will ultimately force businesses to offer higher salaries. Chart 1Labor Market Strength Is Widespread... Labor Market Strength Is Widespread... Labor Market Strength Is Widespread... Chart 2...With Only A Few Industries Lagging Behind ...With Only A Few Industries Lagging Behind ...With Only A Few Industries Lagging Behind Moreover, wage pressures are mounting, especially for full-time employees. A recent study1 published by the San Francisco Fed found that at 3.4%, the year-over-year change in median weekly earnings was still below the 2007 peak. However, wage gains for continuously employed full-time workers (4.8%) are in line with rates seen a decade ago (Chart 3). Overall wage gains continue to be suppressed by new entrants to the labor force. Growth rates of median weekly earnings for this group are down 1.4%, and have been negative since the overall labor market began to recover in early 2010. The counter-intuitive implication of the SF Fed study is that substantial gains in the labor market may be depressing average wage rates. As individuals learn about better prospects for employment, they choose to join the workforce, either as new entrants (from school) or as reentrants (those who left either voluntarily or involuntarily). These groups, according to the study, have suppressed median weekly earnings growth by between 1.5% and 2.0% (Chart 4). Chart 3Wage Inflation Dragged##BR##Down By New Entrants Wage Inflation Dragged Down By New Entrants Wage Inflation Dragged Down By New Entrants Chart 41.5% To 2% Drag On Wage Inflation##BR##Due To Compositional Shifts In Workforce The Stage Is Set For Jackson Hole The Stage Is Set For Jackson Hole In addition, as 10,000 higher paid baby boomers reach 65 years of age each day and leave the labor force, they are replaced by lower wage earners. Bottom Line: The labor market is even tighter than the data suggests and the market's vigor may be understating wage inflation. Investors are mis-pricing the extent of rate hikes in 2017 and 2018. Bond yields are likely headed higher, but the stock market should take this in stride because of the favorable earnings backdrop. Corporate Profits Are Not Only A Weak Dollar Story EPS and sales growth in Q2 ran well ahead of consensus expectations as forecast in our July 3 preview. Moreover, the counter-trend rally in profit margins is still in place. So far, more than 90% of companies have reported results with 74% of companies beating consensus EPS projections, just above the long-term average of 70% (Chart 5). Furthermore, 69% have posted Q2 revenues that exceeded expectations. The surprise factor for Q2 stands at 6% for EPS and 1% for sales. We anticipate the secular mean-reversion of margins to ultimately re-assert itself, perhaps beginning early in 2018. Nonetheless, we saw another quarter of margin expansion in Q2. Average earnings growth (Q2 2017 versus Q2 2016) was strong at 12% with revenue growth at only 5%. The BCA Earnings model predicts EPS growth to hit roughly 20% later this year on a 4-quarter moving total basis, before moderating in 2018 (Chart 6). Measured this way, S&P 500 EPS growth in Q2 will be 18%, compared with 13% in Q1. Chart 5Positive Earnings Surprises Continued In Q2 Positive Earnings Surprises Continued In Q2 Positive Earnings Surprises Continued In Q2 Chart 6Strong EPS Growth Expected In 2H '17 Strong EPS Growth Expected In 2H '17 Strong EPS Growth Expected In 2H '17 Importantly, the strength in earnings and revenues is broadly based (Table 1). Earnings per share were higher in Q2 2017 versus Q2 2016 in all 11 sectors. Results were particularly strong in energy, technology and financials. Energy revenues surged by 16% in Q2 versus a year ago. Sales gains in technology (8%), materials (7%) and utilities (6%), are notable. Moreover, year-over-year sales gains in Q2 2017 in all but three sectors (telecom, consumer staples and consumer discretionary) ran ahead of nominal GDP (+3.7%) in the same period. Investors will turn their attention to earnings prospects in 2H 2017 and 2018 as the Q2 reporting season ends. Since the start of 2017, the trajectory of EPS estimates for 2017 and 2018 (not shown) has been encouraging. The forecast for 2017 is 11.6%, up from 11% at the outset of the Q2 reporting season and unchanged from the start of the year. Similarly, the 2018 estimate (10.9%) is little changed from estimates made in January 2017. In a typical year, earnings estimates tend to move lower as the year progresses. Like the financial markets, corporate managements have largely ignored President Trump during this earnings season. Trump's name was used only once in Q2 earnings calls held through August 11, down from 9 in Q1 calls and 32 in the Q4 2016 reporting season just after Trump took office (Chart 7). The single mention thus far matches the number of times that CEOs and CFOs cited Trump's name before last November's election. We are inclined to see fading concerns about government policy from the next Beige Book (due in early September) because Trump has managed to slow regulation2 during his first seven months in office, although uncertainty around the president's legislative agenda remains elevated. Table 1S&P 500: Q2 2017 Results* The Stage Is Set For Jackson Hole The Stage Is Set For Jackson Hole Chart 7Trump Fading As Topic On Earnings Calls Trump Fading As Topic On Earnings Calls Trump Fading As Topic On Earnings Calls BCA's case for improving profits in the second half of 2017 is supported by the August readings on the Empire State and Philadelphia Fed manufacturing indices, along with the June and July readings on industrial production (IP). IP has been a good proxy for sales of S&P 500 companies (Chart 8); a rollover in the 12-month change in IP would challenge BCA's constructive view towards earnings. However, strong readings on the ISM (July), the August Empire State and Philadelphia Fed indices suggest that IP should accelerate in the next six months. Moreover, the weaker dollar has boosted foreign demand for U.S. goods and services. The implication is that foreign demand (rather than domestic consumer or business spending) leads the U.S. manufacturing sector. Consistent with this perspective, the 3- and 12-month changes in the IP indices in advanced economies outside the U.S. have outpaced domestic growth (Chart 9). Chart 8Favorable Backdrop For Earnings And Sales Continues Into Q3 Favorable Backdrop For Earnings And Sales Continues Into Q3 Favorable Backdrop For Earnings And Sales Continues Into Q3 Chart 9U.S. IP Growth Still Lagging##BR##Other Developed Markets... U.S. IP Growth Still Lagging Other Developed Markets... U.S. IP Growth Still Lagging Other Developed Markets... Movements in the U.S. dollar also explain the divergent paths of profits, sales and margins of domestically focused corporations versus globally oriented ones. In recent quarters, the weaker dollar has allowed profit and sales gains of globally oriented firms to rebound and outpace those of domestically focused businesses. (Table 2 and Chart 10) Margins for U.S. focused companies have been steady at record heights since 2014, while margins for global businesses dipped along with oil prices in 2014-2016, but are higher than margins of domestic companies. Chart 10Global EPS, Sales Playing Catch Up To Domestic Global EPS, Sales Playing Catch Up To Domestic Global EPS, Sales Playing Catch Up To Domestic Table 2Q2 Earnings Breakdown The Stage Is Set For Jackson Hole The Stage Is Set For Jackson Hole Bottom Line: EPS growth will continue to accelerate through 2017 and into early 2018, aided by a period of margin expansion and decent top-line growth (Chart 6). The solid performance of manufacturing at home and overseas sets the stage for EPS growth in firms with both U.S. and global outlooks. BCA's bullish profit story for 2017 is still intact, supporting an overweight stance towards stocks versus bonds. The Fed will not get in the way of the equity rally unless inflation suddenly surges in the coming months (which we do not expect). FOMC Debate Still Centers On Inflation The minutes from July's FOMC meeting indicates little progress on the debate over low inflation and the appropriate monetary policy response. It will require at least a modest rise in inflation to break the deadlock. Policymakers appear to be pleased with the state of economic growth, which has rebounded from a lackluster first quarter. They agree that the expansion will be strong enough that the labor market will continue to tighten. As highlighted in previous minutes, the key debate still centers on the relationship between labor market tightness and inflation, the timing of the next Fed rate hike, and how policy should adjust to changing financial conditions. A majority of policymakers seem willing to believe that this year's soft inflation readings are driven by temporary 'one-off' factors. The hawks worry that a further undershoot of unemployment below estimates of full employment could suddenly generate a surge of inflation. They also point to the risk that low bond yields are promoting excessive risk-taking in financial markets. Moreover, the recent easing in financial conditions is stimulative and should be counterbalanced by additional Fed tightening. Therefore, the hawks are anxious to resume tightening, despite the current inflation readings. Others are worried that inflation softness could reflect structural factors, such as restraints on pricing power from global developments and from innovations to business models spurred by advances in technology. If true, this would mean that the Phillips curve is very flat, or that the full employment level of unemployment is lower than the Fed estimates (or both). Either way, the doves would like to see the whites-of-the-eyes of inflation before resuming rate hikes. Some argued that the recent easing in financial conditions would add little to growth and thus, does not require tighter Fed policy. There was little movement toward capitulation by either camp evident in the minutes. Discussion of the Fed's balance sheet in the recent minutes reinforced that an announcement would likely occur in September, with tapering beginning shortly thereafter. "A number of participants" commented that financial conditions will be key to determining the pace of rate hikes. If the bond market and risk assets react negatively to balance sheet shrinkage, then it would be appropriate to slow rate increases to offset any economic repercussions. Given that only one rate gain is discounted in the money market curve over the next 12 months, it appears that investors are betting that balance sheet shrinkage will largely eliminate the need for higher short-term interest rates. Fed economists recently updated their quantitative assessments of FOMC minutes.3 The note provides a guide (Table 1 in the Fed paper) to the "quantitative words" used in the minutes (one, a couple, a few, etc.). We intend to comment on the findings of this paper in a future Weekly Report. An Update On The Fed's Third Mandate Financial stability remained a concern for Fed policymakers in July and that is why the hawks want to keep tightening even though inflation has not yet met the FOMC's target. BCA views "financial stability" as a third mandate4 for the central bank, along with low and stable inflation, and full employment. Financial stability was discussed at the July meeting by both Fed staff and voting FOMC members. Fed Chair Janet Yellen has elevated financial stability during her tenure, leading discussions or staff briefings in 20 of the 28 meetings she has presided over. Yellen will deliver a speech on financial stability on August 25 at the Fed's Jackson Hole conference. However, the Fed does not provide a financial stability grade at every meeting. Fed staff described financial conditions as moderate in December 2013, but its next judgment (also moderate) was only in January 2016. Since then, Fed staff has provided an assessment of financial stability in 7 of the 13 subsequent meetings. FOMC participants have debated about financial stability at 4 of the 5 meetings this year, and 8 of the 11 since April 2016. As was the case at the June meeting, Fed staff characterized the "financial vulnerabilities of the U.S. financial system" as moderate on balance in July.5 This assessment has not changed since the Fed began to offer opinions on the health of the financial system at its September 2013 meeting. We conclude that the doves want inflation to rise closer to the 2% target before tightening again. The hawks worry that the relationship could be non-linear, which means that a further undershoot of unemployment below estimates of full employment could suddenly generate a surge in inflation. At a minimum, an undershoot could boost risks to financial stability by promoting excessive risk-taking in markets according to some on the FOMC. Bottom Line: The FOMC minutes did not change our base case outlook: the FOMC will announce in September that it will begin to shrink the Fed's balance sheet. The next rate bump will take place in December. Nonetheless, this forecast hangs on the assumption that core inflation will edge higher in the coming months. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 http://www.frbsf.org/our-district/about/sf-fed-blog/wage-growth-good-news/?utm_source=frbsf-home-sffedblog-title&utm_medium=frbsf&utm_campaign=sffedblog 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Still Waiting For Inflation,"August 14, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-fomc-meeting-minutes-an-update-of-counting-words-20170803.htm 4 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate," July 24, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20170726.htm

Highlights A number forward-looking indicators for EM corporate profits point to a major deceleration in the next several months, and potentially a contraction early next year. The most reliable forward-looking indicators for EM EPS have been EM/China narrow and broad money growth and they herald a bearish outlook for EM EPS. We continue deciphering the differences between China's various money and credit aggregates. Irrespective of which money measure we use, and regardless of their past track record, all of them are currently extremely weak and point to a major and imminent slump in China's growth in the next six to 12 months. We recommend shifting the underweight EM corporate and sovereign credit position versus U.S. high-yield to underweight versus U.S. investment-grade corporate credit. Feature Chart I-1Asian Exports And EM EPS Asian Exports And EM EPS Asian Exports And EM EPS The recovery in EM earnings per share (EPS) has been instrumental to the EM stock rally this year. As such, the equity strategy at the moment hinges on the outlook for corporate profits. In this report, we revisit coincident and leading indicators for EM profits. At the moment, EM corporate profit growth still appears robust, though several forward-looking indicators point to a major deceleration in the next several months, and potentially a contraction early next year. Korean and Taiwanese exports can be used as proxy for global trade. The latest data for July reveal that the sum of Taiwanese exports and Korean total exports excluding vessels has rolled over (Chart I-1). Historically, the U.S. dollar values of both economies' exports have correlated with EM EPS, and Chart I-1 entails that EM EPS growth will roll over very soon. The reason why we exclude vessel exports in the case of Korea is because vessel shipments are one-off occurrences and when they take place, they distort export growth. This was the case in the last several months - vessel (shipbuilding) exports surged by 75% from a year ago, distorting the annual growth rate of total exports. Overall, Korea's and Taiwan's overseas shipments in the past three months have averaged about 10%, which is lower than the mid-teen growth rates recorded earlier this year. In China, export growth is close to 9% in the past three months, and it is also rolling over. On a similar note, Korea's and Taiwanese shipments-to-inventory ratios lead EM EPS cycles, and they are presently sending a downbeat message (Chart I-2). China's import growth has relapsed, as suggested by both Chinese trade data and their counterparties export data to China (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Asia's Shipment-To-Inventory Ratios And EM EPS Asia's Shipment-To-Inventory Ratios And EM EPS Asia's Shipment-To-Inventory Ratios And EM EPS Chart I-3Exports To China And Chinese Imports Exports To China And Chinese Imports Exports To China And Chinese Imports The recovery in Chinese imports has been responsible for a considerable part of the recovery in global trade. Importantly, Chinese import cycles correlate very well with EM EPS growth (Chart I-4). The key pillar of our view remains that Chinese imports will contract going forward, which will depress both advanced and developing countries' shipments to China. Exports to China are much more important for EM than DM economies, and deteriorating sales to China will weigh considerably on EM profits and currencies. The most reliable forward-looking indicators for EM EPS have been EM/China narrow and broad money growth. Chart I-5A and Chart I-5B demonstrate that both EM narrow (M1) growth and China's broad money impulse (the second derivative) - herald a major slump in EM EPS. This is the main reason behind our negative stance on EM share prices and other risk assets. Chart I-4Chinese Imports And EM EPS Chinese Imports And EM EPS Chinese Imports And EM EPS Chart I-5AChina Broad Money Impulse And EM EPS EM Narrow Money And EM EPS EM Narrow Money And EM EPS Chart I-5BEM Narrow Money And EM EPS EM Narrow Money And EM EPS EM Narrow Money And EM EPS Both narrow and broad money growth in China have already relapsed, and it is a matter of time until economic growth and imports downshift enough to produce a major selloff in EM risk assets. We discuss China's monetary aggregates in the section below. Finally, if Chinese imports and commodities prices relapse, any reasonable strength in DM domestic demand will not be sufficient to preclude a meaningful EM slowdown. The basis is that exports to the U.S. and EU only make up 7% of GDP for China, 8% for Korea and 11% for Taiwan. While exports to China account for 10% of Korean GDP and 15% of Taiwanese GDP. The same holds true for most East Asian countries. With the exceptions of India and Turkey, non-Asian EM countries are primarily commodities producers. These two have their own idiosyncratic problems. Most of our analysis is not applicable to smaller central European economies that are leveraged to the EU business cycle. That said, neither Turkey, India, nor central European markets have large enough financial markets to make a difference in the EM benchmarks. The above is the primary reason behind our bearish view on EM growth and profits. That said, there are a few other interesting considerations regarding EM corporate profits dynamics. First, EM share prices lead EM EPS by six to nine months. Therefore, to be bullish on EM stocks, it is not sufficient to expect EM EPS growth to be robust over the next three months. Rather, to be bullish on EM stocks at the current juncture, one should have a bullish view on EM EPS by the end of this year and into the early part of 2018. Consistently, we believe that EM EPS growth will decelerate materially by the end of this year and shrink in the early part of 2018. Second, the top-line shrinkage in 2015 and the consequent recovery for EM exporters has been mostly driven by prices rather than volumes. Chart I-6A illustrate that Korean, Taiwanese and Chinese manufacturing production growth is rather muted. Chart I-6ACorporate Pricing Power Asian Manufacturing Production Asian Manufacturing Production Chart I-6BAsian Manufacturing Production Corporate Pricing Power Corporate Pricing Power Price fluctuations affect profits much more than output volume changes. Therefore, if global tradable goods prices deflate - at the moment they have rolled over (Chart I-6B) - EM EPS will contract materially. Third, in EM excluding China, Korea and Taiwan, there has been little economic recovery, as evidenced by Chart I-7. Along the same lines, the latest (July) manufacturing PMI for EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan has dropped below the crucial 50 line (Chart I-7, bottom panel). This and the majority of other economic aggregates we use are equity market-cap weighted averages, so they are relevant to investors. This corroborates the fact that outside China, Korea and Taiwan there has been little genuine growth improvement in EM domestic demand - despite the decent recovery in global trade. This challenges the prevailing widespread consensus of a synchronized global economic recovery/expansion. This is also consistent with the fact that the overwhelming EM profit recovery has occurred in technology and resource sectors while domestic sectors have not seen much of corporate earnings recovery (Chart I-8). Chart I-7EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##No Strong Recovery EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: No Strong Recovery EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: No Strong Recovery Chart I-8EM Sectors' EPS: Exporters ##br##Have Outperformed Domestic EM Sectors' EPS: Exporters Have Outperformed Domestic EM Sectors' EPS: Exporters Have Outperformed Domestic Finally, bottom-up equity analysts have recently downgraded their EPS estimates for listed EM companies (Chart I-9). Typically, analysts alter their forecasts simultaneously with swings in share prices. Hence, the latest decoupling is puzzling. Chart I-9EM EPS And Analysts' Net Revisions EM EPS And Analysts' Net Revisions EM EPS And Analysts' Net Revisions Notably, EM net EPS revisions have failed to move into positive territory in the past 7 years. This entails that analysts' expectations have been chronically high in recent years, and/or that companies have failed to deliver profits that match these projections. Bottom Line: The EM EPS outlook is downbeat, and listed companies profits will likely contract early next year. Deciphering China's Money Puzzle Based on our assessment of multiple measures, our conclusion with respect to Chinese broad money growth is as follows: Irrespective of which measure we use, and regardless of their individual past track records, all Chinese monetary growth aggregates are currently weak (Chart 10), and point to a major and imminent slump in China's growth in the next six to 12 months. In recent weeks, we have been working to understand differences among various measures of money growth in China. Our motivation is because neither M2 nor total social financing and fiscal spending - variables that we relied on last year - did a good job of forecasting the duration and magnitude of China's economic and profit revival in the past 12 months. In our July 26 report,1 we introduced the concept of broad money calculated using commercial banks' assets. We called it credit-money. This week, we discuss a different broad money calculation based on commercial banks' liabilities, and refer to it as deposit-money. Deposit-money is an aggregate of non-financial companies' time and demand deposits, household deposits, transferable and other deposits, other liabilities, bonds issued and liabilities to non-depository financial corporations. This measure is broader than official broad money (M2) because the latter includes only non-financial companies' time and demand deposits, household deposits and some of liabilities to non-depository financial corporations. In brief, our deposit-money calculation is more comprehensive than the official broad money figures (M2). In turn, banks' credit-money is the sum of commercial banks' claims on companies, households, non-bank financial institutions and all levels of government, as well as banks' foreign assets. Also, we deduct government deposits at the central bank (see July 26 Emerging Markets Strategy report1 for more details). Chart I-10 illustrates the differences between credit-money, deposit-money, total social financing and M2. Based on our calculations, deposit-money grew faster in 2015-'16 than both M2 and total social financing. Yet its current and ongoing slowdown is as bad as that of credit-money or M2. Chart I-10Dichotomy Among Various Money And Credit Aggregates In China Dichotomy Among Various Money And Credit Aggregates In China Dichotomy Among Various Money And Credit Aggregates In China The reason why M2 growth has lagged behind deposit-money growth since the middle of 2015 until now is the fact that the latter's components that are not included in the official M2 measure have outpaced M2 growth by a wide margin since late 2015. The main components of deposit-money are shown in Chart I-11. This is one of the main reasons why we missed the latest China-play rally - we relied on the official measure of money and credit published by the PBoC that has been much tamer than the broader money and credit, as banks have originated credit and hence money in a way that official monetary aggregates have not captured. In addition, banks' credit-money and deposit-money measures should theoretically be identical, but this has not been the case in China in recent years. Deposit-money is larger and it may well be more comprehensive than credit-money (Chart I-12). Chart I-11China: Components Of Deposit-Money Aggregate China: Components Of Deposit-Money Aggregate China: Components Of Deposit-Money Aggregate Chart I-12The Outstanding Stock And Flow Of Money The Outstanding Stock And Flow Of Money The Outstanding Stock And Flow Of Money Understanding these discrepancies is an ongoing work-in-progress for us, and we will be refining these measures going forward. For now, we would say that these differences are probably due to banks' efforts to misrepresent/hide their assets and liabilities to meet the regulatory ratios and avoid penalties, as well as maximize short-term profits. All that said, the gaps between M2 and deposit-money has recently narrowed: both deposit-money and M2 growth and their impulses are at all-time lows (Chart I-13). Furthermore, we expect deposit-money to slow further because of the lagged impact of higher interest rates and regulatory tightening that is intended to curb commercial banks' ability to originate more money via shadow banking activities. Finally, as can be seen from Chart I-14A, Chart I-14B and Chart I-15, deposit-money's impulse - its second derivative - leads many cyclical economic variables such as nominal GDP, producer prices, freight index, and imports. Chart I-13China: Two Measures Of Broad Money China: Two Measures Of Broad Money China: Two Measures Of Broad Money Chart I-14ADeposit-Money Leads Real Business Cycle Deposit-Money Leads Real Business Cycle Deposit-Money Leads Real Business Cycle Chart I-14BDeposit-Money Leads Real Business Cycle Deposit-Money Leads Real Business Cycle Deposit-Money Leads Real Business Cycle There are several other data points from China's real economy that portend developing weakness. Specifically, car sales growth has almost ground to a halt, real estate floor space sold and started are decelerating (Chart I-16). Chart I-15Deposit-Money Leads Metals Prices And Construction Deposit-Money Leads Metals Prices And Construction Deposit-Money Leads Metals Prices And Construction Chart I-16China: More Signs Of Slowdown China: More Signs Of Slowdown China: More Signs Of Slowdown Bottom Line: Regardless of which money measure we use, and regardless of their past track record, all of them are currently weak and point to a major and imminent slump in China's growth in the next six to 12 months. This gives us confidence in reiterating our negative view on China plays (including commodities) and EM. Credit Markets Strategy We have been recommending a strategy of shorting/underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit versus U.S. high-yield (HY) credit and this strategy has shown strong performance, producing 15% gains with low volatility since August 2011 (Chart I-17). However, today we recommend shifting the underweight EM corporate and sovereign credit position from U.S. HY to U.S. investment grade (IG) corporate credit. The primary reason is that credit spreads are extremely tight and odds favor credit spreads widening in both U.S. and EM. Chart I-18 shows that when U.S. TIPS yields rise U.S. IG usually outperforms U.S. HY on an excess return basis. We expect U.S. Treasurys and TIPS yields to grind higher in the near term because U.S. growth and inflation are much stronger than the bond market is currently pricing in. Chart I-17Book Gains On This Strategy Book Gains On This Strategy Book Gains On This Strategy Chart I-18Higher U.S. Bond (TIPS) Yields Warrant Rotation Higher U.S. Bond (TIPS) Yields Warrant Rotation Higher U.S. Bond (TIPS) Yields Warrant Rotation Rising U.S. bond yields also warrants EM credit underperformance versus U.S. IG because the EM credit benchmark is riskier than U.S. IG. While the two segments have similar durations, the duration times spread measure of risk is greater for EM credit. Furthermore, U.S. HY spreads have narrowed versus both EM sovereign and corporate spreads since early 2016 (Chart I-19, top panel). Hence, there is little value favoring the former versus EM credit. In contrast, U.S. IG spreads versus both EM sovereign and corporate credit are appealing historically (Chart I-19, bottom panel). Therefore, there is a valuation aspect to this strategy change. Relative spread differences have historically correlated quite well with the subsequent 12-month return. Given where relative spreads are, the subsequent 12-month return for investing in U.S. IG relative EM credit is positive (Chart I-20, top panel) but it is negative for investing in U.S. HY versus EM credit (Chart I-20, bottom panel). Chart I-19EM Credit Offers Value Relative ##br##To U.S. HY But Not Versus U.S. IG EM Credit Offers Value Relative To U.S. HY But Not Versus U.S. IG EM Credit Offers Value Relative To U.S. HY But Not Versus U.S. IG Chart I-20Projected Returns Of EM Credit ##br##To Both U.S. IG And HY Projected Returns Of EM Credit To Both U.S. IG And HY Projected Returns Of EM Credit To Both U.S. IG And HY As to the rationale of favoring U.S. credit to EM credit, this is consistent with our theme that the growth outlook, corporate leverage, and health of the banking system are in much better shape in the U.S. than in EM. Bottom Line: Book profits on the short EM sovereign and corporate credit / long U.S. HY credit position. Institute a new position: short EM sovereign and corporate credit / long U.S. IG corporate credit. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Follow The Money, Not The Crowd", dated July 26, 2017, link available on page 18. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Strong corporate earnings growth will drown out worries about North Korea. Stay cyclically overweight global equities. Underlying wage growth in the U.S. is stronger than the official data suggest. Surveys point to a further acceleration in U.S. wages, as do pay gains at the lower end of the income distribution. Labor's share of income will resume its cyclical recovery. This will lead to more consumer spending, and ultimately, higher price inflation. Wage growth elsewhere in the world will also pick up as labor slack declines. Global fixed-income investors should underweight duration and increase exposure to inflation-linked securities. Feature Focus On Corporate Earnings, Not Korea Chart 1EPS Estimates Have Remained ##br##Resilient This Year EPS Estimates Have Remained Resilient This Year EPS Estimates Have Remained Resilient This Year Global equities dropped over the past few days on the back of rising risks of conflict in the Korean peninsula. Our geopolitical strategists believe that neither the U.S. nor North Korea will launch a preemptive strike.1 Despite its bluster, North Korea has a history of rational action. It wants a nuclear deterrent and a peace treaty. The U.S. has forsworn regime change as a policy goal. China has recommitted to new sanctions and the South is pro-engagement. This raises the likelihood that a diplomatic solution will be found. Unfortunately, getting from here (open hostilities) to there (negotiated solution) will take time, which leaves the door open to increased market volatility. Nevertheless, we expect any selloff to be short-lived, owing to the positive earnings picture. More than anything else, strong profit growth has underpinned the cyclical bull market in stocks, and we expect this to remain the case over the coming months. More than 80% of S&P 500 companies have reported Q2 results. Based on these preliminary numbers, EPS appears to have increased by 11% over the previous year, marking the fourth consecutive quarter of margin expansion. The strength has been broad based, with all eleven sectors reporting positive growth. U.S. earnings estimates for both 2017 and 2018 have remained steady since January, bucking the historic pattern of downward revisions throughout the course of the year (Chart 1). The picture is even more impressive outside the U.S., where earnings estimates continue to move higher. The Euro STOXX 600 is now expected to deliver EPS growth of 12.6% this year. EPS of stocks listed on the Japanese Topix is expected to rise 14.8% this year and 7.3% next year, giving them an attractive 2018E P/E of 13.6. We recommend overweighting euro area and Japanese stocks over their U.S. counterparts in currency-hedged terms. EM stocks have seen the strongest positive earnings revisions this year. We continue to worry about some of the structural headwinds facing emerging markets (high debt levels, poor governance, etc.). However, the cyclical picture remains more upbeat. Chinese H-shares remain our favorite EM market, trading at just 7.5 times 2017 earnings estimates. The U.S. Labor Market Gets A JOLT, But Where's The Wage Growth? The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) released on Tuesday provided more good news about the state of the U.S. labor market (Chart 2). The number of job openings rose to 6.2 million in June. There are now 28% more unfilled jobs in the U.S. than at the prior peak in April 2007. The number of unemployed workers per job opening fell to 1.1, the lowest level in the history of the series. One might think that with numbers like these, wage growth would be skyrocketing. Yet, it is not. While monthly average hourly wages did surprise to the upside in the June payrolls report, the year-over-year change remained stuck at 2.5%. This week's productivity report showed that compensation per hour increased by only 1% in Q2 relative to the same period in 2016. Other measures of wage growth generally point to some softening this year (Chart 3). Chart 2More Good News For The U.S. Labor Market More Good News For The U.S. Labor Market More Good News For The U.S. Labor Market Chart 3U.S. Wage Growth Remains Soft U.S. Wage Growth Remains Soft U.S. Wage Growth Remains Soft Many commentators regard the lackluster pace of wage inflation - coming at a time when the unemployment rate has fallen below its 2007 lows - as a "mystery" that needs to be solved. As we argue in this report, there is less to this mystery than meets the eye. Properly measured, underlying wage growth in the U.S. has been rising for some time, and may actually be stronger than the "fundamentals" warrant. Wage inflation elsewhere in the world is more subdued. However, this is largely because progress towards restoring full employment has been slower outside the U.S. Is Wage Growth Being Mismeasured? How can U.S. wage growth be characterized as "strong" when it is still so weak by historic standards? Part of the answer has to do with that old bugbear: measurement error. Low-skilled workers have been re-entering the labor force en masse over the past few years, after having deserted it during the Great Recession. This has put downward pressure on average wages, arithmetically leading to slower wage growth. Most of the official wage series, including the Employment Cost Index, do not adjust for this statistical bias.2 In a recent research report, economists at the San Francisco Fed concluded that "correcting for worker composition changes, wages are consistent with a strong labor market that is drawing low-wage workers into full-time employment."3 In addition to cyclical factors, demographic shifts have depressed official measures of wage inflation. Historically, population aging has pushed up average wages because older workers tend to earn more than younger ones. The retirement of millions of well-paid baby boomers over the past few years has reversed this trend, at least temporarily. Chart 4 shows that the median age of employed workers has fallen for the past three years, the first time this has happened since the 1970s. Weak Productivity Growth Dragging Down Wages Unfortunately, there is more to the story than measurement error. Today's young workers are not better skilled or educated than those of previous generations. This, along with other factors that we have discussed extensively in past reports, has dragged down productivity growth.4 Nonfarm productivity has increased at an average annualized pace of less than 1% over the past few years, down from 3% in the early 2000s (Chart 5). Slower productivity growth gives firms less scope to raise wages. In fact, for all the talk about how wages are stagnant, real wages have risen by more than productivity since 2014. This has pushed labor's share of income off its post-recession lows. Chart 4Median Age Of Workers No Longer Rising Median Age Of Workers No Longer Rising Median Age Of Workers No Longer Rising Chart 5Real Wages Have Increased Faster ##br##Than Productivity Over The Past Few Years Real Wages Have Increased Faster Than Productivity Over The Past Few Years Real Wages Have Increased Faster Than Productivity Over The Past Few Years It remains to be seen whether the structural downtrend in the share of income going to labor will be reversed. One can make compelling arguments for both sides of the issue.5 But over a cyclical horizon of one-to-two years, it is highly likely that labor's share will rise. Labor's share of income is fairly procyclical. It increased significantly in the late 1990s and rose again in the years leading up to the Great Recession. Considering how low unemployment is today, it is not unreasonable to assume that it will maintain its cyclical uptrend. If so, this will lead to more consumer spending, and ultimately, higher inflation. Surveys Point To Faster Wage Growth... Surveys such as those conducted by the National Federation of Independent Business, Duke University/CFO Institute, National Association for Business Economics, and various regional Federal Reserve banks suggest that employers are becoming increasingly willing to raise compensation in order to fill vacancies (Chart 6). Workers, in turn, are becoming more choosy. This can be seen in an improving assessment of job availability and a rising quits rate. Both of these measures lead wage growth (Chart 7). Chart 6ASurveys Show Employers More Willing To Raise Compensation Surveys Show Employers More Willing To Raise Compensation Surveys Show Employers More Willing To Raise Compensation Chart 6BSurveys Show Employers More Willing To Raise Compensation Surveys Show Employers More Willing To Raise Compensation Surveys Show Employers More Willing To Raise Compensation Chart 7Workers Are Feeling More Confident Workers Are Feeling More Confident Workers Are Feeling More Confident ...As Do Wage Gains Among Low-Income Workers Median weekly earnings of low-income workers have accelerated this year, even as wage gains among higher-income workers have hit an air pocket (Chart 8). For example, restaurant workers have seen pay hikes of nearly 5% this year, up from 1% in 2014. Wage growth among lower-income workers tends to be less noisy than for higher-income workers. The incomes of better-paid workers are often influenced by bonuses and other variables that may be driven more by industry-specific or economy-wide profit trends rather than labor slack per se. Less-skilled workers are usually the first to get fired and the last to get hired. Thus, wage pressures at the lower end of the skill distribution often coincide with an overheated labor market. This makes the trend in lower-income wages a more reliable gauge of underlying labor market slack. Wage Inflation Will Slowly Pick Up As Global Slack Diminishes We expect U.S. wage growth to rise over the next few quarters by enough to allow the Fed to raise rates in line with the dots. However, a more rapid acceleration - one that forces the Fed to raise rates aggressively - is improbable, at least over the next 12 months. This is mainly because the relationship between domestic labor market slack and wage growth is not as tight as it once was. Trade unions have less clout these days, which means it takes longer for a tight labor market to produce larger negotiated pay hikes. The labor market has also become less fluid, as evidenced by the structural decline in both the rate of job creation and job destruction (Chart 9). Wages tend to adjust more slowly when there is less hiring and firing going on. Chart 8Better Pay For Low-Wage Earners: ##br##A Sign Of A Tighter Labor Market Better Pay For Low-Wage Earners: A Sign Of A Tighter Labor Market Better Pay For Low-Wage Earners: A Sign Of A Tighter Labor Market Chart 9Structural Declines In Job Creation##br## And Destruction Structural Declines In Job Creation And Destruction Structural Declines In Job Creation And Destruction Perhaps most importantly, an increasingly globalized workforce has given firms the ability to move production abroad in response to rising wages at home. This suggests that wage growth in the U.S. is unlikely to increase significantly until falling unemployment begins to push up wages abroad. Wage Growth Around The World For now, wage growth in America's trading partners remains subdued. Euro area wage inflation is stuck between 1% and 1.5%, although with important regional variations (Chart 10). Wage inflation has accelerated to over 2% in Germany, but is still close to zero in Italy and Spain. Considering that unemployment in both countries remains well above pre-recession levels, it will be difficult for the ECB to tighten monetary policy to any great degree over the next few years. Japanese wage growth has picked up since 2010, but is still below the level consistent with the BoJ's 2% inflation target (Chart 11). Wage inflation is likely to ratchet higher over the next few years, now that the ratio of job openings-to-applicants has risen to the highest level since 1974 (Chart 12). In a sign of the times, Yamato Transport, Japan's largest parcel delivery company, recently told Amazon that it would not be able to make same-day deliveries due to a shortage of available drivers. Chart 10Euro Area Wage Growth Remains ##br##Weak Outside Of Germany Euro Area Wage Growth Remains Weak Outside Of Germany Euro Area Wage Growth Remains Weak Outside Of Germany Chart 11Modest Pickup In Japanese Wages Modest Pickup In Japanese Wages Modest Pickup In Japanese Wages Wage growth in Canada has actually declined since 2014. However, that is likely to change given that the unemployment rate has fallen close to nine-year lows. Falling unemployment rates should also boost wage inflation in the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand. Chinese wage growth also remains brisk. Chart 13 shows that urban household future income confidence has picked up notably of late, as growth has improved and the labor market has tightened. Chart 12Job Openings Ratio Will Push Wages Higher Job Openings Ratio Will Push Wages Higher Job Openings Ratio Will Push Wages Higher Chart 13Optimism Over The Labor Market In China Optimism Over The Labor Market In China Optimism Over The Labor Market In China Faster Wage Growth Will Ultimately Lead To Higher Inflation Chart 14The Decline In Inflation Expectations ##br##Have Weighed On Wage Growth The Decline In Inflation Expectations Have Weighed On Wage Growth The Decline In Inflation Expectations Have Weighed On Wage Growth Going forward, the combination of falling labor slack abroad and an overheated labor market at home will cause U.S. wage inflation to increase more rapidly starting in the second half of 2018. This will be a break from the past. Lower longer-term inflation expectations have tempered nominal wage growth over the past eight years (Chart 14). Both market-based inflation expectations and inflation expectations 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan's survey have fallen by about half a point since the financial crisis. The recent decline in headline CPI inflation from 2.7% in February to 1.6% in June may also explain why wage growth has dipped this year even as payroll gains have rebounded. Rising wage growth could begin to feed on itself. As we have discussed before, the Phillips curve tends to steepen once an economy reaches full employment (Chart 15). If the unemployment rate falls from 7% to 6%, this is unlikely to have a huge effect on wages. But if it falls from 4.5% to 3.5%, the effect could be substantial. A recent Fed paper concluded that "evidence strongly suggests a non-linear effect of slack on wage growth and core PCE price inflation that becomes much larger after labor markets tighten beyond a certain point."6 The implication is that once inflation does start rising, it could rise more quickly than investors (or the Fed) expect. Concluding Thoughts The past three U.S. recessions were all caused by the unravelling of financial sector and asset market excesses: The housing bust lay the groundwork for the Great Recession; the collapse of dotcom stocks ushered in the 2001 recession; and the failure of hundreds of banks during the Savings and Loan crisis paved the way for the 1990-91 recession. Unlike the last few recessions, the next one may end up being more akin to those of 1960s, 70s, and 80s. Those earlier recessions were generally triggered by aggressive Fed rate hikes in the face of an overheated economy and rising inflation (Chart 16). Chart 15The Phillips Curve Appears To Be Non-Linear What's The Matter With Wages? What's The Matter With Wages? Chart 16Are We Heading Towards A "Retro-Recession"? Are We Heading Towards A "Retro-Recession"? Are We Heading Towards A "Retro-Recession"? The good news is that neither wage nor price inflation is likely to soar over the next 12 months. This means that the bull market in global equities can continue for a while longer. The bad news is that complacency about inflation risk is liable to cause central bankers to fall increasingly behind the curve. Rising inflation will force the Fed to pick up the pace of rate hikes in the second half of 2018. This is likely to lead to a stronger dollar and higher Treasury yields. The resulting tightening in U.S. financial conditions could trigger a recession in 2019 or 2020. Investors should remain overweight risk assets for now, but prepare to scale back exposure next summer. Peter Berezin, Global Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017. 2 Unlike the widely followed average hourly wage series published every month in the payrolls report, the quarterly Employment Cost Index (ECI) does control for shifts in the weights of different industries in total employment. Thus, an increase in the relative number of low-paid hospitality workers would depress average hourly wages, but would not affect the ECI. Nevertheless, the ECI does not control for the possibility that the composition of the workforce within industries may change over time. The Atlanta Fed's Wage Tracker does overcome this bias because it uses the same sample of workers from one period to the next. However it, too, is subject to a number of methodological problems. 3 Mary C. Daly, Bart Hobijn, and Benjamin Pyle, "What's Up with Wage Growth?" FRBSF Economic Letter 2016-07 (March 7, 2016). 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016; and The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Taking Off The Rose-Colored Glasses: Education and Growth In The 21st Century," February 24, 2011. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?" dated May 31, 2017; and The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Rage Against The Machines: Is Technology Exacerbating Inequality?" dated June, 2014. 6 Jeremy Nalewaik, "Non-Linear Phillips Curves With Inflation Regime-Switching," Federal Reserve Board, Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2016-078 (August 2016). Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

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

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The chemicals bear market is over. Synchronized global growth, receding global capacity and improving domestic operating conditions compel us to lift exposure to neutral. As a result, our materials sector exposure also moves to the neutral column. While chemicals and materials are beneficiaries of an upgrade in global economic expectations, utilities sit at the opposite end of the table, and thus warrant a downgrade to a below benchmark allocation. Recent Changes S&P Chemicals - Upgrade to neutral, lock in profits of 10.2%. S&P Materials - Lift to neutral, take profits of 12.8%. S&P Utilities - Trim to underweight. Table 1 Dissecting Profit Composition Dissecting Profit Composition Feature Equities broke out last week. While still early, earnings season served as a catalyst and outweighed political/reform uncertainty and the budding global tightening interest rate cycle. Barring any unforeseen surprises, profits will remain the focal point in the coming weeks and sustain the equity blow-off phase. Two weeks ago we highlighted three ways to SPX 3,0001, and posited that this was a reasonable peak cycle level before the next recession hits. This week we dissect GICS1 sector profit composition and conclude that low double-digit EPS growth is attainable in 2018. Table 2 shows sector contribution to the S&P 500's profit growth in calendar 2017 and 2018, sector earnings weights for these two years and current market cap weights using Standard & Poor's data. Table 2Earnings Decomposition Dissecting Profit Composition Dissecting Profit Composition Charts 1 & 2 portray the high sector profit contribution concentration, with four sectors comprising 82% of the earnings growth year-over-year in 2017. For calendar 2018 such concentration still exists, but the same four sectors' profit contribution weight falls to 70% (based on bottom up estimates). Chart 1Sector Contribution To 2017 Profit Growth Dissecting Profit Composition Dissecting Profit Composition Chart 2Sector Contribution To 2018 Profit Growth Dissecting Profit Composition Dissecting Profit Composition Charts 3-5 show the sector earnings weight minus their market capitalization weight. Energy is the clear standout, but keep in mind that this resource sector is coming off a very depressed absolute profit level. As of Q1/2017, energy stocks have the widest gap of -574bps among the 11 sectors, with tech, real estate and staples also registering a small negative gap of roughly -100bps. The upshot is that even on modest assumptions, the energy sector's profit weight can renormalize close to its market cap weight (bottom panel, Chart 4). Chart 3Profit Weight... Profit Weight... Profit Weight... Chart 4... VS. Market Cap Weight... ... VS. Market Cap Weight... ... VS. Market Cap Weight... Financials is another standout sector. This early cyclical sector has consistently delivered a positive profit/market cap weight differential with the exception of the GFC. In fact, the 12-year average gap up to end-2007 has been over 700bps with a range of 425-1140bps, despite a rising financials market cap weight (second panel, Chart 3). Financials now sit near the bottom of the pre-crisis profit/market cap gap range. If our bullish thesis on financials (please see the May 1st Weekly Report) pans out, then this sector should command a larger share of the S&P 500's earnings pie with the profit/market cap gap widening closer to the pre-GFC average, assuming a cyclical earnings recovery. In sum, while sector profit contribution composition is highly concentrated in both 2017 and 2018, the earnings recovery is broad based with over three quarters of the 63 S&P 500 sector indexes we cover registering expanding forward EPS growth (Chart 6). Energy and financials profits will likely continue to surprise to the upside, and suggest that low double-digit EPS growth is realistic for the broad market. Our S&P 500 macro based profit model also corroborates this message. Chart 5... Across Sectors .. Across Sectors .. Across Sectors Chart 6Broad Based EPS Recovery Broad Based EPS Recovery Broad Based EPS Recovery One risk to our forecast is an oil price relapse that would put our energy profit assumptions offside. However, our Commodity & Energy strategists continue to expect higher crude oil prices into 2018. This week we continue to tweak our portfolio and add cyclical exposure by upgrading a deep cyclical sector, while simultaneously downgrading a defensive one. Chemicals No Longer Deserve An Underweight In the summer of 2014 we went underweight the S&P chemicals index, anticipating an earnings underperformance phase. We were expecting a deflationary industry impulse on the back of a slipup in global growth at a time when the chemicals manufacturers were furiously adding capacity to benefit from lower domestic feedstocks. This view has largely panned out, and it no longer pays to remain bearish on this highly cyclical industry. In line with our recent tweaks in our U.S. equity portfolio toward a more cyclical bent, we recommend locking in gains of 10.2% and upgrading the S&P chemicals index to a benchmark allocation. Three factors underpin our more neutral bias: synchronized global growth, receding global capacity and improving domestic operating conditions. The global manufacturing PMI has recently reaccelerated and jumped to a six year high. Similarly, the U.S. ISM manufacturing survey also vaulted higher. Synchronized global growth suggests that final demand is on the upswing and should bode well for chemical top- and bottom-line growth (Chart 7). Such synchronized global growth is giving way to a coordinated G10 Central Bank (CB) tightening cycle. Already, the BoC lifted rates recently and likely other CBs will take cover under the Fed's leadership and follow suit. Given that U.S. CPI continues to surprise to the downside, this implies that the U.S. dollar will remain under pressure as the Fed's next hike is penciled in only for December. This is significant for the export relief valve of U.S. chemical producers. As the euro shoots higher, U.S. exports become more competitive in the global chemicals market place and result in market share gains versus their Eurozone competitors (top panel, Chart 8). Currently, it seems as if U.S. chemicals exports are displacing German exports: German chemicals factory orders have plummeted on a short-term rate of change basis opening a wide gap with rebounding U.S. chemical exports (bottom panel, Chart 8). Chart 7Levered To Global Gross Levered To Global Gross Levered To Global Gross Chart 8Global Market Share Gains Global Market Share Gains Global Market Share Gains Global chemicals M&A supports our expectation of demand-driven pricing power gains. The current wave of mega-mergers started at the end of 2015 with the historic tie-up of Dow Chemical and DuPont. It has since grown to include more than half of the S&P chemicals sector by market cap and has a value greater than the previous seven years combined (Chart 9). We think the benefits of consolidation are twofold: First, reduced revenues of the past decade have left the industry with outsized cost structures; consolidation should sweep that away under the guise of synergy, driving margins higher. Second, industry overcapacity has historically impaired profitability due to soaring overhead and more competitive pricing; greater scale should impose greater capital discipline. Finally, domestic operating conditions have taken a turn for the better. Industry shipments have staged a 10 percentage point recovery from the 2015 trough and are now rising at a healthy clip. Chemical production has troughed and the firming U.S. leading economic indicator signals that output is on the verge of expanding. This improving domestic final demand backdrop is reflected in higher resource utilization rates. The upshot is that pricing power gains have staying power (Chart 10). Nevertheless, there are also three headwinds that merit close attention and prevent us from turning outright bullish. U.S. capacity additions are worrisome and, if not held in check, risk sabotaging the nascent pricing power recovery. Moreover, a wholesale and manufacturing inventory channel check suggests that there is a modest supply buildup. If there is any demand mishap it could also prove deflationary for chemical manufacturers. Tack on the recent spike in our chemicals wage bill proxy, and a profit margin squeeze could rapidly materialize (Chart 11). Chart 9M&A Boom Is Pricing Power Positive M&A Boom Is Pricing Power Positive M&A Boom Is Pricing Power Positive Chart 10Firming Domestic Backdrop Firming Domestic Backdrop Firming Domestic Backdrop Chart 11Three Risks To Monitor Three Risks To Monitor Three Risks To Monitor Bottom Line: There is tentative evidence that the bear market in chemicals producers is over. Take profits of 10.2% since inception and upgrade the S&P chemicals index to neutral. This will also move the S&P materials index to a benchmark allocation. Upgrade Materials To Neutral Chemicals stocks comprise over 73% of the S&P materials index, and this bump to a neutral stance also moves the broad materials index to a benchmark allocation, resulting in 12.8% profits for our portfolio since inception. Chinese economic data have been in a broad based recovery mode, and real GDP troughed mid-year 2016. Wholesale manufacturing and raw materials prices are climbing steadily (Chart 12), with core and services CPI also accelerating in marked contrast with the developed markets. This is impressive given the current dual Chinese monetary tightening via the currency and interest rate channels and modest deceleration in the fiscal thrust. China matters to materials producers as it is the largest commodity consumer. Thus, China's fortunes are closely aligned with the overall materials sector. Historically, the Keqiang Index has been positively correlated with materials revenue growth and the current message is positive. Similarly, the firming Chinese pricing backdrop also bodes well for materials EPS prospects (third & fourth panels, Chart 12). While we take Chinese data with a pinch of salt, the recently surging Australian dollar suggests that China is at least not relapsing (middle panel, Chart 13). Beyond China, the emerging markets are also in a cyclical recovery mode. The emerging Asia leading economic indicator (EALEI) has enjoyed a V-shaped recovery in the aftermath of the late-2015/early-2016 global manufacturing recession. Appreciating EM currencies corroborate the EALEI message, and should continue to underpin materials exports (top & bottom panels, Chart 13). Chart 12Recovering China... Recovering China... Recovering China... Chart 13... And EM Are A Boon For Materials ... And EM Are A Boon For Materials ... And EM Are A Boon For Materials Not only are emerging markets reviving, but also advanced economies are in excellent shape. Synchronized global growth and the coordinated brewing tightening cycle should lead to a selloff in most G7 bond markets. At a minimum, this implies that relative materials performance has put in a cyclical trough (top panel, Chart 14). Importantly, materials producers have made significant headway in improving their finances. The sector's interest coverage ratio (EBIT/interest expense) has bounced smartly and net debt/EBITDA has also dropped by a full turn. Bond investors have taken notice and this balance sheet improvement is reflected in the collapse in junk materials bond yields (yield shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 14). Our newly introduced S&P materials relative EPS model captures this positive macro backdrop for the sector and signals that the relative EPS recovery still has breathing room (Chart 15). However, a few risks hold us back from getting overly excited about materials stocks. First, Chinese money supply growth is not responsive. M1 growth is decelerating and M2 growth is plumbing all-time lows. Second, commodity inflation is also showing signs of fatigue. Similarly, U.S. core PCE and CPI inflation are stalling (Chart 16). This is significant because basic materials are synonymous with hard assets and excel in times of inflation, but falter in times if disinflation/deflation (please refer to our early December inflation-related Special Report). Finally, from a domestic operating perspective, our materials wage bill proxy has sharply reaccelerated giving us cause for concern, especially if there is a pricing power letdown. Under such a backdrop, profit margins would suffer a squeeze, and thereby profits would underwhelm (wage bill shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 16). Chart 14Improving Finances Improving Finances Improving Finances Chart 15EPS Recovery Has Breathing Room EPS Recovery Has Breathing Room EPS Recovery Has Breathing Room Chart 16Three Risks Keep Us At Bay Three Risks Keep Us At Bay Three Risks Keep Us At Bay Netting all out, the S&P materials outlook has brightened a notch, but not sufficiently to turn us into bulls. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P materials sector to a benchmark allocation, and lock in profits of 12.8% since inception. Trim Utilities To Underweight Chart 17Blackout Warning Blackout Warning Blackout Warning While chemicals and materials are beneficiaries of an upgrading in global economic expectations, utilities sit at the opposite end of the table (global manufacturing PMI shown inverted, top panel, Chart 17), and therefore warrant a downgrade to a below benchmark allocation. Now that the Fed is ready to start unwinding its balance sheet, the ECB is preparing the waters for QE tapering and a slew of CBs are on the cusp of a new tightening interest rate cycle, there are high odds that still overvalued fixed income proxies will continue to suffer. Synchronized global growth and coordinated tightening in monetary policy spells trouble for bonds. Our sister publication U.S. Bond Strategy expects a bond selloff for the remainder of the year. Given that utilities essentially trade as a proxy for bonds, this macro backdrop leaves them vulnerable to a significant underperformance phase (Treasury yield shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 17). Importantly, the stock-to-bond (S/B) ratio and utilities sector relative performance also has a tight inverse correlation (S/B shown inverted, second panel, Chart 17). The implication is that downside risks remain acute. Without the support of continued declines in bond yields, or of indiscriminate capital flight from all riskier assets, utilities advances depend on improving fundamentals. The news on the domestic operating front is grim. Contracting natural gas prices, the marginal price setter for the industry, suggest that recent utilities pricing power gains are running on empty (Chart 18). Tack on waning productivity, with labor additions handily outpacing electricity production, and the ingredients for a margin squeeze are in place (Chart 18). Importantly, industry utilization rates are probing multi-decade lows and overcapacity is negative for pricing power. Chart 18 confirms that utilities construction is relentless at a time when turbine and generator inventories have been hitting all-time highs. This is a deflationary backdrop, and suggests that sell-side analyst optimism is wrong footed. Put differently, it is unreasonable to expect profits to grow fast enough to support continued overvaluation (Chart 19). Chart 18Pricing Power Blues Pricing Power Blues Pricing Power Blues Chart 19Valuation Crunch Ahead Valuation Crunch Ahead Valuation Crunch Ahead Bottom Line: We are making room for the niche S&P materials upgrade to neutral by downgrading the equally small S&P utilities sector to a below benchmark allocation. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the July 10th, 2017 U.S. Equity Strategy Service Report titled "SPX 3,000?", available at www.bcaresearch.com Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Highlights The GOP's failure to repeal Obamacare could rev up the Republicans' motivation to move forward on tax cuts. Fed policymakers are taking financial stability seriously. Constructive conditions for consumer spending. Margin expansion continues in early Q2 earnings results. Feature Tax Cuts Still On The Table The Republicans' failure to pass their health care legislation is leading the markets to doubt the prospect for tax cuts. This may be premature but, contrary to conventional wisdom, it may actually increase the chances of tax cuts. Ironically, the inability to jettison Obamacare may turn out to be a blessing for President Trump and the Republican Party. According to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2026, 22 million fewer Americans would have health care if the legislation had been enacted compared with the status quo. The Senate bill also would have led to substantial cuts to Medicaid and deep reductions to insurance subsidies for poor and middle-class families, many of whom voted for Trump. The failure to repeal Obamacare could actually increase the motivation of Republicans to move forward on tax cuts anyway. The chances for broad tax reform have certainly diminished, since that will be just as difficult to get passed as healthcare reform. The GOP also wanted to use the roughly $200 billion in savings from healthcare reform to fund reduced tax rates. However, tax cuts are something that all Republicans can easily agree too, and they will need to show a legislative victory ahead of next year's mid-term elections. The difficulty will be how to pay for these cuts. We expect them to be "fully funded" in the sense that there will be offsetting spending cuts, but these will be back-loaded toward the end of the 10-year budget window, whereas the tax cuts will be front-loaded. This would generate a modest amount of fiscal stimulus over the next few years. Implications For The Fed Expansionary fiscal policy next year would generate difficulties for the FOMC. The June CPI report underscored that inflation is not a problem for now. Nonetheless, we highlighted in last week's report that pipeline inflationary pressures are gradually building. The unemployment rate is already below the Fed's estimate of the full employment level. Chart 1Inside The Fed's Forecasts... Inside The Fed's Forecasts... Inside The Fed's Forecasts... Moreover, unemployment will continue to fall unless productivity picks up soon. We backed out the productivity growth rate implied by the Fed's latest Summary of Economic Projections, given its assumption that real GDP growth will be roughly 2% over the next couple of years and that the unemployment rate will stabilize near the current level. This combination implies that productivity growth will accelerate from the average rate observed so far in this expansion (0.7%) to about 1%, which is consistent with monthly payrolls of 135,000. If we instead assume that productivity does not accelerate (and real GDP growth is 2%), then payrolls must jump to 160,000 and the unemployment rate would fall below 4% next year (Chart 1). The implication is that, unless real GDP growth slows, the unemployment rate is soon likely to reach lows not seen since 2000. The FOMC hawks would become even more worried that the Fed is taking too large a risk with inflation and financial stability (see below). Fiscal stimulus in 2018 would place the FOMC even further behind the curve. Policymakers would be forced to tighten aggressively to bump up the unemployment rate. The Fed would hope for a soft landing, but the more likely result is a recession in 2019. That said, it is too early for investors to position for a recession.1 Bonds rallied and the dollar weakened anew following the collapse of the Senate's healthcare bill on the view that hopes for fiscal stimulus are all but dead. We still believe that bond yields and the dollar have more upside potential, even in the absence of fresh fiscal stimulus. Last week's report2 highlighted that a global monetary policy recalibration is under way because central bankers have decided that "emergency" levels of monetary accommodation are no longer required. Moreover, the maximum level of policy divergence has not yet been reached between the Fed and other major central banks, which means that the dollar will have one last leg higher. The U.S. stock market has weathered the fiscal disappointment, seemingly moving out of sync with dollar and bond market action in the past several months. The equity market appears to have been given a "free pass" because earnings have been very supportive. The combination of robust earnings growth, steady real GDP growth near 2%, and low bond yields, all have been bullish for stocks. It will be tougher sledding when profit growth peaks. Fortunately, the earnings backdrop is still constructive at the moment (see below). A Third Mandate? Financial stability has become a third mandate for the Fed, and is one of the reasons the hawks want to keep tightening despite the fact that the FOMC has not yet met the inflation target. The topic has been mentioned by either Fed staff or FOMC members in 27 of the 39 meetings since September 2012. Fed Chair Yellen has elevated financial stability during her tenure, leading discussions or staff briefings in 19 of the 27 meetings she has presided over. The topic merited only passing mention in Fed deliberations prior to 2012. At the June meeting, Fed staff characterized the "financial vulnerabilities of the U.S. financial system" as moderate on balance.3 This assessment has not changed since the Fed began to offer opinions on the health of the financial system at its September 2013 meeting. However, the Fed does not provide a financial stability grade at every meeting. In December 2013, Fed staff described financial conditions as moderate, but its next judgment (also moderate) was only in January 2016. Since then, Fed staff has provided an assessment of financial stability in half of the 12 subsequent meetings. Another indication that Fed policymakers are paying particular attention to financial market risk is that the issue has become a key part of the Monetary Policy Report (MPR).4 Before the onset of the GFC, financial stability warranted only a few paragraphs in the MPR, but since 2013 the report has included a special section on the topic. Chart 2FOMC Closely Monitoring Financial Stability FOMC Closely Monitoring Financial Stability FOMC Closely Monitoring Financial Stability The four primary areas that the Fed monitors to assess financial stability are: Vulnerabilities stemming from maturity and liquidity transformation in the financial sector (Chart 2, panel 1); Valuation pressures across a range of assets, including Treasury securities, equities, corporate bonds and commercial real estate (panel 2); Leverage in the household and business sectors (panel 5); and Regulatory burden (not shown). Some FOMC members are worried that if rates are not normalized soon, then valuation will become even more stretched in bond and equity markets, which could potentially lead to financial stability issues. This is a reason why a few of the central bankers want to hike rates even though inflation is still too low. This group believes it is better to tighten slowly, rather than wait and raises rates sharply in the future when financial valuations may be even more stretched. Nonetheless, others at the Fed are concerned that higher rates may trigger an equity correction, which if significant enough, would spark a slowdown in the U.S. economy via the wealth channel. In this case, greater financial instability would push the Fed to pause its rate hike regime prematurely. We intend to return to this scenario in a future Weekly Report. The monetary authority is also concerned by negative term premiums in the bond market. We expect only minimal impact on Treasury bond yields linked to the reduction in the Fed's balance sheet.5 That said, a big sell-off in bond prices that leads to a sudden correction in equity prices or a widening of credit spreads would tighten financial conditions, impact the real economy and prompt the Fed to rethink its path for the fed funds rate and its balance sheet. Bottom Line: The conditions that foster financial stability matter to the central bank almost as much as maintaining low and stable inflation, and full employment. The doves want to see inflation rise closer to the 2% target before tightening even more. The hawks worry that the relationship could be non-linear, which means that a further undershoot of unemployment below estimates of full employment could suddenly generate a surge in inflation. At a minimum, an undershoot could boost risks to financial stability by promoting excess risk-taking in the financial markets. Conditions Still Favor The Consumer June's reading on retail sales released in mid-July was disappointing, but the conditions that cultivated increased consumer spending are still in place. Core retail sales dipped by 0.1% month-over-month in June, and both the 3-month and 12-month rates of change have been on a downward trajectory since the start of the year (Chart 3, panel 1). Moreover, auto sales have stagnated near all-time highs in recent months, adding to the market's consumer concerns (panel 2). The only positive is that consumer spending looks better in real terms because inflation has moderated (panel 3). Nominal retail sales have softened, but inflation-adjusted spending is what feeds into the construction of GDP. Even so, conditions are in place for a rebound in spending in the coming months. Consumer confidence readings are still near cycle peaks; home values are elevated and rising; household net worth is at an all-time high and expanding rapidly, financial conditions are easy, and accelerating income growth is supported by the tightening labor market. When these economic circumstances prevailed in the past, consumer spending almost always sped up (Chart 4). Chart 3Soft Patch In Retail Sales##BR##And Inflation Continues Soft Patch In Retail Sales And Inflation Continues Soft Patch In Retail Sales And Inflation Continues Chart 4Conditions Conducive For##BR##Consumer Spending Conditions Conducive For Consumer Spending Conditions Conducive For Consumer Spending Bottom Line: The soft patch in consumer spending is lingering longer than expected, which challenges our view that U.S. economic growth will be stronger in the second half of the year relative to the first half average. Nevertheless, we anticipate that GDP growth will permit economic output to hit the Fed's low target for the year and keep the monetary authority on track to tighten policy at a faster pace than is discounted in the bond market. The resulting bond sell-off will not derail the equity bull run as long as profits remain supportive. Q2 Earnings Update: Margin Expansion Continues Chart 5Positive Earnings Surprises Continue Positive Earnings Surprises Continue Positive Earnings Surprises Continue The Q2 earnings reporting season is off to a strong start, with both EPS and sales running well ahead of consensus expectations as forecasted in our July 3 preview. Moreover, the counter trend rally in profit margins is still in place. Just under 20% of companies have reported results so far with 74% of companies beating consensus EPS projections, right at the long-term average of 70% (Chart 5). In addition, 74% have posted Q2 revenues that exceeded expectations. The surprise factor for Q2 stands at 5% for EPS and 1% for sales. We anticipate the secular mean-reversion of margins to re-assert itself in the S&P data, perhaps beginning early in 2018. Nonetheless, the initial results imply that Q2 will see another quarter of margin expansion. Average earnings growth (Q2 2017 versus Q2 2016) is strong at 9% with revenue growth at 5%. The BCA Earnings model predicts EPS growth to hit roughly 18% later this year on a 4-quarter moving total basis, before moderating in 2018 (Chart 6). Measured on this basis, S&P 500 EPS growth so far in Q2 is 18%, compared with 12% in Q1. The strength in earnings and revenue is broad based (Table 1). Earnings per share are up in Q2 2017 versus Q2 2016 in 10 of 11 sectors; the lone exception is the utilities sector. EPS results are particularly strong in energy, technology and financials. Energy revenues surged by 15% in Q2 versus a year ago. Sales gains in technology (7%), materials (6%), utilities (5%), and real estate (5%), are notable. The upward trajectory of EPS estimates for 2017 and 2018 (Chart 7) since the start of 2017 is encouraging. We will provide an update on the Q2 earnings season in the August 7 Weekly Report. Chart 6Strong EPS##BR##Growth Ahead Strong EPS Growth Ahead Strong EPS Growth Ahead Table 1S&P 500:##BR##Q2 2017 Results* The Fed's Third Mandate The Fed's Third Mandate Chart 7Estimates For '17 & '18 Have Moved##BR##Higher Since Start Of The Year Estimates For '17 & '18 Have Moved Higher Since Start Of The Year Estimates For '17 & '18 Have Moved Higher Since Start Of The Year Bottom Line: EPS growth will continue to accelerate through the end of 2017 and into early 2018, aided by a period of margin expansion and decent top-line growth. The elevated level of ISM sets the stage for EPS growth to gather speed in the second half of 2017. Firm readings on ISM are an indication that our bullish profit story for 2017 is still intact. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Waiting For The Turn", dated June 26, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Global Monetary Policy Recalibration", dated July 17, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20170614.htm 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/20170707_mprfullreport.pdf 5 Please see BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers", dated May 23, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com.