Domestic Politics

Feature Shrugging Off The Political Noise All the political noise of August (White House resignations, Charlottesville, North Korean missile launches, the looming U.S. debt ceiling) could do no more than trigger a minor market wobble: at the worst point, global equities were off only 2% from their all-time high. The reason is that global cyclical growth remains strong, earnings are accelerating, and central banks have no immediate need to turn hawkish. In such an environment, risk assets should continue to outperform over the next 12 months. The political risks will not disappear (and will no doubt produce further hair-raising moments), but they are unlikely to have a decisive impact on markets. BCA's geopolitical strategists think eventually there will be a diplomatic solution to the North Korean situation - albeit only after a significant further rise in tension forces the two sides to the negotiating table.1 It is hard to imagine the debt ceiling not being raised, since Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House, and they would be blamed for any disruption caused by a failure to raise it. Recent personnel changes in the White House have left - for now - a more pragmatic "Goldman Sachs clique" in charge. We believe there is still a reasonable likelihood of tax cuts, not least since the Republicans are on track to lose a lot of seats in next year's mid-term elections unless they can boost the administration's popularity (Chart 1). Recent growth data has been decent. U.S. Q2 GDP growth was revised up to 3% QoQ annualized, and the regional Fed NowCasts point to 1.9-3.4% growth in Q3. If anything, growth momentum in the euro area (2.4% in Q2) and Japan (4%) is even better. Corporate earnings growth continues to accelerate too, with S&P 500 EPS growth in the second quarter coming in at 10% YoY, compared to a forecast of just 6% before the results season started. BCA's models suggest that, in all regions, earnings growth is likely to continue to accelerate for a couple more quarters (Chart 2). Chart 1Republicans Need A Popularity Boost Chart 2Earnings Continue To Accelerate The outlook for the dollar remains the key to asset allocation. The market currently assumes that the dollar will weaken further, as U.S. inflation stays low and the Fed, therefore, stays on hold. Futures markets currently price only a 38% probability of a Fed hike in December, and only 25 BP of hikes over the next 12 months. If markets are right, this scenario would be positive for emerging market equities and commodity currencies, and would mean that long-term rates would be likely to stay low, around current levels. But we think that assumption is wrong. Diffusion indexes for core inflation have begun to pick up (Chart 3). The tight labor market should start to push up wages, dollar deprecation is already coming through in the form of rising import prices, and some transitory factors (pre-election drugs price rises, for example) will fall out of the data soon. The Fed is clearly nervous that it has fallen behind the curve, especially since financial conditions have recently eased significantly (Chart 4). A moderate stabilization of inflation by December would be enough to push the Fed to hike again - and to reiterate its plan to raise rates three times next year. Chart 3Inflation To Pick Up? Chart 4Financial Condition: Easy In The U.S., Tight In Europe Meanwhile, long-term interest rates in developed economies look too low given growth prospects (Chart 5). As inflation picks up, the Fed talks more hawkishly, and the dollar begins to appreciate again, rates are likely to move up in the U.S. and in the euro zone. Our view, then, is that the Fed will tighten faster than the market expects, long-term rates will rise and the dollar will appreciate. Equities might wobble initially as they price in the tighter monetary policy but, as long as growth continues to be strong, should outperform bonds on a 12-month basis. Our scenario would be positive for euro zone and Japanese equities, but somewhat negative for EM equities. Equities: We prefer DM equities over EM. Emerging equities have been boosted over the past 12 months by the weaker dollar and Chinese reflation. With the dollar likely to appreciate (for the reasons argued above), and a slowdown in Chinese money supply growth pointing to slower growth in that economy (Chart 6), we think EM equities will struggle over coming quarters. Meanwhile, there is little sign that domestic growth momentum is improving in emerging economies (Chart 7). Within DM, our underlying preference is for euro zone and Japanese equities. Our quants model now points to an underweight for the U.S. We haven't implemented this yet because 1) of our view that the USD will strengthen, and 2) we prefer not to make too frequent changes to recommendations. We will review this in our next Quarterly. Chart 5Rates Lag Behind Global Growth Chart 6Slowing Chinese Money Growth Is A Risk For EM Chart 7EM Domestic Growth Anemic Text below Fixed Income: BCA's model of fair value for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield (the model incorporates the Global Manufacturing PMI and USD bullish sentiment) points to 2.6%, almost 50 BP above the current level (Chart 8). We therefore expect G7 government bonds to produce a negative return over the next 12 months, as inflation expectations rise and monetary policy continues to "normalize". We still find some attraction in spread product, especially in the U.S. (Chart 9). While spreads are quite low compared to history, U.S. high-yield spreads remain 119 BP above historic lows, while euro area ones are only 65 BP above. Chart 8U.S. Rate Fair Value Is Around 2.6% Chart 9Credit Spreads Not At Record Lows Currencies: The euro has likely overshot. Long speculative positions are close to record levels (Chart 10) and the currency has returned to its Purchasing Power Parity level against the USD (Chart 11). An announcement of a "dovish" tapering of asset purchases by ECB President Draghi in September could persuade the market that the ECB will continue to be much more cautious about tightening than the Fed. The yen is also likely to weaken against the US dollar as global rates rise, since the BoJ will not change its yield curve control policy despite the better recent growth numbers, given how far inflation is still from its target. Chart 10There Are A Lot Of Euro Bulls Chart 11Euro Is No Longer Undervalued Commodities: Our forecast that a drawdown in crude inventories will push the WTI price back up is slowing coming about. U.S. crude inventories have fallen by 25.3 million barrels since the start of the year. The after-effects of Hurricane Harvey might affect the data for a while but, as long as global demand holds up, the crude oil price should rise further, with WTI moving over $55 a barrel by year-end. Metals prices have moved largely sideways year to date, and future movements depend mostly on the outlook for Chinese growth, which may begin to slow. In particular, the recent run-up in copper prices (which have risen by 20% since early June) seems unsustainable. The bullish sentiment was mostly due to short-term supply/demand imbalances caused by labor disruptions at some major mines. However, Chinese copper demand, especially for construction, is likely to weaken over coming months.2 Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market," dated 16 August 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Copper's Getting Out Ahead Of Fundamentals, Correction Likely," dated 24 August 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation

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 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 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 Chart I-4Fiscal 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 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 Chart I-7Currency 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 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 Chart I-10Leading Indicators Of Inflation ##br##In "Slow Burn" Recoveries Chart I-11Money 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 Chart I-13Financial 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 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 Chart II-2Amazon Dominates 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) 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) 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 (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? Chart II-4Incompatible 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 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 Chart II-7Electronic 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 Chart II-9BCA 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 Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China

Highlights Yellen sidesteps monetary policy at Jackson Hole. The Fed raised rates in late 1990s before seeing any inflation. Tax cut deal is still likely... ..but a prolonged debt ceiling battle or government shutdown is not. Inflation surprise has not yet followed economic surprise higher. Earnings and earnings guidance matters more than politics. Feature Fed Chair Yellen's speech on financial stability at the Jackson Hole symposium on Friday, August 25 shed little light on the timing of the central bank's next policy move. Some investors were fearing that Yellen would give a nod to the hawks in her speech. Yellen did no such thing. She simply noted "that the core reforms we have put in place have substantially boosted resilience without unduly limiting credit availability or economic growth". Yellen made no comments to suggest that monetary policy needs to tighten in order to reduce financial froth and foster greater stability. Financial stability1 matters to the Fed almost as much as maintaining low and stable inflation, and full employment. In this week's report, we discuss the FOMC's deliberations when the economy was at full employment in the late 1990s, and note that the Fed was willing to raise rates even before inflation accelerated. Gary Cohn, a potential replacement for Yellen, suggested in an interview last week that tax cut legislation is on the way. We agree and discuss below. The economic surprise index is rebounding, but that has not yet led to positive surprises on inflation as it has in the past. We also examine what history says about earnings guidance, U.S. equities and the stock-to-bond ratios during and after earnings reporting season. Fed Deliberations At Full Employment Chart 1The Fed And Inflation At Full Employment Minutes from FOMC meetings in the late 1990s are instructive in understanding the central bank's reaction function due to a lack of inflation as the economy moves beyond full employment (Chart 1). The Fed cut rates following the LTCM financial crisis in late 1998 and subsequently held the fed funds rate at 4¾% until June 1999. Core inflation was roughly flat during the on-hold period, even as the unemployment rate steadily declined and various measures pointed to significant labor market tightness. The FOMC discussion in the late 1990s of why inflation was still quiescent sounds very familiar. Policymakers pointed to the widespread inability of firms to raise prices because of strong competitive pressures in domestic and global markets. In the Fed's view, significant cost-saving efforts and new technologies also contributed to the low inflation environment for both consumer prices and wages. Moreover, rapid increases in imports and a drawdown in the pool of available workers was also seen as satisfying growing demand and avoiding upward pressure on inflation. 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 any 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%, 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. Question marks regarding the structural headwinds to inflation will remain in place, but it will not take much of a rise in core inflation in the coming months for the Fed to deliver the next rate hike (most likely in December). Any fiscal stimulus, were it to occur, would reinforce the FOMC's bias to normalize interest rates. Is All Lost For U.S. Tax Cuts? Although tax reform was a major component of President Trump's legislative agenda, investors are skeptical that any fiscal stimulus or tax cuts will succeed (Chart 2). In our view, there is a high probability that at least a modest package will be passed. The reason is that, if it fails, Republicans will return empty-handed to their home districts to campaign for the November 2018 mid-term elections. Historically, Republican Presidents who have low approval ratings ahead of mid-term elections tend to lose a larger number of seats to Democrats (Chart 3). Chart 2Market Has Priced Out Trump's Economic Agenda Chart 3GOP Is Running Out Of Time Now that the border adjustment tax is officially dead, the GOP must either significantly moderate its tax cuts or add to the deficit. BCA's geopolitical strategists argue that regardless of which bill is passed by the GOP, the legislation will expire after a "budget window" of around 10 years.2 Tax cut plans ultimately will be watered down, but even a modest cut would be positive for the equity market. The dollar should also receive a boost, especially given that the Fed would have to respond to any fiscally driven growth impulse with higher interest rates. We expect Trump to ensure that the Fed retains its dovish bias when Chair Janet Yellen's term expires on February 3, 2018. He may favor a non-economist and a loyal adviser, such as Gary Cohn, over any of the more traditional and hawkish Republican candidates. Cohn could not single-handedly affect the course of monetary policy. The FOMC votes on rate changes, but decisions are formed by consensus (with one or two dissents). Cohn could implement an abrupt change in policy in the unlikely event that 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. The FOMC has been very cautious in tightening policy and we do not see Trump taking an active role in monetary policy. The bottom line is that Cohn's possible appointment to the Fed Chair would not signal a major shift in monetary policy. Raising The Debt Ceiling Recent fights over Obamacare and tax reform have pitted fiscally conservative Republicans against moderates, with the debt ceiling used as a bargaining chip in the battles. 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 government could not withstand the public pressure. Democrats can't be blamed because the Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House. Even the Freedom Caucus, the most fiscally conservative grouping in the House, is divided on the issue. This augurs well for a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling because 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, between October 1 when the current funding for the government will expire, and mid-October when the CBO predicts that the debt ceiling will be reached. Odds of such a scenario are probably around 25%. 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. The good news is that at least the economy is cooperating. Economic Surprise Versus Inflation Surprise Economic expectations are now low enough for the still-tepid activity data to beat, but this trend has not yet spilled over into the inflation data. Elevated economic expectations post-election led to a four-month period (early March-mid June) when the Citi Economic surprise index rolled over3 (Chart 4). In mid-July, the data began to top washed-out expectations and the surprise index accelerated. In the past two months, readings across a wide spectrum of economic indicators (consumer and business sentiment, consumer spending, home prices, manufacturing sentiment, and employment) have outpaced lowered expectations. Even so, inflation readings continue to disappoint relative to forecasts. Chart 4Inflation Surprise Usually Follows Economic Surprise Higher... But Not This Time After briefly moving above zero in early 2017 - indicating that inflation data was stronger than analysts projected- the Citi inflation surprise index rolled over again (Chart 4, bottom panel). Reports on the CPI, PPI, and average hourly earnings continued to fall short of consensus forecasts. This despite the rebound in the economic surprise index and the tightening of labor and product markets. The disappointment on price data relative to consensus forecasts is not new. Although there were brief periods where prices exceeded forecasts in 2010 and 2011, the last time that inflation exceeded market consensus in this business cycle was in late 2009 and early 2010. In the last few years of the 2001-2007 economic expansion through early 2009, the price data eclipsed forecasts more than half of the time. During this interval, economists underestimated the impact of surging energy prices on inflation readings. Moreover, the disconnect between economic surprise and inflation surprise has never been wider, but the inflation surprise index should follow the economic surprise index upward. In the past 13 years, there have been 15 periods when economic surprise has climbed after a trough. The inflation surprise index has temporarily increased in 13 of those episodes. For example, in the aftermath of the oil price peak in the U.S. in mid-2014, both economic surprise and inflation surprise diminished through early 2015 and then began moving up. However, today's inflation surprise index has rolled over while economic surprise has gained, but remember that inflation is a lagging indicator.4 Asset class performance since the economic surprise index formed a bottom in mid-June has run counter to history as risk assets have underperformed (Table 1). Returns on the S&P 500 have lagged Treasuries since the June 14 trough, driving down the stocks-to-bond ratio. U.S. large cap equities have outperformed Treasuries by an average of 290 basis points in the 11 prior episodes in this expansion as economic surprise climbed. Similarly, both high yield and investment-grade corporate bond returns have lagged Treasuries since mid-June. During previous episodes when the surprise index was climbing, credit outperformed Treasuries. Small caps have also lagged large caps, which is counter to the historical pattern, although oil and gold have both gained since the trough in economic surprise. The evidence is mixed for these two commodities after a bottom in economic surprise. Table 1Performance Of Risk Assets As Economic Surprise Rises BCA's view5 is that a Fed-led recession will begin in 2019. Nonetheless, markets were concerned about a recession occurring this year as the economic data underwhelmed in the first part of the year. Despite market fears, reliable leading indicators of a recession such as the LEI, the yield curve and the 26-week change in claims, are not signaling a recession (Chart 5). BCA does not expect the buildup of the types of imbalances that led to economic downturns in the past. Instead, a recession may be triggered by a Fed policy mistake, or a terrorist attack that disrupts economic activity over large area for an extended time, or a widespread natural disaster. Chart 5Data Suggest Low Odds Of A##BR##Recession In Next 12 Months Bottom Line: There are few imbalances in the economy and a recession in the U.S. is more than a year away. Although risk assets have not outperformed as is typical after a trough in economic surprise, we anticipate that stocks will beat bonds in the next 12-18 months. Inflation will surprise to the upside in the coming months, pressuring the Fed and the bond market. Stay short duration. Is Trump To Blame For The Stalled Stock Market Rally? Corporate earnings, not politics, drive equity prices. The S&P 500 has retreated from its all-time highs in early August despite another terrific earnings reporting season.6 Investors are concerned that Trump's erratic presidency may be to blame, but we take a different view Since the start of the economic expansion, the S&P 500 rose in 83% of the periods when large U.S. corporations provide results for the prior quarter and guidance on subsequent periods. (Table 2, bottom panel) U.S. equities increased only 66% of the time when managements were silent on profitability and future prospects (Table 3, bottom panel). However, there are periods when exogenous events like the 2011 U.S. debt downgrade and the 2015 Chinese devaluation that can disrupt the normal pattern, and we have excluded those from our calculations. Nevertheless, with the Q2 earnings reporting season over, the odds are less favorable for a rising U.S. equity market in the next few months. Table 2S&P 500, Stock-Bond-Ratio And Guidance During Earnings Season Table 3S&P 500, Stock-Bond-Ratio And Guidance Outside Of Earnings Season The stock-to-bond ratio also fares better during earnings season than during corporate quiet periods, and moves higher more often. When companies report profits, the stock-to-bond ratio increases 73% (Table 2, bottom panel) of the time versus just 65% outside of earnings season (Table 3, bottom panel). Since the start of 2010, the median return for the stock-to-bonds ratio is 0.046% per day during reporting season (Table 2, top panel) and 0.037% when it is not earnings season (Table 3, top panel). The implication is that the stock-to-bond ratio over the next two months may move higher, and at a faster rate than it did during the just completed Q2 earnings reporting season. Counter-intuitively, earnings guidance increases more often outside of earnings season (90% of the time and 0.04% per day, Table 3) than during it (77% of the time and 0.019% per day, Table 2). The top panels of Tables 3 and 2 respectively also show that the median daily return on stocks is higher outside of earnings reporting season (0.074% per day) than it is as earnings are being reported (0.054% per day). This is also somewhat counter-intuitive, as over the long term, earnings trends drive stock prices. We intend to examine the shorter term relationship between stock prices, the stocks to bond ratio and earnings guidance in a future Weekly Report. Bottom Line: The path of corporate earnings and not politics, ultimately drive stock prices. In the past eight years, the stocks to bond ratio during earnings season rises more and more often than when there was no new information on earnings. We remain upbeat on the earnings outlook for at least the remainder of this year, which will help the equity market weather the ongoing turbulence emanating from Washington. Next year, the earnings backdrop will not be as supportive. 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 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate", dated July 24, 2017. It is available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Trump Put Over" dated August 23, 2017. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Monetary Policy Recalibration", published July 17, 2017. It is available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "From Slow Burn Recovery To Retro-Recession?," August 18, 2017. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession" published June 16, 2017. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Stage Is Set For Jackson Hole", August 21, 2017. It is available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Feature Dear client, This week we are publishing a brief Special Report highlighting ten charts that have captured our attention, charts we would like to emphasize before the summer lull ends. We will not be sending a report next week, but we will be resuming our regular publishing schedule on September 8, 2017. Warm regards, Mathieu Savary With both the Manufacturing Council and the Strategy and Policy Forum disbanded, markets have lost faith in the capacity of the Trump administration to pass on any meaningful tax reforms or tax cuts. However, as Chart 1 shows, the imperative for Republicans in Congress to do so before the 2018 mid-term election is in fact growing by the minute: The unpopularity of Donald Trump is becoming a major handicap for the GOP in Congress and the post-Charlottesville debacle is only making matters worse. Legislative action needs to materialize to compensate for this hurdle. The tax cuts or reforms ultimately passed are not likely to be what the administration envisage and are likely to be emanating from Congress itself and not the White House. This situation should also give Republicans an incentive to avoid an unpopular government shutdown around the debt ceiling negotiations, but we expect uncertainty around this question to remain elevated as rhetoric flairs up, which could potentially put our long USD/JPY position at risk. Chart 1If Tax Cuts Don't Pass, Republicans Are Heading For A Huge Defeat In 2018 While automation has received a lot of press, one of the key factors that keeps weighing on inflation on a structural basis is the continuation of a 30-year process: The entry of China and other key emerging markets into the global economy, which has massively expanded global aggregate supply relative to aggregate demand. Through the 1980s and 1990s, this expansion in supply mostly reflected the addition of billions of potential workers to the global labor force. However, as Chart 2 illustrates, since the turn of the millennium, the supply-side expansion has mostly taken the form of a massive increase in the EM and Chinese capital stock, which has lifted the global capital stock. As a result, this has created excess capacity for the world as a whole, which is keeping a lid on prices. As long as China keeps a very high savings rate, global demand is likely to remain inadequate relative to global supply, structurally limiting the upside to global inflation. Chart 2Global Excess Capacity While the structural anchor on inflation remains, this does not mean that cycles in prices are dead. In fact, from a cyclical perspective, U.S. core inflation is likely to bottom and slowly inch higher in the second half of 2017. Inflation remains a lagging indicator of the business cycle. Supported by very easy financial conditions, growth has regained some vigor while the U.S. is now at full employment. Additionally, as Chart 3 illustrates, the U.S. velocity of money has once again picked up, a reliable leading indicator of core inflation over the past 20 years. This supports our thesis that this year's downleg in the dollar is long in the tooth: A stabilization and uptick in inflation could force markets to push up the number of interest rates hikes anticipated from the Federal Reserve. Chart 3Cyclical Inflation Dynamics In 2015, the Chinese economy was losing speed at an accelerating pace. Beijing began to panic and pulled out all the stops to put a floor under growth: Fiscal spending increased at an incredible 25% annual pace by the end of 2015 and credit growth was encouraged. While the fiscal stimulus is long past, the Chinese credit impulse has continued to support economic activity, investment, construction, and imports. However, the People's Bank of China has begun engineering a tightening in monetary conditions and is slowly but surely putting the brakes on the expansion of off-balance sheet instruments in the Chinese financial system. As a result, the amount of financing raised by smaller Chinese financial institutions is decelerating. Historically, without this source of liquidity, total debt growth has tended to slow, adversely impacting the credit impulse (Chart 4). This is likely to weigh on investment and construction, thus negatively affecting the dollar-bloc currencies. Chart 4Key Risk To Chinese Credit Growth The euro has rallied violently this year. Some of this strength has been a reflection of the euro's nature as the anti-dollar. As investors began doubting the capacity of the Fed to stick to its plan of hiking interest rates to 2.9% by the end of 2019, and as political paralysis took over the U.S., the greenback suffered, lifting the euro in the process. In sharp contrast, the European economy and inflation picked up and political risk in continental Europe receded, adding fuel to the fire. Today, buying the euro has become the epitome of the "consensus trade," with investors massively long the common currency. However, while a pickup in U.S. inflation will be required to expect a full reversal of this trade, a correction in the euro is a growing risk: The EUR/USD's fractal dimension - a measure of groupthink - has hit 1.25, a level that in the past has warned of a potential countertrend move (Chart 5). Chart 5Correction In The Euro Betting on the yen remains the FX analogue to betting on bonds. JGB yields display a low beta to global government bond yields; thus, when global rates go up, interest rate differentials move against the yen. The opposite is true when global yields fall. The downside to the yen when global rates rise has now been supercharged by the yield cap implemented by the Bank of Japan, as JGB yields are now prohibited from rising when global bond yields rise. BCA's view is that U.S. bond yields should rise over the next 12 months, which will should prompt a period of pronounced weakness in the JPY. But what if a rise in bond yields causes an EM selloff - wouldn't this help the yen? As Chart 6 illustrates, the correlation between USD/JPY and bond yields is, in fact, stronger than that with stocks. In other words, the pain in EM has to become acute enough to cause bond yields to fall before the yen can rally. This means there is a window of opportunity to short the yen when bond yields rise even if EM assets depreciate. Chart 6The Yen Is A Play On Bonds Dollar-bloc currencies (CAD, AUD and NZD) tend to be prime beneficiaries of expanding global liquidity. This is because in an environment where global liquidity expands, the U.S. dollar weakens and commodity prices strengthen. Moreover, when global liquidity is plentiful, risk-taking and carry trades are emboldened, creating inflows of funds and liquidity into EM nations, which in turn, boosts their economic prospects. This also pushes up the expected returns of assets in the dollar-bloc countries, and thus incentivizes global investors to purchase the AUD, the CAD, and the NZD. This means that historically, the performance of dollar-bloc currencies has been tightly linked to the expansions in global central bank reserves - a good measure of global liquidity growth. This time around, dollar-bloc currencies have massively outperformed the growth in global reserves, leaving them vulnerable to any slowdown in global liquidity (Chart 7). Chart 7Dollar-Bloc Currencies Have Overshot Global Liquidity While commodity currencies are all likely to face headwinds over the course of the next 12 months, all dollar-bloc currencies are not created equal. The AUD looks much more vulnerable than the CAD. First, the AUD is trading at a 10.7% premium vis-à-vis its long-term fair value, while the CAD is only slightly expensive. Second, Canadian terms of trade are governed by dynamics in energy prices, its main commodity export, while Australian export prices are a function of base metal prices. BCA's Commodity And Energy Strategy service is currently more positive on energy prices than it is on industrial metals. The energy market is undergoing an important curtailment of supply that will lead to further drawdowns in oil inventories. Meanwhile, the supplies of metal are not as well controlled as those of energy, and China's desire to slow real estate speculation should weigh on construction activity in the Middle Kingdom. Finally, as Chart 8 illustrates, AUD/CAD rarely diverges from AUD/USD, but right now, AUD/CAD is trading at a large premium to AUD/USD. This means shorting AUD/CAD could be a nice way to benefit from a weakening in dollar-bloc currencies while limiting the direct exposure to aggregate commodity-price dynamics. Chart 8AUD/CAD Is A Short The Swedish economy has been strong and the output gap now stands at 1.26% of GDP. Yet, despite this positive backdrop, the Riksbank is keeping in place one of the easiest monetary policies in the world, with nominal policy rates standing at -0.5% and real rates at a stunning -2.6%. It is no wonder that the SEK trades at a 6.4% discount to its PPP fair value against the euro. Now, two developments warrant selling EUR/SEK. First, Stefan Ingves, the extremely dovish president of the Swedish central, is leaving the institution at the end of this year. While his replacement has yet to be announced, it will be difficult to find someone more dovish than him to take the helm of the oldest central bank in the world. Second, not only has Sweden inflation picked up violently, the Riksbank's resource utilization indicator continues to shoot up, pointing to a further acceleration in inflation (Chart 9). As a result, we expect the Swedish central bank to be the next one to join the Fed and the Bank of Canada in tightening policy, which will give additional support for the Swedish krona, especially against the euro. Chart 9The Riksbank Will Hike Soon EUR/NOK has rarely traded above current levels over the course of the last decade. It has only done so when Brent prices have fallen below US$40/bbl (Chart 10). BCA's base case is that oil is more likely to finish the year between US$50 and US$60 than it is to trade below US$40. With EUR/NOK trading 13% over its PPP fair value, and with Norway still sporting a current account surplus of 6% of GDP, even if the Norwegian economy continues to exhibit rather low inflation readings, there is a greater likelihood that EUR/NOK depreciates from current levels than appreciates. We thus recommend investors short this cross over the remainder of 2017. Chart 10If Brent Doesn't Fall Below , EUR/NOK Is A Short Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Social unrest and populism are on a secular rise in the U.S.; However, the "Breitbart clique" has suffered a critical defeat in the current Administration; This will make headway for upcoming tax legislation and resolution of the debt ceiling imbroglio; We continue to stress that domestic politics will not hurt U.S. equities, but more downside to USD may exist this year; India-China military tensions are not strategic or market relevant, yet. Feature "Most Americans do not find themselves actually alienated from their fellow Americans or truly fearful if the other party wins power. Unlike in Bosnia, Northern Ireland or Rwanda, competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over." - Newt Gingrich, January 2, 2001 This is the second time we have begun a report with this classic Gingrich quote from 2001, which now seems to come from a different era. On November 9, 2016 we used it to open our election post-mortem in which we argued that American party identifications were ossifying into tribal markers that could cause run-of-the-mill polarization to mutate into something scarier.1 Chart 1 shows that party identification (Republicans vs. Democrats) is now responsible for the greatest difference in attitudes towards 48 values, something historically determined by race and education. Over the long term, these trends are concerning and may spur further social unrest in the U.S. As we wrote in June, the gulf between America's patricians and plebeians has never been as wide as it is now. It is being complemented by a gulf in ideology and worldview.2 Part of the problem is that migration from the traditionally liberal-leaning coastal America as well as the Great Lakes region have significantly altered the demographic makeup of the American South (Chart 2). The combination of pro-business regulation, low taxes, sunshine, affordable real estate, southern charm, and excellent higher-education institutions has been difficult to resist.3 Thus, an influx of young and educated migrants has altered the political makeup of many traditionally conservative states. There are many cities - much like Charlottesville, Virginia - where these recent migrants will come into conflict with the values and traditions of the south. Chart 1Rise Of A Tribal America Chart 2Internal Migration Is A Risk... Given America's history of internal population movements, these patterns of migration should not be a problem. However, today's polarization is extreme (Chart 3), and it is deepening thanks to radically different information and media streams made available by cable television and especially the Internet (Chart 4). Chart 3... In A Polarized Context... Chart 4... Where 'Fake News' Proliferates What does all of this mean for investors? America is geopolitically very well endowed. It has benign neighbors, strong demographics, and almost all the natural resources it needs. However, hegemons are not born out of plenty, but rather out of need and want. The U.K. built a global empire largely because its rain-drenched island lacked basic materials for superpower status. Spain and Portugal discovered new worlds because stronger empires barred lucrative trading routes. Geography does not preordain hegemony. Strong domestic institutions, luck, and guts and glory do. The USD remains weak despite the fact that the Fed was the first major central bank to start hiking this cycle and despite strong economic data out of the U.S. relative to the rest of the world (Chart 5). Perhaps investors have caught the whiff of something rotten in the American Empire? If so, we may be seeing the beginning of a major USD bear market. Chart 5USD Should Be Outperforming In The Current Global Macro Context BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy sees the current DXY weakness as temporary. We agree, given that the current trajectory of BCA's ECB months-to-hike measure is discounting way too much hawkishness (Chart 6). The dollar index will likely rally in 2018 as inflation data improves and risks in Europe (Italian election) and Asia (Chinese structural reforms) deepen. Chart 6The ECB Hawkishness Is Overstated The scope and pace of the 2018 USD rally, however, will depend on whether investors have confidence in America's economy and institutions. If the Republican tax reform agenda stalls later this year, and if social unrest continues, sovereign and long-term investors may begin to think about diversifying away from the dollar. The "Trump Put" Continues We do not expect domestic politics to play a role in an equity correction. At least not yet. First, investors seem to be completely discounting any possibility of tax reform judging by the performance of the high tax-rate basket (Chart 7). This is likely a mistake. Tax reform is a major component of both 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. Second, the market fell 1.58% after President Trump's combative press conference on August 15. The move was not a reprimand for Trump's rhetoric, but concern that Gary Cohn, the scion of the "Goldman clique" and likely the next Fed Chair, would resign over the comments.4 These concerns have now been allayed by the firing of Stephen Bannon, the White House Chief Strategist and leader of the "Breitbart clique." Bannon's departure puts Cohn, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross firmly in charge of economic policy. Meanwhile, three generals are now in charge of foreign and national policy: Defense Secretary James Mattis, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and Chief of Staff John F. Kelly. Between the six of them, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, there is not a drop of populism left in the White House. Chart 7What Tax Reform? Although nationalists and populists may be on the retreat, it is still not clear what form tax legislation will take. The only thing that has certainly changed since earlier this year is that the border adjustment tax is officially dead, which would have raised ~$1 trillion in revenue over ten years.5 This requires the GOP either to moderate its tax cuts by the same amount, or to add more to the deficit, which, according to legislative rules, would make the cuts temporary. It is likely at this point that whatever bill the GOP passes, it will expire after a "budget window" of around ten years. The divergence between the White House and Congress remains the same: the White House wants gigantic tax cuts, while Congress wants tax reform, i.e. to broaden the tax base and reduce inefficiencies and distortions. The White House would blow out the budget deficit by more than would the House GOP. There are two key questions that investors want to know from the upcoming tax legislation. First, how significant will the fiscal thrust be? This will determine the impact to the economy and hence will affect the Federal Reserve's response. The GOP Plan: Both the White House and the House GOP claim that they will reduce the budget deficit over the next ten years despite cutting taxes. They project an average budget deficit of 1.3%-1.4% from 2018-2027, down from a 3%-4% baseline. This projection is rationalized via expectations of faster economic growth as well as "dynamic scoring" to capture the macroeconomic feedback of the tax cuts. The White House and GOP claim that economic feedback will reduce the deficit by $1.5-$2 trillion over the ten-year budget window, which is 26%-37% of the total deficit reduction they are proposing (i.e., likely very optimistic).6 The Tax Policy Center Response: Outside analysis of the budget plan argues the opposite. The Tax Policy Center argues that the White House plan, insofar as the details are known, would add a minimum of $3.4 trillion to the deficit over the next ten years, and that the macroeconomic feedback could even be negative (i.e., add to the deficits). The deficit would rise from 3.2% of GDP to 6.4% by 2026, if we factor in the Congressional Budget Office assumptions that a 4% real growth rate leads to a GDP of $26.9 trillion in 2026.7 The GOP Retort: Republicans claim they will reduce the deficit by means of proposed "revenue offsets," or savings measures, over the ten-year period. The Tax Policy Center highlights the following in particular: $1.6 trillion from repealing personal exemptions; $1.5 trillion from abolishing all itemized deductions (other than the politically sensitive mortgage interest deduction and charity deduction); $622 billion from treating some income from pass-through businesses as dividends; $272 billion from repealing corporate tax breaks; $208 billion from repealing the "head of household" status for tax filers; $49 billion from taxing capital gains upon death (above the $5 million threshold). The total is $4.3 trillion in savings, against $7.8 trillion of losses, for a total deficit that is increased by $3.4 trillion over the ten years. This would amount to around $340 billion of "stimulus" each year, with the biggest thrust felt in 2018-19. We very much doubt that the White House will achieve this slate of proposals. It has not shown an inkling of the ability to coordinate such a difficult legislative feat. Therefore, we expect the tax legislation to be watered down. The budget deficit may rise to something closer to 6%, over the next ten years, than to the gigantic 12% of GDP implied by Trump's proposals on the campaign trail (Chart 8). Chart 8Question Of The Year: Will Tax Reform Be Stimulative? The second question asked by investors is about the impact of tax legislation on assets. It is clearly positive for inflation and growth given that even tepid tax cuts will provide economic stimulus when unemployment is already very low. Our colleagues at BCA already believe, without a tax bill, that inflation is likely to surprise to the upside in 2018-19.8 Fiscal stimulus via tax cuts would obviously add to that. The equity market will cheer any promising developments on tax cuts or reform, especially given that so little is currently priced in. However, whether the USD rallies as it did on hopes of tax legislation earlier this year will largely depend on how the Fed reacts to the legislation. There is a lot of uncertainty, particularly if President Trump decides to go with Gary Cohn as the next Fed chair. Bottom Line: Congressional Republicans cannot gamble with tax legislation. The failure to cut taxes, or reform the tax code, would be a major policy misstep ahead of the midterm elections. If legislation passes, we expect that Congress will have had greater control over the plan than the White House, reducing the eventual magnitude of the tax cut and the fiscal stimulus. Congress controls the purse strings and will reassert that authority in the context of an ineffective executive. Should You Care About The Debt Ceiling? Clients are beginning to fret about the upcoming debt ceiling fight. There is good reason to be nervous. The Republican-held Congress has failed to pass legislation, notably on this year's priority item, Obamacare. The last thing Republicans want is to shut down the government or cause a technical default entirely of their own doing! Clients should note that while government shutdowns have occurred in the past, the debt ceiling has never been breached. This is because the debt ceiling is an anachronism. In other countries, when a budget is passed it automatically contains the implicit authority to issue whatever debt is required to finance the resulting deficit.9 To require separate legislation for a budget and an authorized level of debt is a product of politics and has little bearing on the actual financing needs of the U.S. government. At the end of the day, the debt ceiling will almost inevitably be raised in the U.S. because no government could stand the popular pressure that would result from social security checks not being mailed out to seniors (who vote!) or a halt to other entitlement programs. Only a disastrous chain of events resulting from polarization and brinkmanship, even worse than in the Obama years, would lead to such an outcome. Today, given that Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House, there is no way for the Republicans to share the blame with the Democrats, as they did under Obama. Investors are therefore mistaking the game-theoretical paradigm: It is not a "game of chicken," but rather a cooperative game given that Republicans in Congress are largely on the same side. Members of the GOP are starting to "get it," including the fiscally conservative House Freedom Caucus. David Schweikert, influential member of the Freedom Caucus who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, said last week that he is in favor of a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling. Mark Meadows, North Carolina representative who chairs the group, has also said that he is "bullish" on raising the debt limit, although he added that he preferred to attach some reforms to the bill. On August 2, he said "Either that will get done [some spending cuts attached to the debt ceiling bill] or a clean debt ceiling will get done. We will raise the debt ceiling and there shouldn't be any fear of that." Other members of the Caucus, including its founder Jim Jordan of Ohio, have retorted that no debt limit hike without spending cuts should be contemplated, prompting the media to focus on the brinkmanship. But we note that the Freedom Caucus, the most fiscally conservative grouping in the House, is itself considerably divided on the issue. This augurs well for a clean bill since the Republican majority in the House is 22 and the Freedom Caucus has 31 members. If Schweikert and Meadows are indicative of how the group will vote, the fiscal conservatives may not have enough votes to deprive the GOP of a majority. (The latter would force GOP moderates to go to the Democrats for votes, complicating the negotiations and increasing the risk of mistakes.) What about the Democrats in the Senate? To pass a clean bill on the debt ceiling, Republicans would need at least eight Democrat Senators to get to 60 votes, and probably more given that Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) would likely vote against a clean bill. We doubt that Democrats would remain united in voting against a clean bill. It would allow President Trump and Republicans in Congress to accuse them of hypocrisy and holding U.S. credit hostage, much as Democrats did to Republicans between 2011-2016. As such, the market's fear that Democrats could play the spoiler is a red herring. While some grassroots activists in the Democratic Party are sure to want a confrontation, its median voters tend to be educated and well-informed. The worst-case scenario for the market would be a two-week shutdown, between October 1, when the current funding for the government expires, and sometime in mid-October when the debt ceiling is hit, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Odds of such a scenario are probably around 25%. But the contingent probability of a debt ceiling failure following a government shutdown would be reduced, not increased, given that it would focus public attention on Republican incompetence. In other words, if a shutdown occurs on October 1, we would expect the odds of a debt ceiling crisis to be reduced. Finally, our assessment that the "Goldman Sachs clique" has reasserted control over White House economic policy should also be positive for the likelihood of a clean debt ceiling bill. While we have no evidence that Stephen Bannon was in favor of using the debt ceiling for fiscal cuts (given his opposition to government spending cuts in toto), he did say following his resignation that Trump would be "moderated" by remaining White House staffers. He went on to say "I think he'll sign a clean debt ceiling; I think you'll see all this stuff." The only remaining holdover in the White House on the debt ceiling issue is the Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney. Mulvaney has suggested earlier in the year that Republicans should try to tie spending restraint to a debt ceiling bill. However, at a meeting between President Trump and GOP leaders in early June, President Trump said that congressional leaders should take Steven Mnuchin's position as the White House position. "Mnuching is that guy," Trump told party leaders at the meeting, according to GOP sources who spoke to Politico in the summer. Mulvaney's office has also confirmed that the Treasury Department "has point on the debt ceiling," i.e., that Mnuchin is in charge. Bottom Line: Concern over the debt ceiling is natural, given the failure of Republican-held Congress to pass any legislation of note this year. However, it is also overstated. The U.S. government would default on its obligations to its voters, first and foremost. Such a scenario - given Republican control of all branches of government - would put the final nail in the coffin of the Republican-held Congress ahead of the midterm elections. Fade any fear of a U.S. default. Will India And China Fight A War? Clients, particularly in China, have shown considerable concern about geopolitical conflict between China and India. Since early June, a border dispute between China and India has flared up in the Doklam region. Doklam, or rather the India-China-Bhutan border region, is one of three main border disputes in the Himalayas that flare-up from time to time - along with Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh. The 1962 border war between the two Asian behemoths over the latter two areas marked the biggest flare in recent memory. Today, India is fearful of China's growing military and logistical capabilities and concerned about the long-term security of the Siliguri Corridor, the narrow stretch of land connecting the subcontinent to the Northeast (Map 1). Control of the Doklam Plateau and Chumbi Valley would give China access to Siliguri; they are therefore important areas to monitor.10 India is also threatened by China's improving bilateral relations with neighbors like Pakistan,Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and potentially Bhutan. The latter does not have formal relations with China, has always been under India's sphere of influence, and is at the center of the current dispute. And ultimately, India fears that China seeks to create an economic corridor through Bangladesh to the Indian Ocean, which would, in combination with the Pakistan corridor, surround India. Map 1Too Close For Comfort: Tensions Threaten India's Control Over Vital Siliguri Corridor The current dispute ostensibly began - as many do - with contested infrastructure construction. India built some bunkers at a forward outpost in Lalten in 2012; China allegedly bulldozed them on June 6-8 of this year. The same month, Indian troops confronted Chinese troops building a road along the border with Bhutan that would have connected an existing road to a People's Liberation Army outpost and to the border crossing of Doka La. While the territorial dispute is old, China is expanding its pressure tactics on Bhutan, while India has sent troops into disputed Sino-Bhutanese territory in a more assertive defense of Bhutan. Broadly, China is making inroads with infrastructure as it develops its far-flung western regions and seeks to improve connectivity with neighbors via the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative. China is capital-rich and can afford to improve its access to regions of strategic value that yield access to key Indian territories or supply water and hydropower to India. India is capital-poor and downstream, so its ability to respond is often limited to military gestures. India also wants to retain its dominance over Bhutanese foreign policy, in place since 1949 and especially 1960, and this dispute is marked by India taking an active military role on Bhutanese territory on Bhutan's behalf. There are several reasons we do not expect this conflict to be market-relevant. First, the Himalayas are isolated and poor, so that China or India would have to make a very dramatic move that poses a genuine strategic threat (e.g., to the Siliguri Corridor, or Chinese control of Tibet, or Indian relations with Pakistan, or Indian water sources) to trigger a larger conflict. Second, while it is true that nationalism is flaring up on both sides, China has a clear interest in pursuing some "rallying around the flag" strategy amid the standoff over North Korea, and ahead of the Communist Party's nineteenth National Party Congress. That it chose to do so in Doklam, where conflict is more easily contained than in the Koreas or the East or South China Seas, suggests that political opportunism and China's desire to make incremental gains, rather than a sweeping Chinese plan to seize strategic territory, is driving the current episode. Meanwhile, India needs to attract capital to build its manufacturing base, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi has reached out to China for this reason. India will undoubtedly defend its strategic interests if attacked, but otherwise it is not eager to clash with China, which has bulked up its military far more than India has done in recent decades. Chart 9India Would Bolster Containment Of China However, we do see India-China relations as fitting into the larger, negative geopolitical dynamic where the U.S. and its allies encourage India as a balance to China, while China suspects the U.S. alliance of using India and others to encircle and entrap China (Chart 9). Not that the U.S. stirred up the current dispute, but that the U.S. (and Japan) will generally seek to improve relations with India and to strengthen its military and economy, and China will use its regional influence to try to keep India off balance.11 This structural dynamic, in addition to China's territorial assertiveness, is likely to keep generating frictions. Bottom Line: A conflict between India and China is only market-relevant if it extends beyond disputed territories in the Himalayas to affect core strategic interests like the Siliguri Corridor, Tibetan stability, the Indo-Pakistani balance of power, or water supply and hydropower. It could also become market-relevant by worsening U.S.-China relations - and delaying Chinese economic reforms - if China should come to feel embattled on all geopolitical fronts. For instance, should an adventurous, "lame duck" Donald Trump attempt to combine with India and other neighbors in ways that threaten to cause problems in China's western regions as well as in its East Asian periphery. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Hook 'em Horns! 4 We recently argued that the White House is torn between two groups, the "Goldman" and the "Breitbart" cliques. The Goldman clique is led by Gary Cohn, Director of the National Economic Council and is pragmatic, un-ideological, and focused on passing tax reform and pro-business regulation. The Breitbart clique is populist, nationalist, and leans to the left on economic matters. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax?" dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Congressional Budget Office, "An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2017 to 2027," June 2017, available at www.cbo.gov and U.S. Office of Management and Budget, "Budget of the U.S. Government: A New Foundation For American Greatness, Fiscal Year 2018," available at www.whitehouse.gov. 7 Please see the Tax Policy Center, "The Implications Of What We Know And Don't Know About President Trump's Tax Plan," July 12, 2017, and Benjamin R. Page, "Dynamic Analysis of the House GOP Tax Plan: An Update," June 30, 2017, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. Using White House growth assumptions of 4.7% would lead to a deficit of 5.7% in 2026. 8 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "On Hold, But Not For Long," dated August 8, 2017, and U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers," dated May 23, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 9 Denmark also has a debt ceiling, but it has set it so high that it does not need to be addressed. 10 Please see Sudha Ramachandran, "Bhutan's Relations With China And India," Jamestown Foundation, China Brief (17:6), April 20, 2017, available at Jamestown.org. 11 In fact, Japan already waded into the India-China dispute. The Japanese ambassador to India issued a statement critical of China, which the Chinese Foreign Ministry immediately rebuked.

Highlights The cyclical recovery in global earnings will trump, so to speak, ongoing political developments. Unlike the last three recessions, which resulted from burst asset bubbles, the next U.S. recession will be more akin to those of the 1970s and early 1980s. Those "retro" recessions were caused by the Fed's decision to raise rates aggressively in response to rising inflation. The good news is that it will take a while for inflation to accelerate, suggesting that the next recession will not occur until 2019 at the earliest. The bad news is that once inflation does start rising in earnest, the Fed is likely to find itself flat-footed. Remain overweight global equities for now, favoring European and Japanese stocks over U.S. equities in currency-hedged terms. Look to reduce exposure in the second half of next year. Feature After Charlottesville Political developments continued to cast a pall over markets this week. Last week's worries about escalating tensions in the Korean peninsula subsided on comments from the North Korean regime that it would not launch a preemptive strike against Guam. As that issue moved off the radar screen, a new one emerged. President Trump's comments about the violent protests in Charlottesville generated outrage in many quarters, leading to the disbandment of two of the President's business advisory councils. We agree with those who argue that this latest incident will have far-reaching consequences. However, we disagree about the timeframe over which they will manifest themselves. As with most Trump scandals, this one is likely to fizzle into the background. Republicans in Congress would love nothing more than to change the subject. Plowing ahead with tax cuts is one way to do that. A limited infrastructure bill also remains a possibility - and unlike most issues up for debate, this one could actually attract bipartisan support. The market has essentially priced out any meaningful progress on either taxes or infrastructure, so the bar for success here is fairly low (Chart 1). While the implications of recent events in the U.S. are unlikely to put much strain on markets over the next year or so, the longer-term ramifications could be profound. The Democrats' "Better Deal" agenda moves the party to the left on most economic issues. Historically, the Republicans have been champions of small government. Increasingly, however, many Trump voters are asking themselves why exactly they should support lower business taxes when most companies seem openly hostile to the populist agenda that got Trump elected. In this respect, it is noteworthy that support for free trade among Republican voters has collapsed over the past 10 years (Chart 2). Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the rest of the business establishment tends to be liberal on social issues and conservative on economic ones. The problem is that very few voters share this configuration of views (Chart 3). This contradiction cannot be ignored indefinitely. Chart 1The Markets Have Given Up On Infrastructure And Taxes Chart 2Republican Support For Free Trade Has Collapsed Chart 3An Absence Of Libertarians We predicted that "The Trumpists Will Win" back in September 2015 when most pundits were still scoffing at the idea that Trump could win the Republican nomination, let alone the election. This prediction was based on the view that "Trumpism" would resonate with American voters more forcefully than most experts thought possible. If the Republican Party does move to the left on economic issues, this could lead to more economic instability and larger budget deficits - and ultimately, much higher inflation. We discussed the reasons why inflation is heading higher over the long haul several weeks ago and encourage readers to review that report.1 Still Chugging Along Over a shorter-term horizon of one or two years, however, things still look reasonably bright. Earnings are in a solid uptrend. The profit recovery has been broad-based across countries and sectors. Our global leading economic indicator is trending higher, as are estimates of global growth (Chart 4). Chart 4Global Growth Estimates Accelerating Despite Stalled U.S. Growth The current economic recovery in the U.S. has now lasted over eight years, making it the third-longest on record. If it continues until July 2019, it will take the top spot from the 1990s expansion. The fact that this expansion has endured for so long is not too surprising. The Great Recession was one of the deepest in history, while the recovery that followed has been fairly drawn out. Such "slow burn" recoveries are typical following financial crises, and this one has not been any different. However, now that the U.S. unemployment rate has returned to pre-recession levels, the question arises whether the curtain may finally be closing on this expansion. Our answer is "not yet." While this expansion is starting to get long in the tooth, the next recession probably won't roll around until 2019 - and perhaps even later. This means that a cyclically bullish stance towards risk assets is still appropriate. Searching For The Smoking Gun As the old saying goes, "Expansions don't die of old age. They are murdered by the Fed." Such a verdict is too harsh, but it does get to an underlying truth: Fed rate hikes have almost always preceded past U.S. recessions (Chart 5). Broadly speaking, post-war recessions can be broken down into two categories. The first consists of recessions that resulted from the bursting of asset bubbles. In those cases, Fed rate hikes were more the instigator of the recession than the cause of it. The second category consists of recessions where the Fed found itself behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy and was forced to raise rates aggressively in response to rising inflation. The last three recessions were all of the first variety. The 1990-91 recession stemmed from the commercial real estate bust and the ensuing Savings and Loan crisis. The 2001 recession was caused by the bursting of the dotcom bubble. And, of course, the Great Recession was largely the product of the housing bust and weak mortgage underwriting standards. Today's financial landscape is far from pristine. Corporate debt is close to record high levels as a share of GDP and asset valuations are stretched across the board (Chart 6). However, while these imbalances are bad enough to exacerbate a recession, they do not appear severe enough to cause one. This suggests that the next downturn may look less like the last three recessions and more like the "classic" or "retro" recessions of the 1960s, 70s, and early 80s. Chart 5Who Kills Economic Expansions? Chart 6Debt Is Rising, As Are Asset Values Inflation Remains Benign ... For Now If we are heading for a retro recession, investors should keep a close eye on inflation. This is simply because the Fed is unlikely to turn very hawkish until inflation starts accelerating. The good news is that inflation should remain dormant for at least the next 12 months. In fact, most measures of consumer price inflation have decelerated since the start of the year (Chart 7). Producer prices also fell unexpectedly in July, the first outright decline in 11 months. The St. Louis Fed's Price Pressures index remains near rock-bottom levels (Chart 8). Chart 7Consumer Inflation Has Decelerated Of Late Chart 8Price Pressures Are Muted... For Now Inflation expectations are still reasonably well anchored and trade unions have less clout than they once did. Shale producers also have the ability to ramp up production in response to higher oil prices. Past episodes of rapidly rising inflation were often accompanied by supply disruptions that led to spiraling energy costs. Moreover, at least for the time being, higher imports can absorb some of the excess in U.S. aggregate demand. The bad news is that once inflation does start rising in earnest, the Fed is likely to find itself flat-footed. Inflation is a highly lagging indicator. As we have noted before, inflation typically does not peak until well after a recession has begun and does not bottom until well after it has ended (Chart 9). Trying to infer the true level of economic slack from today's inflation rate is like trying to read the speedometer of an automobile when there is a 30-second delay between what the dial says and when you step on the accelerator. Chart 9Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator Timing Matters Too Doesn't a very low neutral real rate reduce the risk that the Fed will find itself behind the curve? The answer is "yes," but only to a limited extent. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Fed knew the exact level of the neutral real rate. It would still be the case that a major delay in bringing interest rates up to that magic number would cause the unemployment rate to fall below NAIRU, leading to an overheated economy. Such an economy may not generate inflation immediately, but both history and simple logic suggest that a situation where aggregate demand continues to outstrip supply will eventually produce upward pressure on prices. The lesson here is that successful monetary policy does not just require that central banks bring rates to the correct level. They also have to bring rates to the correct level at the right time. That is difficult to do, which is why soft landings following monetary tightening cycles are few and far between. Fed Dots Too Optimistic About Labor Force Growth And Productivity The Fed "dots" foresee the unemployment rate ending the year at the current level of 4.3% and falling marginally to 4.2% in 2018. The Fed also expects real GDP to grow by 2.2% in Q4 of 2017 and 2.1% in Q4 of 2018 over the previous year. This is similar to the average rate of GDP growth since the start of the recovery, a period where the unemployment rate fell by over five percentage points. Thus, the only way the Fed's math can add up is if labor force growth accelerates or productivity growth increases. Neither outcome is likely. The labor force participation rate has been flat for the past four years, despite the fact that an aging population has pushed more people into retirement. Chart 10 shows that the participation rate has fallen by three percentage points since 2008, only 0.3 points less than one would expect based solely on changes in the age distribution of the population. Much of the remaining gap can be explained by the secular decline in participation rates within young-to-middle age cohorts, offset in part by higher participation among the elderly (Chart 11). In particular, the downward trend in participation among less-educated workers appears to be more structural than cyclical in nature (Chart 12). As we noted last week, the growing shortage of workers is already visible in employer surveys and rising wage pressures at the lower end of the skill distribution.2 Thus, far from accelerating, chances are that labor force growth will decelerate as the economy runs out of people who can be persuaded to seek out gainful employment. This could cause the unemployment rate to fall further than the Fed expects. Chart 10Demographic Shifts Explain Most Of The Decline In Participation Rates Chart 11Participation Rates Across Age Cohorts Chart 12Labor Force Participation Has Fallen ##br##The Most Among The Less-Educated Productivity is also unlikely to make a significant rebound. The drop in productivity growth has been broad-based across industries and countries. Moreover, it began several years before the financial crisis, suggesting that the Great Recession was not the main culprit. All this points to underlying structural factors - such as a weaker pace of innovation and flagging educational achievement - as being the key drivers of the productivity slowdown.3 What Goes Down Must Come Up If labor force growth fails to accelerate and productivity growth remains weak, then the current pace of GDP growth of around 2% will push the unemployment rate down from current levels. Needless to say, if GDP growth accelerates above 2%, unemployment will drop even more. Such an outcome is, in fact, quite likely given the significant easing in financial conditions that the U.S. has experienced over the past few months. All this means that the unemployment rate may be on its way to falling below its 2000 low of 3.8% by next summer. This would leave it close to a full percentage point below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. At that point, the unemployment rate would have nowhere to go but up. And, unfortunately, history suggests that once unemployment starts rising, it keeps rising. In fact, the U.S. has never averted a recession in the post-war era when the three-month average of the unemployment rate has risen by more than one-third of a percentage point (Chart 13). Chart 13Even A Small Uptick In The Unemployment Rate Is Bad News For The Business Cycle The Not-So-Prescient Stock Market If the U.S. does succumb to a recession in 2019 or 2020 because the Fed is forced to hike rates aggressively in response to rising inflation, how quickly will the market sniff out an impending downturn? Chart 14 plots the value of the S&P 500 around the time of past recessions. On average, the stock market has peaked six months before the beginning of a recession. However, there is quite a bit of variation from one episode to the next (Table 1). The S&P 500 peaked only two months before both the Great Recession and the 1990-91 recession. It peaked seven months before the 2001 recession, but that downturn was arguably more the product of the stock market bust than the cause of it. Chart 14Profile Of U.S. Stocks Around Recessions Table 1Stocks And Recession: Case By Case On the whole, the stock market is not particularly good at anticipating recessions triggered by financial sector imbalances. The stock market is more adept at predicting downturns caused by excessively tight monetary policy - although even here, it is difficult to know how much of the weakness in equities leading up to such recessions was due to rising expectations of a downturn and how much was simply the result of higher interest rates. From this, we conclude that the stock market will likely peak a few months before the next recession. If we are correct about the timing of our recession call, this implies the cyclical bull market has another 12-to-18 months left. Cyclical Leading Indicators Still Benign The bond market has generally done a better job of anticipating economic downturns than the stock market. This is especially the case for the yield curve, which has inverted in the lead-up to every single recession over the past 50 years, with only one false positive (Chart 15). While the 10-year/3-month spread has compressed over the past few years, it is still above the level that has warned of recessions in the past. Most other forward-looking cyclical indicators continue to point to an economic expansion that has further room to run. The Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) has consistently fallen into negative territory on a year-over-year basis leading up to past recessions (Chart 16). The LEI has accelerated since last summer, suggesting little risk of a near-term downturn. Chart 15The Yield Curve Has Called 8 Of The Last 7 Recessions Chart 16LEI Also Good At Signaling Recessions A decline in the ISM new orders component in relation to the inventory component has warned that final demand is softening while the stock of unsold goods is piling up (Chart 17). The current gap stands at 10.4, consistent with a robust expansion. Likewise, initial unemployment claims have usually risen going into past recessions (Chart 18). Neither the current level of claims nor hiring intention surveys are signaling trouble ahead. Chart 17Economic Momentum Is Still Positive Based On The ISM Chart 18Initial Claims Claim Everything Is Okay Changes in financial conditions tend to lead GDP growth by around 6-to-12 months. Thus, it is not surprising that recessions have often occurred in the wake of a tightening in financial conditions (Chart 19). As noted above, U.S. financial conditions have eased sharply since the start of the year. Chart 19Recessions Tend To Occur When Financial Conditions Are Tightening Investment Conclusions Historically, recessions and equity bear markets have gone hand in hand. As my colleague Doug Peta likes to emphasize, it simply does not pay to be underweight stocks unless one has legitimate reasons for thinking that another economic downturn is just around the corner (Chart 20).4 Our analysis suggests that another recession is still at least 18 months away. This is confirmed by a variety of recession-timing models, all of which are signaling low risks of an impending downturn in growth (Chart 21). As we noted last week, wage growth is likely to accelerate over the next few quarters. This will prop up consumer spending. July's blockbuster retail sales report was no fluke - there are plenty more where it came from. Stronger U.S. growth will force the market to revise up the miserly 41 basis points in rate hikes that it has priced in over the next two years. This will push up Treasury yields and give the dollar a boost. The greenback has usually strengthened whenever an overheated labor market has caused labor's share of income to rise (Chart 22). We expect the broad trade-weighted dollar to appreciate by about 10% over the next 18 months. Chart 2050 Years Of Recessions And Bear Markets Chart 21No Imminent Risk Of A Recession Chart 22Historically, A Rising Labor Share Has Pushed Up The Dollar A stronger dollar is necessary for tilting U.S. consumption towards foreign-made goods, thereby allowing domestic spending to rise in the face of tighter supply constraints. This is good news for foreign producers in developed economies, but could cause trouble for firms in emerging markets which have taken out large amounts of dollar-denominated debt. We continue to prefer European and Japanese stocks over their U.S. counterparts in currency-hedged terms. In the EM space, Chinese H-shares are our preferred market. Peter Berezin, Global Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Secular Bottom In Inflation," dated July 28, 2017. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "What's The Matter With Wages?," dated August 11, 2017. 3 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. 4 Please see Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "A Guide To Spotting And Weathering Bear Markets," dated August 16, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The GOP can bolster its case for re-election in 2018 by passing tax cuts and rolling back regulation. With U.S. equity valuations stretched, prolonged uncertainty in Northeast Asia may be a catalyst for a pullback. The global economic outlook is brightening and will be a tailwind for U.S. economic growth and equities. Rising wage pressure will be another headwind for EPS growth in 2018, although wages appear quite benign at the moment. Wages are not always a good leading indicator for the inflation cycle. Indeed, sometimes upturns in wage growth lags that of consumer prices. Feature Safe haven assets caught a bid last week while risk assets sold off as investors weighed geopolitical tensions in Northeast Asia and more uncertainty over fiscal policy in Washington. Last week's U.S. economic data highlighted the disconnect between a tighter labor market and a lack of wage pressures. Meanwhile, the data suggest that growth outside the U.S. is accelerating. Nonetheless, history shows that investors should be patient while waiting for an upturn in inflation. Next Up: Tax Cuts The GOP will deliver on tax cuts this year despite disarray at the White House and an incompetent Congress, but fiscal stimulus may fail to live up to its hype. Furthermore, a fiscal lift from infrastructure spending is unlikely anytime soon. Republicans need a win ahead of the 2018 mid-term elections and they have already laid the groundwork for tax reform via the budget reconciliation process. Moreover, cutting taxes is easier to justify politically than removing an entitlement program (i.e. Obamacare). Tax rates probably will not be lowered by as much as originally promised because conservative Republicans in the House will demand "revenue offsets" to pay for tax cuts. Internal GOP battles over how to fund tax cuts could spill over into some tension regarding raising the debt ceiling. However, it is in neither political party's interests to create another "fiscal cliff" out of thin air. The GOP needs Democratic votes to pass this legislation in the Senate and the Democratic leadership has indicated it is willing to support it. At what price? House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer may link the debt ceiling and spending bill to tax reform, and push for the tax cuts to extend to the middle class and to be revenue neutral. There is a chance that both parties will agree to temporarily eliminate the debt ceiling, perhaps beyond the 2018 mid-term elections. In any event, we expect a last minute resolution to both the U.S. debt ceiling and the potential government shutdown in September. Thus, there should be no lasting impact on financial markets from the debt ceiling debate. Turning to government regulation, the NFIB survey shows that small businesses are pleased with the Trump administration's attack on red tape. President Trump has made progress on slowing regulation and is on track to enact one-tenth the amount of economically significant regulation1 passed by the Obama administration (Chart 1). By this metric, Trump is even more frugal than Reagan. Trump and the GOP-held Congress have rolled back Obama-era rules and delayed others. Still, regulatory change is slow to impact the economy and it may take years for the regulatory rollback to provide any meaningful lift to growth. Accordingly, the "Trump Put"2 is still in place. U.S. politics will remain a mess for much of the year, delaying any progress on populist economic policies that would have buoyed U.S. nominal GDP growth and given the Fed a reason to hike interest rates more aggressively (Chart 2). Chart 1Trump Has Had Success In Slowing Regulation Chart 2The Trump Put Bottom Line: Trump will not be impeached until after the 2018 mid-term election, and only then if the Democrats manage to take control of the House. The GOP can bolster its case for re-election in 2018 by passing tax cuts and rolling back regulation. The intensifying Mueller investigation and White House incompetence will only fuel the "Trump Put", which has been positive for U.S. equities, neutral for Treasuries, and bad for the dollar, all else equal. A significant uptick in inflation could overwhelm the "Trump Put" and spark a dollar rally. As such, investors should focus on inflation prospects rather than on White House politics. Fire And Fury Investors are on high alert and with the Q2 earnings season over, may look beyond the positive news on corporate profits for direction. Our colleagues in the BCA Geopolitical Strategy service have long maintained that Northeast Asia is ripe for economic/political risk.3 The underlying driver of uncertainty on the Korean Peninsula is the Sino-American rivalry. China is an emerging "great power" that threatens the global dominance of the U.S. and its allies. The immediate consequence is mounting friction in China's periphery. That is why Taiwan, the South China Sea, and North Korea, are all heating up. North Korea's regime is highly unpredictable as evidenced by events in the past few weeks. In that sense, it is more significant than the other "proxy battles" between the U.S. and China. In essence, North Korea is no longer merely an object of satire. A new round of negotiations over North Korea's nuclear and missile programs is about to begin. The potential for a military conflict is high unless diplomacy succeeds in convincing North Korea to freeze its weapons programs. The events on the Korean peninsula are unfolding as we expected they would. North Korea has a history of rational action. It wants a nuclear deterrent and a peace treaty, but not a regime change. The U.S. has forsworn regime change as an intention and China has recommitted to new sanctions. South Korea is pro-engagement. Moreover, we are seeing the U.S. establish a credible military as part of the "arc of diplomacy," comparable to U.S.-Iran relations 2010-15. Bottom Line: We do not expect a pre-emptive strike by the U.S. on North Korea, as the constraints to conflict are extremely high and not all diplomatic options have been exhausted. Nonetheless, with U.S. equity valuations stretched, prolonged uncertainty in the region may be a catalyst for a pullback. A Rosy Global Picture The global economic outlook is brightening and will be a tailwind for U.S. economic growth and equities. Global real GDP estimates continue to move higher, a welcome departure from years past when estimates slid relentlessly lower (Chart 3). Since the start of 2017, global GDP estimates for this year have increased from 2.8% to 3%, while 2018 forecasts have accelerated from 2.7% to 2.9%. This upward trajectory has occurred despite a recalibration by many major central banks away from accommodative policies. Aggressive central bank actions or escalating tensions in Northeast Asia, or both, may halt the improving growth forecasts. Falling oil prices would also challenge a quickening of global growth, but our view is that oil prices will move higher in the coming months.4 Chart 3Global Growth Estimates Accelerating Despite Stalled U.S. Growth Global leading indicators are on the upswing (Chart 4). The BCA Global Leading Indicator Index (excluding the U.S.) in July 2017 was the strongest since 2010 when it slowed after a sharp rebound from the global financial crisis. The increase in growth still has room to run. Admittedly, the LEI's diffusion index has dipped below 50%. It would be a warning sign for global growth if the diffusion index does not soon turn up. Nominal global GDP growth is speeding up, boosted by improving consumer and business confidence, rising capital spending and declining policy uncertainty (Chart 5). The global economic surprise index is also climbing, which provides additional support. Investors may be concerned that the global PMIs have peaked (Chart 6), but they remain at levels consistent with above-trend GDP growth and we see no reason why they should drop below 50. Chart 4LEIs Pointing Higher Chart 5Supports For Global Growth In Place Chart 6Global Economic Activity Brightening Industrial production (IP) overseas is expanding nearly twice as fast as in the U.S. (Chart 5). This suggests that U.S. economic activity will be pulled up by foreign demand. A stronger dollar (as much as a 10% appreciation in the next year) may dampen U.S. exports and earnings, but this will be more a problem for 2018 than 2017. Bottom Line: Improving economic activity outside the U.S. is a tailwind for both U.S. economic growth and profits of U.S. firms with significant business abroad. Solid foreign demand will help the economy hit the Fed's GDP target and also support additional, but gradual, tightening by the central bank. Stay overweight U.S. equities and remain short duration. Waiting For Wages Rising wage pressure will be another headwind for EPS growth in 2018, although wages appear quite benign at the moment. Both primary and secondary indicators point to a tighter U.S. labor market. The July jobs report (released in early August) was yet another sign that the slack in the jobs market is vanishing.5 Data released last week on job openings (JOLTS) and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) further supported this trend, and indicated that the labor market may tighten even more. Job openings rose to a new all-time high along with BCA's quit rate less layoffs indicator (Chart 7). The hire rate remained at a cycle peak. The NFIB data was equally impressive, with hiring plans and job openings surging in July. Small businesses are also finding it increasingly difficult to find quality labor. (Chart 7, panel 4) The strength in the labor market has not yet translated into accelerating wages, but patience is required. The July NFIB survey noted that "while a tight job market may point to higher wages and rising consumer spending down the road, which is also good for small businesses, the current expansion efforts by small business owners are being choked by their difficulties in hiring and keeping workers." The NFIB's compensation plans (Chart 7) provided quantitative support for the group's qualitative assessment. However, the latest readings on labor compensation from the Q2 productivity report, the tepid July average hourly earnings data and the Atlanta Fed wage tracker suggest that the labor market is still not tight enough to generate much wage pressure (Chart 8). Chart 7Widespread Evidence That##BR##Labor Market Is Tightening Chart 8Not Much Wage##BR##Pressure Yet Inflation And Long-Expansion Dynamics That said, wages are not always a good leading indicator for the inflation cycle. Indeed, sometimes upturns in wage growth lag that of consumer prices. In previous research we split U.S. post-1950 economic cycles into three sets based on the length of the expansion phase: short (about 2 years), medium (4-6 years) and long (8-10 years). What distinguishes short from medium and long expansions is the speed at which the most cyclical parts of the economy accelerated, and the time it took unemployment to reach a full employment level. Long expansions were characterized by a drawn-out rise in the cyclical parts of the economy and a very slow return to full employment, similar to what has occurred since the Great Recession. Chart 9 compares the current cycle to the average of two of the long cycles (the 1980s and the 1990s). We excluded the long-running 1960s expansion because the Fed delayed far too long and fell well behind the inflation curve. We define the 'late cycle' phase to be the time period from when the economy first reached full employment to the subsequent recession (shaded portions in Chart 9). The average late-cycle phase for these two expansions lasted almost four years, highlighting that reaching full employment does not necessarily mean that a recession is imminent. Inflation pressures are slower to emerge in 'slow burn' recoveries, allowing the Fed to proceed slowly. The Fed waited an average of 25 months to tighten policy after reaching full employment in these two long expansions, in part because core CPI inflation was roughly flat. The result was an extended late-cycle phase that was very rewarding for equity investors because the economy and earnings continued to grow. Of course, inflation eventually did turn higher, signaling the beginning of the end for the expansion and equity bull phase. In Chart 10, 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 gave no warning that an inflation upturn was imminent. Indeed, wages were a lagging indicator of consumer price inflation. Chart 9Labor Market, Inflation And Stocks##BR##In The Long 80's & 90's Expansions Chart 10In The 80's & 90's Wage Growth##BR##Gave No Early Warning On On Inflation Market 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. Chart 11Leading Indicators Of Inflation##BR##In "Slow Burn" Recoveries This is not to say that we should totally disregard wage information. But it does suggest that we must keep an eye on a wider set of data. Indicators that provided some leading information for inflation in the previous two long cycles are shown in Chart 11. To this list we would also add the St. Louis Fed's Price Pressure index, which is not shown in Chart 11 because it does not have enough history. All of these indicators have moved higher over the past 18 months, after bottoming at extremely low levels in 2015 and early 2016. However, they have all pulled back to some extent in recent months. This year's pipeline inflation "soft patch" continued into July, according to last week's release of the Producer Price Index. The easing in cost pressures at the producer level has been broadly based (i.e. one cannot blame special factors). These indicators suggest that consumer price inflation, according to either the CPI or the PCE, will struggle to rise in the next few months. The July CPI report revealed another tepid 0.1% monthly rise in the core price index, while the year-over-year rate remained at 1.7%. Rising prices for health care goods and services were offset by price declines for new and used cars. The diffusion index for the CPI moved up to the zero line in July, indicating that disinflation was a little less broadly based in the month. Bottom Line: Our base case is that core PCE inflation edges higher in the coming months, which will be enough for the FOMC to justify a rate hike in December. We also expect that inflation will be high enough in 2018 for the Fed to hike rates by more than is discounted in the bond market. Nonetheless, the warning signs of an inflation upturn are mixed at best. It would flatter our stocks-over-bonds recommendation if we are wrong on the inflation outlook, but our short duration stance would not be profitable in this case. 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 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of Office of Management and Budget (OMB): https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain and https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoCountsSearchInit?action=init 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The Trump Put Last" dated June 14, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire, dated April 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "KSA's Tactics Advance OPEC' 2.0's Agenda," dated August 10, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Stay The Course" dated August 7, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The Mueller investigation is part of the "Trump Put;" General White House disarray and congressional incompetence combine to produce Goldilocks conditions for U.S. equities; Mexico's frontrunner in the upcoming elections, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, is no Chavez; Malaysian political risks are overstated, the ruling Barisan Nasional has pushed through painful reforms; With economic growth stabilizing, cheap valuations, and overstated political risks, Malaysia could be an intriguing investment opportunity. Feature This week, we turn to two emerging markets: Mexico and Malaysia. Our approach to EMs is to look for opportunities where politics may emerge as the alpha amidst appealing valuations. We rely on our sister strategy, BCA's Emerging Market Strategy, for fundamental analysis, to which we then add our political research. We find it striking that these two EMs are the very two that stood to suffer the most should U.S. Congress have passed a border adjustment tax (Chart 1). Not only have the Republicans forsworn the border tax, but these countries will benefit from other trends, as we explain below. Before we dive into Malaysia and Mexico, however, a short note on the latest developments in the White House is in order. Clients from St. Louis, Missouri to Auckland, New Zealand are asking us the same question this summer: when does the Mueller investigation become a headwind for the SPX? Chart 1Vulnerability To U.S. Import Tariffs And Border Adjustment Taxes The "Trump Put" Continues Our answer is that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation may already be a tailwind to the U.S. equity market. The investigation, along with general White House disarray and congressional incompetence, makes up the ongoing "Trump Put."1 The American political imbroglio has combined with decent earnings and steady global growth to produce Goldilocks conditions for U.S. equities, while simultaneously weakening the USD and supporting Treasuries. The political fulcrum upon which all these assets turn is the failure of the Trump administration to deliver its promised fiscal stimulus (Chart 2). Tax reform, which was supposed to be the main vehicle of such stimulus, is increasingly looking like it will fail to live up to its hype. We still think it will pass, for three broad reasons: Chart 2Handcuffed Trump The Most Likely Scenario Trump's low popularity remains an albatross around the neck of GOP candidates in the November 2018 elections, with potentially ominous results. Our simple "line-of-best-fit" model between a Republican president's approval rating and the GOP's midterm performance produces a 38-seat loss in the upcoming election (Chart 3). Republicans need a legislative win and need it fast. The House has laid the groundwork for tax reform, passing the FY2018 budget resolution with reconciliation instructions focused on tax legislation. This means that the Obamacare replace and repeal effort has until October 1 to be resolved.2 Investors are conflating replacing and repealing Obamacare with tax reform. The former is an entitlement program, the latter a more popular measure that Republicans have always tried to move through Congress. It is very rare for U.S. policymakers to successfully reduce or remove an entitlement program. Cutting, even reforming, taxes is easier to justify politically. Chart 3The Clock Is Ticking For The GOP On Tax Reform Although we still maintain that tax reform, or mere tax cuts, will happen, they are unlikely to be as stimulative as originally advertised. Corporate and household tax rates are unlikely to be lowered by as much as originally touted. That is because Republicans in the House will demand "revenue offsets" to accomplish rate reduction, yet they have already lost key offsets like Obamacare repeal and the border adjustment tax.3#fn_3 The White House could change all that by using its considerable political capital among conservative grassroots voters and the bully pulpit to get fiscally conservative Republicans in the House to move a stimulative tax reform through Congress. But, as we noted two weeks ago, factional fighting in the White House and an ineffective chief of staff are considerable hurdles.4 A few days after we published that report, President Trump replaced Reince Priebus with retired General and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly. While Kelly is likely to introduce some discipline into the White House, we doubt he will make the executive more effective in cajoling House Representatives to toe the administration's line on tax reform. This is because Kelly adds no legislative experience to a White House that is already quite low on it by recent historical standards (Chart 4). Chart 4Trump Administration Is On The Low End Of Congressional Experience Additionally, the Trump Administration continues to drag its feet on presidential appointments, hurting the effectiveness of the executive. Only 220 appointments had been sent to the Senate by July 19, compared to the average 309 during the same time period by the previous four presidents (Chart 5). The Senate is very slow in confirming the candidates, perhaps because of their unorthodox backgrounds and resumes. The average time to confirm a Trump nominee is 45 days, which is astonishing given that the Senate is controlled by Republicans. Chart 5The Trump Administration Is Dragging Its Feet On Appointments In addition to the ineffectiveness of the White House, investors fret that the ongoing Mueller investigation, which has just impaneled a grand jury, could undercut the rally in risk assets. By summoning a grand jury Mueller can subpoena documents and obtain testimony of witnesses under oath. Doing so will accelerate the investigation and perhaps take it down new avenues. For example, the Kenneth Starr investigation initially focused on the suicide of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater real estate investments by Bill Clinton. But the trail led elsewhere. Ultimately, the "Starr Report" alleged that Clinton lied under oath regarding his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. Impeachment proceedings ensued. That said, we are sticking with our conclusion from May that investors should look through any risk of impeachment or indictment for President Trump, at least as long as Republicans hold the House of Representatives (i.e., at least until the midterms in 2018).5 In particular, there are three main reasons to fade any near-term equity market volatility: President Mike Pence - Under both impeachment rules and the 25th amendment, the U.S. president would be replaced by the vice president. Vice President Pence's approval rating largely tracks that of President Trump and is in the 40% area, but investors should note that he once stood at nearly 60% during the campaign (Chart 6). As such, the worst-case scenario for investors in the event of a post-midterm impeachment is that Trump is replaced by Pence, an orthodox Republican, and that Pence has to deal with a split Congress. And that is not bad! It would grind reforms to a halt, but at least tax reform would be out of the way by then. Midterm Election - If the Trump White House becomes engulfed in scandal, Republicans in the House will fear losing their majority. Yes, the partisan drawing of electoral districts - "gerrymandering" - has reduced the number of competitive U.S. House districts from 164 in 1998 to 72 in 2016 (Chart 7). But the Democrats managed to win the House in 2006 and the Republicans managed to take it back in 2010, so there is no reason the roles cannot be reversed yet again. However, this is not a risk, it is an opportunity. It will motivate the GOP in Congress to lock in tax and health care reform well ahead of the midterm elections. Counter-Revolution - With Trump embattled and facing impeachment, the market may let out a sigh of relief because it would mark a clear defeat of populist politics in the U.S. Much as with electoral outcomes in Europe, investors may want to cheer the defeat of an unorthodox, anti-establishment movement in the U.S. As such, we would push against any "Russia scandal"-induced volatility in the U.S. markets, at least until the midterm election. We think the market would digest the volatility and realize that Trump's impeachment, were it to occur after midterm elections, would not arrest the Republican agenda before the midterms. After all, the GOP has waited over 15 years to make Bush-era tax cuts permanent and the opportunity to do so may evaporate within the next 12 months. In addition, given the performance of high tax-rate S&P 500 equities (Chart 8), investors appear to have already discounted the failure of meaningful tax reform in the market. This means that the "Trump Put" is in full effect: investors are bidding up risk assets not because they expect something to happen (tax reform, fiscal stimulus, financial deregulation, etc.), but because they expect nothing to happen (no fiscal stimulus, no fast Fed rate hikes, no onerous regulation for businesses, etc.). Chart 6Could Be Worse ##br##Than Pence Chart 7Gerrymandering Reduces##br## Competitive House Seats Chart 8Investors No Longer##br## Expect Tax Reform What about the long term? A scandal-ridden White House, escalating leaks against the administration, and a mounting bureaucratic revolt against the executive cannot be good for the U.S., can they? The news flow out of Washington increasingly looks like news from Ankara, Brasilia, or Pretoria. There are two diametrically opposed directions the U.S. can take. The first is deepening polarization and policy gridlock that leads to President Trump being replaced by an even greater bout of populism in 2020 or 2024. We described this scenario recently in a pessimistic note about the coming social unrest in America.6 The alternative is that Democrats and Republicans in Congress (particularly the Senate), representing the country's elites, decide to work together on legislation. Both parties recently united to pass veto-proof sanctions on Russia with a 98-2 vote that has bound the executive to future review by Congress. And some green shoots of bipartisanship appeared over the past two weeks on tax reform and even on health care. It is too soon to say which path American policymakers will take. Investors may have to wait until after the midterm election for genuine cooperation. But it would be very positive for the U.S. economy and prospects of reform if genuine bipartisanship emerged as a reaction to the incompetence, scandal, nationalism, and populism of the White House. Bottom Line: The intensifying Mueller investigation and ongoing White House incompetence will only further fuel the "Trump Put." This is positive for U.S. equities, neutral for bonds, and bad for the dollar, ceteris paribus. A significant pickup in inflation could overwhelm the "Trump Put" and cause the dollar to rally. As such, investors should focus on inflation prospects more than politics in the White House. What If Mexico Builds A Wall First? For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The election of President Donald Trump, an unabashed nationalist who campaigned on an anti-immigrant platform, is spurring the campaign of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, also known as AMLO, in the upcoming July 1, 2018 elections in Mexico. Obrador has been a left-wing firebrand of Mexican politics for years. He was the Head of Government of Mexico City (essentially the city's mayor) from 2000 to 2005 and contested a close election against Felipe Calderon in 2006, which he narrowly lost. He lost the 2012 election by a much wider margin, but still came second to current president Enrique Pena Nieto of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). Obrador's election campaign calls for a confrontational attitude towards President Trump, the renegotiation of NAFTA, an increase to farm subsidies, and limitations on foreign investment in Mexico. He has said that he would reverse the opening of the energy sector to foreign investment through a referendum, but that he is in favor of public-private partnerships in the sector. That said, his left-wing firebrand persona is more PR than substance. In 2012, for example, he also campaigned on cutting government expenditure and ending monopolies - not exactly Chavista credentials. Nonetheless, he quit the left-leaning Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) to form a more left-wing movement. Obrador's new party, the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA), did well in the 2015 midterms and is currently leading in the polls ahead of the 2018 election (Chart 9). MORENA also did well in the State of Mexico, a PRI stronghold and Nieto's home state, in the June 4 election. The ruling PRI held the state for 90 years and is accused of election-rigging in order to, only narrowly, defeat an unknown MORENA candidate this year. Chart 9MORENA Has Lead In The Polls Given that the election is a year away, it is too soon to make a forecast. Nonetheless, it is clear that Obrador is the frontrunner for the presidency. There are three reasons why his election may be an over-hyped risk: The Congress: For much of Mexico's twentieth century history, the president was essentially a dictator due to the one-party rule of PRI. In the twenty-first century, however, Congress has become plural, forcing the president to cooperate with the body or see his reforms stalled. Given recent elections (Chart 10), it is highly unlikely that Obrador would have a congressional majority behind him, thus forcing him to temper his policies. Chart 10Mexico's Rising Political Plurality The PAN-PRD Alliance: An unlikely alliance of the conservative National Action Party (PAN) and the center-left PRD has emerged as a reaction to the rise of MORENA in the polls. (These two parties have a history of cooperating against PRI presidents.) The two parties come from completely opposite ideological spectrums, but successfully joined forces in several state elections in 2016. It is unlikely that the two parties will unify sufficiently to field a single candidate - they failed to do so in the June 4 State of Mexico elections - but they may get enough votes to form a plurality in Congress. Mexicans do not lean left: Unlike most of Latin America, Mexico is a conservative country. Most Mexicans either think of themselves as centrist or lean right (Chart 11). While our data stops in 2015, the historical trend is clear: Mexico is a right-leaning country. As such, it is highly unlikely that AMLO will be able to manipulate the country's democratic institutions - which have been strengthened over the past twenty years - to turn Mexico into Venezuela. Chart 11Mexicans Lean Right We would therefore fade any politically induced volatility in Mexican assets. Next year, investors should prepare to "sell the rumor and buy the news" (you read that right), as Mexican election fever grips the markets. Given current macroeconomic fundamentals, an entry point in Mexican assets may develop if they sell off ahead of the election - but they are not a buy at the moment. BCA's Emerging Market Strategy has pointed out in a recent report that:7 Inflation is well above the central bank's target and is broad based (Chart 12). Notably, wage growth is elevated (Chart 13). Given meager productivity growth, unit labor costs - calculated as wage-per-hour divided by productivity (output-per-hour) - are rising. This will depress companies' profit margins and make them eager to hike selling prices. This will, in turn, prevent inflation from falling and, consequently, hamper Banxico's ability to cut rates for now. Chart 12Inflation is Above Target Chart 13Wage Inflation Is High Meanwhile, the impact of higher interest rates will continue filtering through the economy. High interest rates entail a further slowdown in money and credit growth and, hence, in domestic demand. Both consumer spending and capital expenditure by companies are set to weaken a lot (Chart 14). This will weigh on corporate profits and share prices. Even though non-oil exports and manufacturing output are accelerating (Chart 15), non-oil exports - which make about 30% of GDP - are not large enough to offset the deceleration in domestic demand from monetary tightening. That said, the positive for Mexico is that the Mexican peso remains cheap (Chart 16) and may rally against other EM currencies. Our EM strategists suggest that investors should overweight MXN versus ZAR and BRL. Chart 14Domestic Demand to Buckle Chart 15Exports are Robust Chart 16Peso is Cheap If EM currencies depreciate or oil prices drop, it would be difficult to see MXN rally against the USD. However, MXN should outperform other currencies, especially given that political risks in Mexico are far lower than they are in Brazil and South Africa. Bottom Line: The Mexican markets may get AMLO-fever in 2018. Obrador is a clear frontrunner in the election to be held a year from now. However, AMLO will face off against constitutional, political, and societal constraints. As such, we would fade any politically induced risks in Mexican markets. Go strategically long MXN versus BRL and ZAR and look for an entry point into Mexican risk assets over the next 12 months. Malaysia: Hold Your Nose And Buy We have been broadly bearish on Malaysia since August 2015, but the upcoming elections - due by August 2018, but we expect to occur sooner rather than later - are likely to cause the markets to re-price Malaysian assets (Chart 17). The country's fundamentals are not rosy, and it remains vulnerable to a slowdown in China, a drop in commodities prices, and bad loans. Nevertheless, its underperformance is late, and this fact, combined with the political outlook, suggests that it will outperform for a while. Malaysia is in the midst of a long saga of party polarization that began amid the Asian Financial Crisis, when Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad ousted his ambitious deputy, Anwar Ibrahim. Both men hailed from the dominant party of the country's ethnic Malay majority: the United Malay National Organization (UMNO), which is the center of Barisan Nasional (BN). The BN is a multi-ethnic coalition that has held power in one form or another since independence in 1957. Anwar went on to lead the reformasi (reform) movement, creating an opposition coalition of strange bedfellows: his own urban Malay People's Justice Party (PKR), the ethnic Chinese DAP, and the Islamist PAS. In the 2008 general elections, the opposition shocked the BN, depriving it of a two-thirds super-majority for the first time since 1969. In the 2013 general elections, the opposition won the popular vote, though BN retained control of parliament due to inherent advantages in the electoral system (Chart 18). Hence the past two elections, particularly the last one in 2013, have shaken the political system to the core. Since the 2013 shock, the opposition has had its sights set on the 2018 election, and a series of blows to the Najib government have given cause for hope. First, exports and commodity prices plunged from 2014 to 2016, damaging the economy and giving the opposition a grand opportunity to attack the administration (Chart 19). Second, Najib was personally implicated in a massive scandal involving 1MDB, a sovereign wealth fund that Najib helped create and from which he allegedly embezzled $700 million (!). Street protests emerged in 2015 and suddenly Najib faced a revolt from the old guard within his own party (including Mahathir himself). Chart 17Malaysian Underperformance Is Late Chart 18Opposition Threatens UMNO's Dominance Chart 19Commodities Should Help Malaysian Exports The problem for the opposition, however, is timing. The 2008 election occurred before the worst of the global financial crisis had been felt; the 2013 election occurred before the full impact of the commodity bust; and now the ruling coalition's fortunes are recovering in time for the upcoming election - which, of course, the prime minister schedules to his advantage. Thus, the opposition once again faces an uphill battle in this election cycle: The Malaysian economy has beaten expectations, growing by 5.6% in the first quarter of 2017, the fastest rate in two years. This was driven mainly by exports and the manufacturing sector (Chart 20). Money supply growth is strong while the credit impulse has bottomed and is approaching positive territory (Chart 21). The 1MDB scandal has mostly dissipated. Najib publicly confessed that the $700 million found in his personal account was a donation from a foreign government, and Saudi Arabian authorities confirmed this, prompting Najib to return the money. Malaysia's attorney general, anti-corruption commission, and central bank have all cleared Najib of wrongdoing, and his popular support has recovered from the fever pitch of the scandal in 2015-16, as demonstrated by the net-gain for BN in by-elections since 2013, and the fact that the BN saw its share of seats rise from 27% to 37% in the 2016 Sarawak State Assembly elections. This state's local elections have tended to foreshadow national elections, and it has the largest representation of any state in the national parliament (31/222). The opposition is split. Najib has courted the Islamist opposition party, PAS, peeling it away from the opposition coalition. Without PAS, the opposition falls from 89 seats in parliament to 71 seats, which is 41 shy of a majority. Even in the best case scenario for the opposition in the upcoming election, in which the opposition holds all seats from 2013 and Bersatu gains all of UMNO's seats in Kedah and Johor, the opposition would still fall 16 seats shy of a majority. Chart 20Growth Is Strong Chart 21Credit Cycle Is Picking Up Bottom Line: Our baseline case holds that Najib and BN will retain control of the government in the upcoming election on the back of the fading scandal, economic recovery, and a shrewd practice of dividing political enemies. What Does A Najib Win Mean? Is a Najib/BN victory positive for Malaysian risk assets? We think so, at least relative to other EMs. While Malaysia would benefit in the long run from breaking the BN's monopoly over parliament, the immediate consequence of an opposition victory would be confusion as the various opposition parties have widely divergent interests ... and zero governing experience. On the other hand, Najib's government has undertaken some significant reforms, expanded infrastructure, and improved government finances, making his corrupt and pseudo-authoritarian government not as market unfriendly as one might expect: As a result of weak commodities, cuts in subsidies, and the introduction of a goods and services tax (GST) and a tourism tax, Malaysia's fiscal deficit has improved from 5.5% in 2013, when Najib took office, to 3.1% today (Chart 22). The government is on a path to close the deficit by the end of the decade. The GST has allowed the government to reduce its dependency on oil revenues. Non-tax revenues, which include oil royalties, have decreased from 35% in 2010 to only 20% of total revenue, while indirect taxes (which include GST) have increased from 17% to 28% of revenue (Chart 23, top three panels). There are plans to increase the goods covered by the GST in the near future. The government has cut subsidies in fuel and cooking gas, taking advantage of low oil prices. The government had also eliminated subsidies in cooking oil and sugar. Subsidies as a percent of total expenditures have declined from almost 20% in 2014 to only 9% today (Chart 23, bottom panel). The government has expanded infrastructure, completing a mass rail transit extension in Kuala Lumpur, connecting the two East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak via a 2,000 km highway, and attracting Chinese investment from the One Belt One Road program. The latter entails China building an East Coast Rail Link to connect the west and east coasts. Upon completion, this link will enable shippers to circumvent the port of Singapore and reach the South China Sea in a shorter time period. Chart 22Austerity Works Chart 23Tax Reforms Paid Off One perceived drawback of Najib's government is that in order to stay in power, he has had to court the Islamist PAS party, as mentioned above, specifically by allowing it to promote aspects of shariah law in the country's parliament. However, Malaysia is not at risk of being swept away by an imaginary rising tide of Islamic extremism. The country is very diverse, and Malay Muslims make up only a little more than half of the population. Malaysians are highly religious, but they are also highly tolerant, as they have lived among other races and religions since independence (Chart 24). Moreover, Islam is regulated and bureaucratized in Malaysia, which discourages the emergence of charismatic, anti-establishment religious leaders and the development of extremist movements. Finally, the government has an absolute need to win votes both in the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak, which have sizable Christian and non-Malay populations (adding up to more than half), and in the population centers of Kuala Lumpur and Penang. This means that it is not likely to allow PAS (or other Islamist movements) to go too far. Chart 24Malaysians Are Tolerant Bottom Line: Najib's government is corrupt and has authoritarian leanings, but has improved its management of the economy and public finances, and is not getting out of control with Islamism or populism. We would not expect a sustained market sell off in the face of a BN victory in upcoming polls. By contrast, if the opposition coalition wins a majority, it offers the long-term promise of a more inclusive and competitive political system that would be good for Malaysia, but would bring greater policy uncertainty in the short term. The opposition would likely have a low probability of achieving major reforms, as the BN party-state conglomerate would fight tooth and nail against it. A positive knee-jerk market response to an opposition win - on the expectation that "regime change" raises the probability of pro-market reforms - would likely be ephemeral. Investment Conclusion A key internal risk to the Malaysian economy stems from the country's fairly sizable debt, which may eventually become unsustainable. Yet at the moment, household and government debt are both rolling over even as growth is improving (Chart 25). A key external risk stems from China. Chinese politics are likely to shift from a tailwind for Chinese growth - fiscal stimulus and the need for stability ahead of the National Party Congress - to a headwind, as stimulus subsides and reforms are rebooted in 2018.8 We do not expect China's investment in Malaysia to fall sharply, since it is tied to a broad, long-term, strategic plan; nor do we see Malaysia as overexposed to Chinese imports or tourism. Nevertheless, Malaysia would suffer to some extent, and it is indirectly vulnerable as Malaysian exports to ASEAN and tourists from ASEAN are significant, and ASEAN would suffer from a Chinese slowdown. In short, China is a risk, albeit not as direct or major as one might think. The Malaysian ringgit has already become the best-performing currency this year. Yet this recent appreciation has not come near to reversing the currency's roughly 20% depreciation since 2014. A cheap currency, combined with robust external demand, should be a tailwind for Malaysian exports and the broader economy (Chart 26). Moreover, the rising price of key Malaysian exports like energy and palm oil should be positive for Malaysian equities (Chart 27). Chart 25Debt Is High, But Is Rolling Over Chart 26Cheap Currency Is A Tailwind For Exports Chart 27Commodities Support Equity Prices At the same time, valuations are attractive. Malaysian equities have underperformed the EM universe and its ASEAN peers since 2013 (see Chart 17 above). Malaysian equities have lost considerable value relative to their EM peers, and are trading at a discount relative to ASEAN peers. Compared to historical valuations, Malaysian equities are also trading at a discount (Chart 28 A and B). Chart 28aMalaysia Is Cheap Compared To Peers... Chart 28b...And Its Historical Valuation Bottom Line: The likely start of a new credit cycle, improving government finances, a persistently cheap currency, and the likelihood of an acceptable policy status quo should put a tailwind behind Malaysian risk assets. We recommend going long Malaysian equities relative to their EM peers. Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst Emerging Markets Strategy stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax?," dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report, "The Case For A Major Top In EM," dated July 12, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Major central banks outside the U.S. have fired a warning shot across the bow of global bond markets by signaling that "emergency" levels of monetary accommodation are no longer required. Pipeline inflation pressures have yet to show up at the consumer price level outside of the U.K. Most central bankers argue that temporary factors are to blame, but longer-lasting forces could be at work. There are numerous examples of deflationary pressure driven by waves of innovation, cost cutting and changing business models. However, this is not confirmed in the productivity data. Productivity is dismally low and we do not believe it is due to mismeasurement. The Phillips curve is not dead. We expect that inflation will firm by enough to allow central banks to continue scaling back monetary stimulus. The real fed funds rate is not far from the neutral short-term rate, but it is still well below the Fed's estimate of the long-run neutral rate. Market expectations for the Fed are far too complacent; keep duration short. The failure to repeal Obamacare could actually increase the motivation of Republicans to move forward on tax cuts. Expansionary fiscal policy would make life more difficult for the FOMC, given that unemployment is on course to reach the lowest level since 2000. This would force the Fed to act more aggressively, possibly triggering a recession in 2019. The peak Fed/ECB policy divergence is not behind us, implying that recent dollar weakness will reverse. However, the next dollar upleg has been delayed. Fading market hopes for U.S. fiscal stimulus this year have not weighed on equities, in part because of a solid earnings backdrop. Global EPS growth continues to accelerate in line with the recovery in industrial production. In the U.S., results so far suggest that Q2 will see another quarter of margin expansion. Overall earnings growth should peak above our 20% target later this year. It will be tougher sledding in the equity market once profit growth peaks in the U.S. because of poor valuation. Expect to downgrade stocks in the first half of 2018. Corporate bonds are also benefiting from the robust profit backdrop. Balance sheet health continues to deteriorate, but the spark is missing for a sustained corporate bond spread widening. Feature Chart I-1Sell-Off In Global Bond Markets ##br##Triggered By Central Bank Talk Major central banks outside the U.S. fired a warning shot across the bow of global bond markets by signaling a recalibration of monetary policy at the ECB's Forum on Central Banking in late June (Chart I-1). The heads of the Bank of England (BoE), Bank of Canada (BoC) and Swedish Riksbank all took a less dovish tone, warning that the diminished threat of deflation has reduced the need for ultra-stimulative policies. The BoC quickly followed up in July with a rate hike and a warning of more to come. The central bank now expects the economy to reach full employment and hit the inflation target by mid-2018, much earlier than previously expected. The Riksbank also backed away from its easing bias at its most recent policy meeting. The ECB's shift in stance was evident even before its Forum meeting, when President Draghi gave a glowing description of the underlying strength of the Euro Area economy. The labor market is about two percentage points closer to full employment than the U.S. was just before the infamous 2013 Taper Tantrum.1 European core inflation is admittedly below target today, but so was the U.S. rate leading up to the 2013 Tantrum. We have not forgotten about Europe's structural problems or the inherent contradictions of the single currency. Banks are still laden with bad debt (although the recapitalization of Italian banks has gone well so far). Nonetheless, from a cyclical economic standpoint, solid momentum this year will allow Draghi to scale back the ECB's ultra-accommodative monetary stance by tapering its asset purchase program early in 2018. The message that "emergency" levels of monetary accommodation are no longer needed is confirmed by our Central Bank (CB) Monitors, which measure pressure on central bankers to raise or lower interest rates (Chart I-2). The Monitors became less useful when rates hit the zero bound and quantitative easing was the only game in town, but they are becoming relevant again as more policymakers consider their exit strategy. All of our CB Monitors are currently in "tighter policy required" territory except for Japan and the Eurozone (although even those are close to the zero line). The Monitors have been rising due to both their growth and underlying inflation components. Another tick higher in PMI's for the advanced economies in July underscored that the rebound in industrial production is continuing (Chart I-3). Our short-term forecasting models, which include both hard and soft data, point to stronger growth in the major countries in the second half of 2017 (Chart I-4). Chart I-2Most In The "Tighter Policy Required" Zone Chart I-3Industrial Production Recovery Is Intact On the inflation side, our pipeline indicators have all signaled a modest building of underlying inflation pressure over the past year (although they have softened recently in the U.S. and Eurozone; Chart I-5). In terms of the components of these indicators, rising core producer price inflation has been partly offset by slower gains in unit labor costs in some economies. Chart I-4Our Short-Term Growth Models Are Bullish Chart I-5Some Rise In Pipeline Inflation Pressure These pipeline pressures have yet to show up at the consumer level. Most central bankers argue that temporary special factors are to blame, but many investors are wondering if longer-lasting forces are at work. There are numerous examples of deflationary pressure driven by waves of innovation, cost cutting and changing business models. Amazon, Uber, robotics and shale oil production are just a few examples. If this is the main story, then the inability for central banks to reach their inflation targets is a "good thing" because it reflects the adaptation of game-changing new technology. There is no doubt that important strides are being made in certain areas where new technologies are clearly driving prices down. The problem is that, at the macro level, it is not showing up in the productivity data. Productivity is dismally low across the major countries and we do not believe it is simply due to mismeasurement. A Special Report from BCA's Global Investment Strategy2 service makes a convincing case that mismeasurement is not behind the low productivity figures. In fact, it appears that productivity is over-estimated in some industries. It is also important to keep in mind that technological change is nothing new. There is a vigorous debate in academic circles on whether today's new technologies are anywhere near as positive as previous ones like indoor plumbing, electricity, the internal combustion engine and the internet. We are wowed by today's new gizmos, but they are not as transformative as previous innovations. While productivity is surging in some high-profile firms, studies show that there is a long tail of low-productivity companies that drag down the average. A full discussion is beyond the scope of this report and more research needs to be done, but we are not of the view that technology and productivity preclude rising inflation. We expect that inflation will firm by enough to allow central banks to continue scaling back monetary stimulus in the coming months and quarters. Did Yellen Turn Dovish? As with other central banks, the consensus among Fed policymakers is willing to "look through" low inflation for now. Yellen's Congressional testimony did not deviate from that view, although investors interpreted her remarks as dovish. The financial press focused on her statement that "...the policy rate is not far from neutral." However, this was followed up by the statement that "...because we also anticipate that the factors that are currently holding down the neutral rate will diminish somewhat over time, additional gradual rate hikes are likely to be appropriate over the next few years to sustain the economic expansion and return inflation to our 2 percent goal." Chart I-6Bond Market Does Not Believe The Fed The Fed believes there are two neutral interest rates: short-term and long-term. Yellen argued that the actual policy rate is currently close to the short-term neutral level, which is depressed by economic headwinds. However, Yellen and others have made the case that the short-term neutral rate is trending up as headwinds diminish, and will converge with the long-term neutral rate over time. The Fed's Summary of Economic Projections reveals what the FOMC thinks is the neutral long-term real fed funds rate; the median forecast calls for a nominal fed funds rate of 2.9% at the end of 2019 and 3% in the longer run. Incorporating a 2% inflation target, we can infer that the Fed anticipates a real neutral rate of 1% in the longer run. The Fed is likely tracking the real neutral fed funds rate using an estimate created by Laubach and Williams (LW).3 Chart I-6 shows this estimate of the neutral rate, called R-star, alongside the real federal funds rate that is calculated using 12-month trailing core PCE. The resulting real fed funds rate has risen sharply during the past seven months due to both three Fed rate hikes and a decline in inflation. If the Fed lifts rates once more this year and core inflation stays put, then the real fed funds rate would end 2017 close to zero, only 42 bps below neutral. However, it's more likely that the Fed will need to see inflation rebound before it delivers another rate hike. In a scenario where core inflation rises to 1.9% and the Fed lifts rates once more, then the real fed funds rate would actually decline between now and the end of the year. The implication is that the real fed funds rate is not far from R-star, but the nominal rate will have to rise a long way before the real rate reaches the Fed's estimate of the long-term neutral rate. Investors simply don't believe Fed policymakers. According to the bond market, the real fed funds rate will not shift into positive territory until 2021 (see real forward OIS line in Chart I-6). We think this is far too complacent. U.S. Health Care Reform: RIP The speed at which short-term rates converge with the long-run neutral rate will depend importantly on the path of fiscal policy. The Republicans' failure to pass their health care legislation is leading the investors to doubt the prospect for (stimulative) tax cuts. This may be premature. Ironically, the failure to jettison Obamacare may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for President Trump and the Republican Party. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the proposed legislation would have caused 22 million fewer Americans to have health insurance in 2026 compared with the status quo. The Senate bill would have also led to substantial cuts to Medicaid relative to existing law, as well as deep cuts to insurance subsidies for many poor and middle-class families. Many of these voters came out in support of Trump last year. 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. Sub-4% U.S. Unemployment Rate Followed By Recession? Chart I-7Inside The Fed's Forecasts Expansionary fiscal policy would make life more difficult for the FOMC, which may have already fallen behind the curve. The unemployment rate is below the Fed's estimate of the full employment level, and it will continue to erode 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 assuming real GDP growth of 2% (Chart I-7). 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. The implication is that the unemployment rate is likely to soon reach levels not seen since 2000, which would force the FOMC to tighten more aggressively. The Fed would hope for a soft landing as it tries to nudge the unemployment rate higher, but the more likely result is a recession in 2019. For this year, we expect the Fed to begin balance sheet runoff in the autumn, followed by a rate hike in December. The latter hinges importantly on at least a modest rise in core PCE inflation in the coming months. A rebound in oil prices would help the Fed reach its inflation goal, even though energy prices affect the headline by more than the core rate. Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih indicated at a recent press conference in St. Petersburg that no changes are presently needed to the production deal under which OPEC and non-OPEC producers pledged to remove 1.8mn b/d from the market. The Saudi energy minister's remarks leave open the possibility of deeper cuts later this year if global inventories do not draw fast enough, or for the cuts to be extended beyond March 2018 if officials are not satisfied with progress on the storage front. We still believe they are capable of meeting this goal, despite rising shale production. Chart I-8Forecast Of Oil Inventories Our commodity strategists expect OECD oil inventories to reach their five-year average level by year-end or early 2018 Q1 (Chart I-8). In the absence of additional cuts, the five-year average level of OECD inventories will be higher than we estimated earlier this year, indicating that our expectation for the overall inventory drawdown later this year has been trimmed. Still, our oil strategists believe the inventory drawdowns will be sufficient to push WTI above the mid-$50s by year-end. If this forecast pans out, rising oil prices will push up headline inflation and inflation expectations in the major advanced economies. The bottom line is that the backdrop has turned bond-bearish now that central bankers in the advanced economies are in the process of scaling back the easier monetary policy that followed the deflationary 2014/15 oil shock. Duration should be kept short within global fixed income portfolios. In terms of country allocation, our global fixed income strategists have downgraded the Eurozone government bond market to underweight, joining the Treasury allocation, in light of the pending ECB tapering announcement that could place more upward pressure on yields. This was offset by upgrading Japan to maximum overweight. Max Policy Divergence Has Not Been Reached Chart I-9Europe Has A Lower Neutral Rate The change in tone by central bankers outside the U.S. has weighted heavily on the U.S. dollar. The Canadian dollar and the Euro have been particularly strong. Investors have apparently decided that the peak Fed/ECB policy divergence is now behind us. We do not agree. The ECB may be tapering, but rate hikes are a long way off because there remains a substantial amount of economic slack in the Eurozone. Laubach and Williams estimate R-star in the Eurozone to be close to zero, which is 50 basis points below the U.S. neutral rate (Chart I-9). The difference is related to slower potential growth and greater unemployment. Labor market slack across the euro area as a whole is still 3.2 percentage points higher than in 2008, and 6.7 points higher outside of Germany. The current real short-term rate is about -1%. We expect U.S. R-star to rise in absolute terms and relative to the neutral rate in the Eurozone because the U.S. is further advanced in the economic expansion. As Fed rate hike expectations ratchet up in the coming months, interest rate differentials versus Europe will widen in favor of the dollar. It is the same story for the dollar/yen rate because the Bank of Japan is a long way from raising or abandoning its 10-year bond yield peg. Japanese core inflation has fallen back to zero and medium-to-long-term inflation expectations have dipped so far this year. The annual shunto wage negotiations this summer produced little in the way of salary hikes. The major exception to our "strong dollar" call is the Canadian loonie, which we expect to appreciate versus the greenback. We also like the Aussie dollar, provided that the Chinese economy continues to hold up as we expect. Stocks Get A Free Pass For Now Chart I-10Global EPS And Industrial Production Fading market hopes for U.S. fiscal stimulus have weighed on both U.S. Treasury yields and the dollar, but the equity market has taken the news in stride. Are equity investors simply in denial? We do not think so. The equity market appears to have been given a "free pass" for now because earnings have been supportive. The combination of robust earnings growth, steady real GDP growth of around 2%, and low bond yields has been bullish for stocks so far in this expansion. At the global level, EPS growth continues to accelerate in line with the recovery in industrial production, which is a good proxy for top line growth (Chart I-10). Orders and production for capital goods in the major advanced economies have been particularly strong in recent months. The global operating margin flattened off last month according to IBES data, although margins continued to firm in the U.S. and Europe (Chart I-11). The profit acceleration is widespread across these three economies in the Basic Materials and Consumer Discretionary sectors. Industrials, Energy, Health Care and Consumer Staples are also performing well in most cases. Telecom is the weak spot. Our sector profit diffusion indexes paint an upbeat picture for the near term (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Operating Margins On The Rise Chart I-12Earnings Diffusion Indexes Are Bullish In the U.S., the second quarter earnings season is off to a good start. Results so far suggest that Q2 will see another quarter of margin expansion. We believe that U.S. margins are in a secular decline, but they are in the midst of a counter-trend rally that will last for the rest of this year. Using blended results for the second quarter, trailing S&P 500 EPS growth hit 18½% on a 4-quarter moving total basis (Chart I-13). The acceleration in earnings is impressive even after excluding the Energy sector. We projected early this year that EPS growth would peak at around 20%4 by year end, but it appears that earnings will overshoot that level. Chart I-13Robust EPS Growth Even Without Energy It will be tougher sledding in the equity market once profit growth peaks in the U.S. because of poor valuation. We are expecting to scale back our overweight equity recommendation sometime in the first half of 2018, although the global rally could be extended by constructive earnings data in Europe and Japan. The earnings recovery in both economies is behind the U.S., such that peak growth will come later in 2018. There is also more room for margins to expand in Europe than in the U.S. The relative earnings cycle is one of the reasons why we continue to favor Eurozone and Japanese stocks to the U.S. in local currency terms. Japanese stocks are also cheap to the U.S. based on our top-down valuation indicator (Chart I-14). European stocks are not far from fair value relative to the U.S., after adjusting for the fact that Europe trades structurally on the cheap side. The message from our top-down valuation indicator for European stocks is confirmed when using the bottom-up information contained in the new BCA Equity Trading Strategy platform. The Special Report beginning on page 20 describes a bottom-up valuation measure that we will use in conjunction with our top-down (index-based) measures. Corporate Bonds: Kindling And Sparks Healthy EPS growth momentum is also constructive for corporate bonds, although overall balance sheet health continues to erode in the U.S. The release of the U.S. Flow of Funds data allows us to update BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for the first quarter (Chart I-15). The level of the CHM moved slightly deeper into "deteriorating health territory." Chart I-14Top-Down Relative Equity Valuation Chart I-15Deteriorating Since 2015, But... The Monitor has been a reliable indicator for the trend in corporate bond spreads over the years, calling almost all major turning points in advance. However, spreads have trended tighter over the past year even as the CHM began to signal deteriorating health in early 2015. Why the divergence? The CHM is only one of three key items on our checklist to underweight corporate bonds versus Treasurys. The other two are tight Fed policy (i.e. real interest rates that are above the neutral level) and the direction of bank lending standards for C&I loans. On its own, balance sheet deterioration only provides the kindling for a spread blowout. It also requires a spark. Investors do not worry about high leverage or a profit margin squeeze, for example, until the outlook for defaults sours. The latter occurs once inflation starts to rise and the Fed actively targets slower growth via higher interest rates. Banks see trouble on the horizon and respond by tightening lending standards, thereby restricting the flow of credit to the business sector. Defaults start to ramp up, buttressing banks' bias to curtail lending in a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. The three items on the checklist normally occurred at roughly the same time in previous cycles because a deteriorating CHM is typically a late-cycle phenomenon. But this has been a very different cycle. High stock prices and rock-bottom bond yields have encouraged the corporate sector to leverage up and repurchase stock. At the same time, the subpar, stretched-out recovery has meant that it has taken longer than usual for the economy to reach full employment. It will be some time before U.S. short-term interest rates reach restrictive territory. As for banks, they tightened lending standards a little in 2015/16 due to the collapse of energy prices, but this has since reversed. The implication is that, while corporate health has deteriorated, we do not have the spark for a sustained corporate bond spread widening. Indeed, Moody's expects that the 12-month default rate will trend lower over the next year, which is consistent with constructive trends in corporate lending standards, industrial production and job cut announcements (all good indicators for defaults). Chart I-16 presents a valuation metric that adjusts the HY OAS for 12-month trailing default losses (i.e. it is an ex-post measure). In the forecast period, we hold today's OAS constant, but the 12-month default losses are a shifting blend of historical losses and Moody's forecast. The endpoint suggests that the market is offering about 200 basis points of default-adjusted excess yield over the Treasury curve for the next 12 months. This is roughly in line with the mid-point of the historical data. In the past, a default-adjusted spread of around 200 basis points provided positive 12-month excess returns to high-yield bonds 74% of the time, with an average return of 82 basis points. It is also a positive sign for corporate bonds that the net transfer to shareholders, in the form of buybacks, dividends and M&A activity, eased in the fourth quarter 2016 and the first quarter of 2017 (Chart I-17). Ratings migration has also improved (i.e. moderating net downgrades), especially for shareholder-friendly rating action, which is a better indicator for corporate spreads. The diminished appetite to "return cash to shareholders" may not last long, but for now it supports our overweight in both investment- and speculative-grade bonds versus Treasurys. That said, excess returns are likely to be limited to the carry given little room for spread compression. Chart I-16Still Some Value In ##br##High-Yield Corporates Chart I-17Net Transfers To Shareholders ##br##Eased In Past Two Quarters Within balanced portfolios, we recommend favoring equities to high-yield at this stage of the cycle. Value is not good enough in HY relative to stocks to expect any sustained period of outperformance in the former, assuming that the bull market in risk assets continues. Investment Conclusions A key change in the global financial landscape over the past month is a signal from central banks that they see the need for policy recalibration. Policymakers view sub-target inflation as temporary, and some are concerned that low interest rates could contribute to the formation of financial market bubbles. The bond market remains skeptical, given persistent inflation undershoots and growing anecdotal evidence that new technologies are very deflationary. It would be extremely bullish for stocks if these new technologies were indeed boosting the supply side of the economy at a faster pace than the official data suggest. Robust advances in output-per-worker would allow profits to grow quickly, and would provide the economy more breathing space before hitting inflationary capacity limits (keeping the bond vigilantes at bay). We acknowledge that there are important technological breakthroughs being made, but we do not see any evidence that this is occurring on a widespread basis sufficient to "move the dial" in terms of overall productivity growth. Indeed, the stagnation of middle class personal income is consistent with a poor productivity backdrop. Chart I-18 highlights that "creative destruction" is in a long-term bear market. Chart I-18Less Creative Destruction That said, the equity market is benefiting from the mini-cycle in corporate profits, which are still recovering from the earnings recession in 2015/early 2016. We expect the recovery to be complete by early 2018, which will set the stage for a substantial slowdown in EPS growth next year. It won't be a disaster, absent a recession, but demanding valuations suggest that the market could struggle to make headway through next year. We expect to trim exposure sometime in the first half of 2018. To time the exit, we will watch for a roll-over in the growth rate of S&P 500 EPS on a 4-quarter moving total basis. Investors should look for a peak in industrial production growth as a warnings sign for profits. We are also watching for a contraction in excess money, which we define as M2 divided by nominal GDP. Finally, a rise in core PCE inflation to 2% would be a signal that the Fed is about to ramp up interest rates. For now, remain overweight equities relative to bonds and cash. Favor equities to high yield, but within fixed-income portfolios, overweight investment- and speculative-grade corporates versus Treasurys. We are comfortable with our pro-risk recommendations and our below-benchmark duration stance. Unfortunately, that can't be said of our bullish U.S. dollar and oil price house views. Both are controversial calls among our strategists. As for oil, supply and demand are finely balanced and our positive view hinges importantly on OPEC agreeing to more production cuts. The obvious risk is that these cuts do not materialize. The dollar call has gone against us as the latest signs of improving global growth momentum have admittedly been outside the U.S. Meanwhile, the U.S. is stuck in a political morass, which delays the prospect of fiscal stimulus. This is not to say that U.S. growth will slow. Rather, the growth acceleration may fall short of the high expectations following last November's election. We continue to believe that the market is too complacent on the pace of Fed rate hikes in the coming quarters. An upward adjustment in rate expectations should push the dollar higher on a trade-weighted basis, as outlined above. Nonetheless, this shift will require higher U.S. inflation, the timing of which is highly uncertain. We remain dollar bulls on a 12-month horizon, but we are stepping aside and calling for a trading range in the next three months. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst July 27, 2017 Next Report: August 31, 2017 1 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Central Banks Are Now Playing Catch-Up," dated July 4, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Kathryn Holston, Thomas Laubach, and John C. Williams "Measuring The Natural Rates Of Interest: International Trends And Determinants," Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Working Paper 2016-11 (December 2016). 4 Calculated as a year-over-year growth rate of a 4-quarter moving total of S&P data. II. The BCA ETS Trading Platform Approach To Valuing Eurozone Stocks The performance of European stocks relative to the U.S. has been dismal in the post-Lehman period. However, the Eurozone economy is performing impressively, profit growth is accelerating and margins are rising. This points to a period of outperformance for Eurozone stocks, at least in local currency terms. Standard valuation measures based on index data suggest that Eurozone stocks are cheap to the U.S. Nonetheless, the European market almost always trades at a discount, due to persistent lackluster profit performance. In Part II of our series on valuation, we approach the issue from a bottom-up perspective, utilizing the powerful analytics provided by BCA's exciting new Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform. The ETS software allows us to compare U.S. and European companies on a head-to-head basis and rank them based on a wide range of characteristics. The bottom-up approach avoids the problems of index construction. Investors can be confident that they will make money on a 12-month horizon by taking a position when the new bottom-up indicator reaches +/-1 standard deviations over- or under-valued, although technical information should be taken on board to sharpen the timing. The +/-2 sigma level gives clear buy/sell signals irrespective of fundamental or technical factors. Valuation alone does not justify overweight Eurozone positions at the moment, although we like the market for other reasons. The bottom-up valuation indicator will not replace our top-down version that is based on index data, but rather will be considered together when evaluating relative value. Total returns in the European equity market have bounced relative to the U.S. since 2016 in both local-currency and common currency terms (Chart II-1). However, this has offset only a tiny fraction of the dismal underperformance since 2007. In local currencies, the relative EMU/U.S. total return index is still close to its lowest level since the late 1970s. Compared with the pre-Lehman peak, the U.S. total return index is more than 96% higher according to Datastream data, while the Eurozone total return index is only now getting back to the previous high-water mark when expressed in U.S. dollars (Chart II-2). Chart II-1EMU Stocks Lag Massively... Chart II-2...Due To Depressed Earnings The yawning return gap between the two equity markets was almost entirely due to earnings as market multiples have moved largely in sync. Earnings-per-share (EPS) generated by U.S. companies now exceed the pre-Lehman peak by about 19%. In contrast, earnings produced by their Eurozone peers are a whopping 48% below their peak (common currency). This reflects both a slower recovery in sales-per-share growth and lower profit margins. Operating margins in Europe have been on the upswing for a year, but are still depressed by pre-Lehman standards. Margin outperformance in the U.S. is not a sector weighting story; in only 2 of 10 sectors do European operating margins exceed the U.S. The return-on-equity data tell a similar story. Nonetheless, a turning point may be at hand. Chart II-3Europe Trades At A Discount The Eurozone economy has been performing well, especially on a per-capita basis, and forward-looking indicators suggest that growth will remain above-trend for at least the next few quarters. U.S. profit margins have also been (temporarily) rising, but the Eurozone economy has more room to grow because there is still slack in the labor market. There is also more room for margins to rise in the Eurozone corporate sector than is the case in the U.S., where the profit cycle is further advanced. Traditional measures of value based on the MSCI indexes suggest that European stocks are on the cheap side. But are they really that cheap? Based on index data, Eurozone stocks trade at a hefty discount across most of the main valuation measures (Chart II-3). This is the case even for normalized measures such as price-to-book (P/B). However, Eurozone stocks have almost always traded at a discount. There are many possible explanations as to why there is a persistent valuation gap between these two markets, including differences in accounting standards, discount rates and sector weights. The wider use of stock buybacks in the U.S. also favors American stock valuations relative to Europe. But most important are historical differences in underlying corporate fundamentals. U.S. companies on the whole were significantly more profitable even before the Great Financial Crisis (Chart II-3). U.S. companies also tend to have lower leverage and higher interest coverage. Better profitability metrics in the U.S. are not solely an artifact of sector weighting either. RoE and operating margins are lower in Europe even applying U.S. sector weights to the European market.1 Why corporate Europe has been a perennial profit under-achiever is beyond the scope of this paper. U.S. companies reaped most of the benefit from productivity gains over the past 25 years, with the result that the capital share of income soared while the labor share collapsed. European companies were less successful in squeezing down labor costs. Measuring Value In the first part of our two-part Special Report on valuation, published in July 2016, we took a top-down approach to determine whether Eurozone stocks are cheap versus the U.S. after adjusting for different sector weights and persistent differences in the underlying profit fundamentals. A regression approach that factored in various profitability measures performed reasonably well, but the top-down "mechanical" approach that relied on a 5-year moving average provided the most profitable buy/sell signals historically. We approach the issue from a bottom-up perspective in Part II of our series, utilizing the powerful analytics provided by BCA's exciting new Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform. The software allows us to compare U.S. and European companies on a head-to-head basis and rank them based on a wide range of characteristics. The bottom-up approach avoids the problems of index construction when trying to gauge valuation across countries. The web-based platform uses over 24 quantitative factors to rank approximately 10,000 individual stocks in 23 countries, allowing clients to find stocks with winning characteristics at the global level. Users can rank and score individual equities to support a broad set of investment strategies and apply macro and sector views to single-name investments. The ETS approach has an impressive track record. Historically, the top-decile of stocks ranked using the "BCA Score" methodology have outperformed stocks in the bottom decile by over 25% a year.2 The BCA Score includes all 24 factors when ranking stocks, but we are interested in developing a valuation metric that provides valued added on its own and is at least as good as the top-down index-based measure developed in Part I. The five valuation measures in the ETS database are trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-book, price-to-sales and price-to-cash flow. We combine all of the Eurozone and U.S. companies that have total assets of greater than $1 billion into one dataset. The ETS platform then ranks the stocks from best to worst on a daily basis (i.e. cheapest to most expensive), using an equally-weighted average of the five valuation measures. The average score for U.S. stocks is subtracted from the average score for European stocks, and then divided by the standard deviation of the series. This provides a valuation metric that fluctuates roughly between +/- 2 standard deviations. Chart II-4 presents the resulting bottom-up indicator, along with our previously-published top-down valuation measure. A high reading indicates that European stocks are cheap to the U.S., while it is the opposite for low readings. Chart II-4Eurozone Equity Relative Valuation Indicators The underlying bottom-up data extend back to 2000. However, the bursting of the tech bubble in the early 2000's causes major shifts in relative valuation among sectors and between the U.S. and Eurozone that skew the indicator when constructed using the entire data set. We obtain a cleaner indicator when using only the data from 2005. As with any valuation indicator, it is only useful when it reaches extremes. We calculated the historical track record for a trading rule that is based on critical levels of over- and under-valuation. For example, we calculated the (local currency) excess returns over 3, 6, 12 and 24-month horizon generated by (1) overweighting European stocks when that market was one and two standard deviations cheap versus the U.S. market, and (2) overweighting the U.S. when the European market was one and two standard deviations expensive (Table II-1). Table II-1Value Indicator: Trading Rule Returns And Batting Average The trading rule returns were best when the indicator reached two standard deviations cheap or expensive, providing average returns of almost 11 percent over 12 months. The trading rule returns when the indicator reached +/-1 standard deviation were not as good, but still more than 3% on 12- and 24-month horizons. Table II-1 also presents the trading rule's batting average. That is, the number of positive excess returns generated by the trading rule as a percent of the total number of signals. The batting average ranged from 50% on a 3-month horizon to 68% over 24 months when buy/sell signals are triggered at +/- 1 standard deviation. The batting average is much higher (80-100%) using +/- 2 standard deviations as a trigger point, although there were only five months over the entire sample when the indicator reached this level. The charts and tables in the Appendix present the results of the same analysis at the sector level. The results are equally as good as the aggregate valuation indicator, with a couple of exceptions. European stocks are cheap to the U.S. in the Energy, Financials, and Utilities sectors, while U.S. stocks offer better value in Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples, Health Care, Industrials and Technology. Materials, Real Estate, and Telecommunications are close to equally valued. Sharpening The Buy/Sell Signals We then augmented the valuation analysis by adding information on company fundamentals, such as EPS growth and profit margins among others. The ETS software ranked the companies after equally-weighting the valuation and fundamental factors. However, this approach yielded poor results in terms of the trading rule. This is because, for example, when European stocks reach undervalued levels relative to the U.S., it is usually because the European earnings fundamentals have underperformed those of the U.S. companies. Thus, favorable value is offset by poor fundamentals, muddying the message provided by valuation alone. In contrast, adding some information from the technical factors in the ETS model does add value, at least when using +/-1 standard deviations as the trigger point for trades (Chart II-5). Excess returns to the trading rule rise significantly when the medium-term momentum and long-term mean reversion factors are included in the valuation indicator (Table II-2). The batting average also improves. Chart II-5Indicators: Value And Value With Technical Information Table II-2Value And Technical Indicator: Trading Rule Returns And Batting Average Adding technical information does not improve the trading rule performance when +/-2 sigma is used as the trigger point. Investment Conclusions Our new ETS platform provides investors with a unique way of picking stocks by combining top-down macro themes with company-specific information. It also allows us to develop valuation tools that avoid some of the pitfalls of index data by comparing stocks on a head-to-head basis. Historical analysis using a trading rule demonstrates that the new bottom-up valuation indicator provides real value to investors. We would normally evaluate its track record using stretching analysis, where we use only the historical information available at each point in time when determining relative value. However, the relatively short history of the available data precludes this test because we need at least a few cycles to best gauge the underlying volatility in the data. Still, investors can be fairly confident that they will make money on a 12-month horizon by taking a position when the bottom-up indicator reaches +/-1 sigma over- or under-valued, although technical information should be taken on board to sharpen the timing. The +/-2 sigma level gives clear buy/sell signals irrespective of the fundamental or technical factors. The bottom-up valuation indicator will not replace our top-down version that is based on index data, but rather will be considered together when evaluating relative value. At the moment, the top-down version proposes that European stocks are somewhat cheap to the U.S., while the bottom-up indicator points to slight overvaluation. Considering the two together suggests that valuation is close enough to fair value that investors cannot make the decision on value alone. Valuation indicators need to be near extremes to be informative. Our global equity strategists recommend overweighting Eurozone stocks versus the U.S. at the moment, although not because of valuation. Rather, the Eurozone economy and corporate earnings have more room to grow because of lingering labor market slack. This also means that the ECB can keep rates glued to the zero bound for at least the next 18 months while the Fed hikes, which will place upward pressure on the dollar and downward pressure on the euro. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Appendix: Trading Rule Returns By Sector Chart II-6, Chart II-7, Chart II-8, Chart II-9, Chart II-10, Chart II-11, Chart II-12, Chart II-13, Chart II-14, Chart II-15, Chart II-16. Chart II-6Consumer Discretionary Chart II-7Consumer Staples Chart II-8Energy Chart II-9Financials Chart II-10Health Care Chart II-11Industrials Chart II-12Materials Chart II-13Real Estate Chart II-14Utilities Chart II-15Technology Chart II-16Telecommunication 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Are Eurozone Stocks Really That Cheap?" July 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Introducing ETS: A Top Down Approach to Bottom-Up Stock Picking," December 2, 2015, available at ets.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Stocks continue to outperform bonds against a constructive backdrop of improving global economic prospects and accelerating EPS growth, while low inflation is expected to keep central banks from tightening quickly. Our main equity and asset allocation indicators remain bullish for risk, with a few exceptions. Our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) jumped back to a 100% equity weighting in July. We introduced the RPI in last month's Special 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 provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. The U.S. WTP remains bullish, but has topped out, suggesting that flows into the U.S. market are beginning to moderate. In contrast, the WTP indicators for both the Eurozone and Japan are rising from a low level. This suggests that a rotation into these equity markets is underway, although it has not yet shown up in terms of equity market outperformance versus the U.S. On the negative side, our Monetary Indicator last month fell a little further below the zero line and our composite Technical Indicator appears to be rolling over; the latter generates a 'sell' signal when it drops below its 9-month moving average. Value is stretched, but our Valuation Indicator has not yet reached the +1 standard deviation level that indicates clear over-valuation. As highlighted in the Overview section, the U.S. and global earnings backdrop continues to support equity markets. Forward earnings estimates are in a steep uptrend, and the recent surge in the net revisions ratio and the earnings surprise index suggests that EPS growth will remain impressive for the remainder of the year. Bond valuation is largely unchanged from last month, sitting very close to fair value. We still believe that fair value is rising as economic headwinds fade. However, much depends on our forecast that core inflation in the major countries will grind higher in the coming months. Central banks stand ready to "remove the punchbowl" if they get the green light from inflation. The dollar's downdraft in July reduced some of its overvaluation based on purchasing power parity measures. The dollar appears less overvalued based on other measures. Our composite Technical Indicator has fallen hard, but has not reached oversold levels. This suggests that the dollar has more downside before it finds a bottom. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen TechnicalsChart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro TechnicalsChart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China

Highlights The "Trump Put" rumbles on, spurring equities, driving U.S. Treasury yields down, and hurting the dollar; White House incompetence, which underpins the "Trump Put," is about quantitative and qualitative staffing decisions, not the Russia collusion investigation; Tax reform will happen, but Congress is now in charge; Watch for the next Fed Chair nomination, more dollar downside could be ahead; China has preempted the next financial crisis with new regulatory oversight; The death of Abenomics is overstated. Feature We introduced the "Trump Put" in a recent report as a risk to our view that President Trump would get his populist economic agenda through Congress.1 The Trump Put posits that White House disarray and congressional incompetence will combine with decent earnings growth and steady global growth to produce Goldilocks conditions for U.S. equities, while simultaneously weakening the USD and supporting Treasuries. Thus far, the Trump Put continues to be in effect (Chart 1). Our House Views of further yield-curve steepening and a stronger USD have suffered from the ongoing "gong show" that is the Trump administration. The saving grace has been our high-conviction bullish equity view (Chart 2).2 Chart 1The Trump Put: Good For Equities,##br## Bad For Everything Else Chart 2S&P 500 Does Not##br## Care About Russia That said, we maintain our high-conviction view that the GOP will pass tax legislation in Q1 2018. Why? First, the failure to repeal Obamacare means that congressional Republicans will enter the midterm election season with no legislative wins. That is extraordinary given Republican control of both chambers of Congress and the executive. The House GOP members will not want to face an angry electorate in primary elections a year from now, or the general election, without a single major accomplishment. Second, Trump's low popularity will be an albatross around the neck of GOP candidates in the November 2018 elections, with potentially ominous results (Chart 3). Trump needs to pass a major piece of legislation; GOP congressmen have an interest in lifting Trump's popularity. Third, the House has passed the FY2017 budget resolution, which includes reconciliation instructions for tax reform. Given that only one budget resolution can be effective at any one time, the Obamacare replacement effort will end with the current fiscal year, on October 1.3 Chart 3GOP Is Running Out Of Time While we remain confident that some form of tax legislation will ultimately pass - either watered down tax reform or mere tax cuts - we are far less confident that it will be stimulative. In other words, it will be done according to the congressional, not the White House, blueprint. House Speaker Paul Ryan has long demanded revenue-neutral reform. The just-passed budget resolution calls for $203 billion in spending cuts in order to make tax cuts revenue-neutral. This is a reversion to form after the period earlier this year in which several fiscal conservatives, like Representatives Kevin Brady and Mark Meadows, intoned that they would be comfortable with tax reform that was not revenue-neutral. At the beginning of the year, it looked like Trump would be able to use his bully pulpit to cajole the Congressional Republicans into stimulative tax reform or tax cuts. Previous Presidents, including Obama with the Affordable Care Act, have been able to punish overly ideological legislators for the sake of pragmatism and/or expediency. Certainly Trump remains popular with GOP voters (Chart 4), suggesting that he might be able to do so as well. Chart 4Trump Retains Political ##br##Capital With GOP Voters Six months into his presidency, however, Trump remains a no-show in terms of leadership. This is not merely the result of distraction with the "Russian collusion" charges against his campaign team and inner circle. The White House is simply not playing its traditional coordinating role to shepherd key bills through Congress. Political insiders, even the ones close to Trump, are signaling privately and via the media that the White House is in disarray and understaffed both quantitatively and qualitatively. It is in no shape, in other words, to coordinate the legislative process and play the role of peacemaker between the different congressional factions. At the heart of the disarray is an elite dispute within the White House itself between what we call the "Goldman" and "Breitbart" factions of the administration. The Goldman Clique: Donald Trump has staffed his administration with several financial sector luminaries whom he met while building his business empire. At the head of this faction is Gary Cohn, Director of the National Economic Council and leading candidate for the next Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (more on that later). Other members are Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and the most recent addition to the administration, the new White House Communications Director Anthony "the Mooch" Scaramucci. This faction is pragmatic, un-ideological (Cohn and "the Mooch" are essentially Democrats), and focused on passing tax reform and pro-business regulation. They prefer tax reform to mere tax cuts, and want middle class tax cuts to be balanced with pro-business corporate tax reform. The Breitbart Clique: Most commentators see the Goldman clique as the more powerful of the two White House factions, but Trump owes his electoral victory to a campaign molded along the ideological bent in line with the Breitbart faction. This group is led by Chief Strategist Steven Bannon and policy advisor Steven Miller.4 Behind the scenes, Bannon and Miller have managed to staff the White House with several Breitbart alumni, such as presidential advisors Sebastian Gorka and Julia Hahn, and (until her departure this month) Security Council Deputy Chief of Staff Tera Dahl. Factional fighting is not new to the White House. For example, the Obama administration was divided between foreign policy hawks - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates - and doves - National Security Advisor Susan Rice and Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power. White House policy is often a product of compromise between different factions, producing sub-optimal outcomes. The problem with the Trump administration, however, is that the Breitbart faction is severely outmatched and unqualified for the job of coordinating legislative policy. Putting aside its ideological zealotry, this faction consists mainly of journalists without policy experience. This inexperience came to light with Trump's original executive order banning entry into the U.S. of nationals of several countries, penned by Bannon and Miller, which would have barred green card holders from entry. While that order may or may not have been constitutional, it was clearly impractical and aggressive. Another clear problem for the Trump administration is that its current Chief of Staff, former RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, is weak and ineffective. Priebus was a compromise candidate between the two factions and someone seen as acceptable to Republicans in Congress. Since his appointment, however, he has been a no-show. It was his idea to focus on replacing Obamacare ahead of tax reform (despite the absence of a GOP blueprint for the former and the existence of a blueprint for the latter), and it was his idea to give the overmatched Sean Spicer the role of managing the press. The chief of staff should be a force of nature, capable of instilling fear into the president's congressional allies in order to get legislation moving and reduce cliquish in-fighting. A successful chief of staff is usually a controversial and abrasive figure, such as Rahm Emanuel at the beginning of President Obama's first term. He bullied and cajoled Democrats into passing Obamacare with legendary brutality. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy rarely delves into personality-driven analysis. It is too idiosyncratic, not systematic. However, as a country's political leadership becomes more "charismatic"5 - driven by personality rather than institutions - individuals, factions, and court intrigue matter more. What does all of this mean for investors? First, the White House is failing in its coordinating role. As such, Republicans in the House will take the lead on tax reform. Revenue neutrality will be emphasized. For this to change, the White House would have to reshuffle its personnel more extensively, including replacing Priebus. Second, if fiscal policy fails to take off, Trump will put greater stock in monetary policy. Our colleagues - who are economists, not political analysts - believe that the U.S. is likely to enter into recession in 2019, as the 2020 electoral campaign heats up. However, folks like Gary Cohn and Steve Mnuchin can see the same writing on the wall, and will probably try to avoid such a badly timed recession. Chart 5 shows that household debt has continued to decline as a share of disposable income; the share of national income going to labor has increased; and wage growth among lower-income workers who tend to spend most of their paychecks has accelerated. All of this should give consumers the wherewithal to spend more, warranting higher interest rates. Meanwhile, financial conditions have significantly eased due to USD weakness and declining bond-yields, which should boost growth in the second half of this year (Chart 6). Chart 5Households Have The ##br##Wherewithal To Spend More Chart 6Financial Conditions##br## Have Eased With Congress increasingly in charge of fiscal policy and a recession possible in 2019, we would expect Trump to do everything he can to ensure that the Fed retains its dovish bias when Chair Janet Yellen's term expires on February 3. 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. While there is some speculation regarding Cohn's policy preference, we are yet to find an insider (either of the FOMC or the White House) who denies that he is a dove. The intrigue should not last long. Both Yellen and Bernanke were nominated with considerable lead time: 114 days before the end of her predecessor's term for Yellen, and 91 days for Bernanke (Chart 7). We would therefore expect the next Fed Chair to be known by Thanksgiving. Is Cohn a controversial pick? Not really. As our colleague John Canally of BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy has pointed out, lack of Fed experience does not make Cohn particularly unique as a candidate. Since the late 1970s, presidents have tended to select the Fed Chair based on their relationship with a candidate, not previous central banking experience (Table 1).6 Cohn would only break the orthodoxy by being the first candidate to be appointed from across the ideological aisle, given that he is a Democrat. (Although several chairs have been reappointed by presidents from opposing political parties.) Chart 7How Long Does It Take To Confirm The Fed Chair? Table 1Characteristics Of Fed Chairs Since 1970 A number of previous Fed chairs were selected for loyalty over academic merit or central banking experience. President Nixon's pick for the chair, Arthur Burns (Chair from 1970-1978), was the head of President Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) and was a special counselor to Nixon before being appointed. William Miller (Chair from 1978-1979), although having served as an outside director for the Boston Fed, was appointed largely because of his work on the political campaigns of Hubert Humphrey and Jimmy Carter. Alan Greenspan (1987-2006) served as Chair of President Reagan's Social Security Commission in the early 1980s, Chair of President Ford's CEA, and advised Nixon's campaign in 1968. Only Volcker, Bernanke, and Yellen had previously held posts in the Federal Reserve System. The market cares about the appointment of the Fed chair. In 2013, for example, Larry Summers and Janet Yellen were in the running for the position, with Summers viewed as the more hawkish of the two. When he withdrew from the race on September 15, the market's expected pace of rate hikes plunged and long-dated TIPS breakevens surged on the expectations of a more dovish Fed (Chart 8). Given that the market is currently discounting just 27.4 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months, down from the recent peak of 36 bps (Chart 9), there may not be much room to get more dovish.7 Chart 8Yellen Vs. Summers Drove Markets In 2013 Chart 9Market May Be Right? Nonetheless, President Trump may not want to gamble with his Fed appointments. If we are right to assume that he is an economic populist, and that his fiscally stimulative agenda is slipping away, then we would expect the White House to err on the side of Fed appointments that would be behind the proverbial curve. In addition to Yellen, Trump will have the opportunity to appoint a new Vice Chairman of the Fed in place of Stanley Fischer on June 12, 2018 (Diagram 1), as well as another candidate for the Board of Governors (after already having nominated Marvin Goodfriend and Randal Quarels). By mid-2018, the Fed will start to take on a new composition altogether. Diagram 1Federal Reserve Board Of Governors Calendar Staffing the Fed with doves fits at least two of President Trump's campaign promises. First, if the Fed were to fall behind the curve, nominal GDP would likely surprise to the upside. Second, the USD would continue its downward trajectory, helping rebalance America's trade deficit. As such, we take the potential nomination of Gary Cohn seriously. And we expect the market will as well. That said, a Cohn-led Fed would not be a fundamental break with the past. In fact, Yellen has herself intoned that the Fed may want to let inflation run above 2% in past speeches. In addition, Trump's first two nominees to the Fed do not fit a dovish mold. Conservative economist Marvin Goodfriend is a hawk and favors rule-based policymaking. Randal Quarels will focus on regulating the financial sector, or rather deregulating it, although his policy orientation is largely unknown. Furthermore, other potential Fed Chair nominees, such as Kevin Warsh and Richard Fisher, would be more hawkish than Yellen. And if they are not selected to replace Yellen, they could replace the current Vice-Chairman Fischer. As such, investors should not overreact to a Cohn appointment. However, currency markets might, given that the Trump White House has been highly unorthodox. Bottom Line: There is likely more downside to the USD over the rest of the year. China: A Preemptive Dodd-Frank Last week we argued that China is likely to escalate financial regulation considerably over the next 6-12 months.8 Essentially, the "financial crackdown" or "deleveraging campaign" seen in H1 of this year was just a dress rehearsal for what is to come. The larger policy shift will exert downward pressure on economic growth in H2 2017 and throughout 2018, essentially putting a cap of about 7% on China's growth rate. True, the Chinese government will strive to avoid letting the new regulatory push lead to a sharp slowdown, i.e., shattering its preexisting commitment to an average GDP growth rate of 6.5% per year through 2020. However, the risks lie to the downside over the next 18 months due to the combination of unaddressed structural imbalances, cyclically fading economic tailwinds, and further policy tightening. We have outlined the structural flaws before. In brief, they include: Demographics: The working-age population is declining, yet the social systems to improve productivity are not yet adequate. Economic model: The investment-led model has become inefficient, requiring China to add more and more debt in order to generate the same amount of growth, in a manner reminiscent of South Korea prior to the Asian Financial Crisis (Chart 10). The transition to consumer-led growth is incomplete, with households still reluctant to take over from corporates in driving spending. Financial transmission: China's banking sector has expanded quickly, leading to a rise in bad loans and "special mention" assets, as losses from large companies remain elevated (Chart 11). The shadow banking sector is highly leveraged, poorly regulated, and extremely risky, and has mushroomed since 2008. Fiscal system: Local governments lack stable sources of funding and therefore rely on SOE debt and manipulation of the land market in order to fund their 85% share of China's fiscal spending. The government's recent fiscal reforms (the VAT extension) have actually further deprived local governments of revenues. Inequality and social ills: Wealth inequality, social immobility, regressive taxation (Chart 12), and an inadequate social safety net have hindered the development of the consumer society as well as innovation and entrepreneurship. Centralized authoritarianism: The political system perpetuates the above ills by disallowing free speech, free association, free movement, and other freedoms that would encourage innovation and total factor productivity. Chart 10More And More Reliant On Debt For Growth Chart 11Bad Loans Rising Chart 12Communism Fails To Redistribute Income Meanwhile, we have several reasons for anticipating a larger, less accommodative policy shift over the next six-to-twelve months: Policy drift: China's economic policy has been adrift over the past year and a half, as reflected by elevated economic policy uncertainty. While President Xi Jinping's anti-corruption campaign is no longer relevant in a macroeconomic sense - and this theoretically opens the way for him to pursue his ambitious economic reform agenda - he has so far chosen stimulus over restructuring due to the instability of 2015-16. Now, as the latest stimulus measures fade (Chart 13), the question of how to go forward is pressing, since to re-apply the same policy mix in 2018 would be to forgo his reform agenda until 2019 ... and probably once and for all. Warning signs: The central government's launch of a deleveraging campaign this year was risky and surprising. It was risky because central financial authorities in any country threaten a liquidity squeeze when they tighten financial conditions into large and rapidly growing leverage. It was surprising because the authorities chose to do so when a mistake could have upset political stability in advance of the midterm party congress. The implication is: (1) authorities intended a limited campaign from the beginning; (2) the newly appointed leaders of financial regulatory bodies are no-nonsense people.9 They take very seriously, as we do, China's systemic financial risks. They believe risky measures are necessary to prevent the dangerous credit excesses. The National Financial Work Conference: The conference concluded with Xi putting his imprimatur on a renewed policy focus on the financial sector: Reducing systemic risk, reducing speculation (lending to the real economy), and eventually putting the sector back on the path of liberalization. The specific outcomes amount to something like a preemptive Dodd Frank: The People's Bank of China will take on a larger role in identifying and monitoring systemically important institutions; it will also host a new inter-agency body - the Financial Stability and Development Committee (FSDC) - that will ostensibly ensure better cooperation and coordination between the regulators of banks, stock markets, insurance, etc. Finally, the meeting signaled that this year's deleveraging campaign would expand (beyond shadow banking, insurance companies, and private companies roving overseas) to affect over-leveraged SOEs and local government financing vehicles. Significantly, local government officials will be made accountable for excessive debt. This last point should not be underrated. At the height of the anti-corruption campaign, in late 2014, fiscal spending numbers remained depressed and government agency cash deposits continued rising even after the central government tried to encourage faster growth (Chart 14), suggesting that local officials were refraining from spending due to fears that they would be punished for it.10 We consider these announcements to be substantive - i.e., not the usual propaganda - even if they take some time to get off the ground. The financial conference was frowned upon by much of the mainstream media because some interpret the FSDC as failing to live up to the rumor that China would create a new "financial super-ministry." But the rise of super-ministries under the Hu Jintao administration resulted in very little substantive change to Chinese policy. By contrast, Xi Jinping signaled that the PBoC would be the chief instrument of the new financial regulatory push, and he has already shown he can operate exceedingly effectively through existing institutions - namely the Central Discipline and Inspection Commission (CDIC), which went from being an ineffective intra-party corruption watchdog to a nationwide vehicle for the party's most aggressive corruption investigations and personnel purges in recent memory. We are willing to bet that the PBoC's new powers, including the new financial stability committee, will be more aggressive than the merely status quo multiplication of administrative functions that the financial media and markets apparently expect. The changing of the PBoC's Guard: It is not a coincidence that greater regulatory powers are being planned for the PBoC in the final months of Governor Zhou Xiaochuan's term. Zhou has been in office since late 2002. He has been a cornerstone figure in China's financial stability and reform throughout this period, including during the global crisis and the various financial panics from 2010-16. He has allegedly desired a more muscular central bank to tackle the country's ballooning credit risks. By handing off the baton, he clears the way for a new, ambitious governor to succeed him, one who will maintain policy continuity while also taking the opportunity of the transition to implement a new and tougher regulatory framework. Consider that after Xi put the ambitious Guo Shuqing in charge of the China Banking Regulatory Committee in February, Guo immediately launched a notable crackdown on shadow banking.11 Guo is a possible contender for the central banker position; the other likely contenders have strong credentials in regulatory oversight as well as banking. The 19th National Party Congress: The midterm leadership reshuffle will mark Xi's consolidation of power, which will enable him to pursue his policy preferences more effectively in 2018-22. He could still be prevented by exogenous events, but domestic politics should be less of an obstacle for him going forward. Chart 13China's Economic##br## Tailwinds Fading Chart 14Anti-Corruption Campaign Hindered##br## Local Government Spending What about Xi's political capital within the top Communist Party bodies? We are in the thick of major decisions as we go to press. The highest level of leadership - the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC) - is expected to have its members chosen, in secret, in August when the current PSC and other party heavyweights will likely convene at Beidaihe to settle the list. The fall of Chongqing Party Secretary Sun Zhengcai in mid-July gives a few hints as to what might occur. Sun was ostensibly sympathetic with Xi, and until now the likeliest candidate for Premier Li Keqiang's replacement in 2022. His ouster means that four of the top five candidates on the PSC come from the rival camp to President Xi, i.e., the "Hu Jintao faction," which is rooted in the Chinese Communist Youth League (CCYL) (Diagram 2). Diagram 2Lineup Of New Politburo Standing Committee Yet To Take Shape - Factions Evenly Balanced? There are two likely pathways from here: either Sun's fall is part of a bargaining process and other CCYL members will soon be removed from the running for the PSC; or they will not be removed, which would mean that Xi gets along much better with the top CCYL members than is generally believed. The latter is unlikely, but possible, given that Xi and former President Hu Jintao did cooperate on critical power arrangements in the 2012 leadership transition. However, the most recent reports suggest that several CCYL members who were seen as rising stars (for 2022 leadership and beyond) have not received invitations to the party congress, including the current party secretary of the CCYL.12 If this proves to be the case, then it strongly suggests that Xi is continuing to undercut the CCYL. That, in turn, suggests that Xi will not tolerate the current scenario in which he stands to be outnumbered four-to-one on a five-member PSC. Instead, we should expect at least one major CCYL contender for the PSC to be removed in the coming months. This would enable Xi to gain the balance on a seven-member PSC. If the PSC is to be reduced to five members, then he would have to oust two major CCYL members - a more dramatic power play, but presumably within his reach given what he has achieved so far. Ultimately it is impossible to predict the PSC (and broader Politburo) membership precisely. All we can point out is that a failure by Xi to consolidate control on the top bodies - which is no longer our baseline view - would have bullish short-term but bearish long-term implications for growth. It would suggest, first, that Xi is weaker than he appears; second, that the aggressive financial regulatory drive outlined above, as well as other painful but necessary reforms, will be watered down as a result of resistance at top levels; third, that China is increasingly resisting the "creative destruction" that Xi threatens to bring about in the pursuit of making China more efficient. Bottom Line: A number of signs suggest that Chinese politics will become a headwind, rather than tailwind, to growth after the party congress. Xi's move to undercut the opposing CCYL faction ahead of the party congress confirms this view. His new policy will focus on deleveraging and financial sector restrictions. The commitment to stability will remain in place, however. Japan: Abe Is Not Yet Dead, Long Live Abenomics Shinzo Abe's approval rating has plummeted since June (Chart 15). His Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has also seen its popularity fall. This has been notable in relation to the flat polling of the LDP's main coalition partner, New Komeito (Chart 16). Chart 15Abe's Luck Runs Out? Chart 16Ruling LDP Also In Trouble Abe has been buffeted by a combination of spiraling corruption scandals and the loss of the Tokyo Metropolitan legislature in the local election of July 2. As if this were not bad enough, the Japanese economy is set to slow down (Chart 17).13 Chart 17A Slowdown In Japan Our readers will recall that we think there is a deeper cause for Abe's sudden loss of popularity: his proposed constitutional revisions, which he laid out in detail in May. Ever since he secured a virtual two-thirds supermajority in the House of Councillors (the Upper House) in July 2016, we have maintained that he would push ahead with controversial constitutional revisions that aim to enshrine the Japanese military. We expected that these changes would sap Abe's support - as did the debate over the new national security law in 2015 (Chart 18), only bigger this time because the matter is constitutional.14 However, the Tokyo election loss does not portend the death of Abe, and regardless, Abenomics itself will survive. Why? Because it is Abe's constitutional and security agenda that is unpopular, not Abenomics. Understood as economic reflation with elements of restructuring, like wage growth, Abenomics will actually intensify over the next year and a half as a result of the new threats to Abe's and the LDP's popularity and agenda, to which they will respond. Abe is more deeply committed to this constitutional mission than to Abenomics. It is his most ambitious plan and his economic policy supports it. Revising the constitution is about Japan seizing its own destiny again as a sovereign nation and also locking in the American alliance by offering greater military assistance to the U.S. Hence, at this point, economic reflation is not only an end in itself but also a means to a constitutional end. First, note that Abe's coalition in the upper house is not as "super" of a super-majority as is widely believed. He needs the support of smaller right-wing parties that are sympathetic toward his constitutional revisions to cross the 162-seat threshold for a two-thirds vote in the upper House of Councillors to approve constitutional reforms. But the LDP's three partner parties that are in favor of revision, as well as at least one independent, could raise objections and that would sink the revisions (Diagram 3). There are others with misgivings. Economic slowdown is not a recipe for Diet members to make big political sacrifices on Abe's account, so we expect monetary and fiscal policy to remain easy. Chart 18Abe Loses Support When He Talks ##br##Security Instead Of Economy Diagram 3Super-Majority ##br##Barely Within Reach Second, if the constitutional changes pass the upper and lower houses of the Diet by two-thirds votes, they must pass a nationwide referendum. While there is majority support for revisions of some sort, there is a roughly 50-50 division on the question of altering Article 9 (Chart 19), the article that forbids Japan to maintain military forces. This is the bullseye of Abe's proposal. The need for 50% of the nation to vote "yes" is an even bigger reason for Abe to pull policy levers to keep the economy humming before a potential referendum date in December 2018. Finally, even in the unlikely scenario that Abe's approval rating drops into the mid-20s or below and the LDP ousts him, we do not expect the next LDP leader to alter Abenomics in any significant way. The frontrunners for Abe's replacement in the September 2018 LDP party leadership poll, such as Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, would likely soften their predecessor's policy on remilitarization and constitutional revision, but would also launch a substantively similar economic policy that the media would promptly dub "Kishidanomics," "Ishibanomics," or "Asonomics." Thus, on fiscal policy, the focus will remain on fiscal support and lifting wages and social spending. Rules calling for fiscal restraint will be relaxed. On monetary policy, BoJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda is eligible for reappointment on April 8, 2018. So are his two deputies. Furthermore, the monetary policy committee members appointed since Kuroda have also been ultra-dovish like him.15 In short, the BoJ underwent a regime change in 2012 and will not revert back to the norms that prevailed before the global financial crisis, before the LDP lost power to a serious opposition party (2009), and before the shock to the national psyche that occurred during the 2011 earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crisis. Further, Japanese households are only hardly net savers anymore (Chart 20), and have for five years voted for a more reflationary policy. And aside from the current path of stealth debt monetization, there is no other way of managing the nation's debt other than fiscal austerity, which is not an option for an increasingly elderly population dependent on government social spending. The era of BoJ unorthodoxy is here to stay, at least as long as the LDP is in power (December 2018), if not longer. Chart 19Revise The Constitution? Yes.##br## End Pacifism? Maybe. Chart 20Japanese No Longer ##br##Savers Who Fear Inflation Bottom Line: Abe's downfall is not assured, and would portend the end of Abenomics in name only. The next LDP government would maintain Abenomics, as it is driven by structurally limited options. Fade any selloff in Japanese equities. However, in the long run, Abenomics may prove a failure in terms of defeating deflation. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 As a reminder to the uninitiated readers, Breitbart is a conservative magazine that has been a platform for a slew of unorthodox right-wing views more in line with modern nationalist European political movements than the American conservative movement. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Monetary Policy Recalibration," dated July 17, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Every Which Way But Loose," dated July 18, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, "Questions From The Road," dated July 1, 2015, and "Policy Mistakes And A Silver Lining," dated October 7, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see Gabriel Wildau, "China bank overseer launches 'regulatory windstorm,'" Financial Times, April 18, 2017, available at www.ft.com. 12 Please see Jun Mai, "Guess who's not invited to China's key Communist Party congress," South China Morning Post, July 23, 2017, available at www.scmp.com. 13 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "A Soft-Spoken Yellen," dated July 14, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see footnote 11 above. 15 The last two dissenters, Takehiro Sato and Takehide Kiuchi, stepped down when their terms expired on July 23, 2017. They were replaced by Goshi Kataoka and Hitoshi Suzuki, who are expected to support Governor Haruhiko Kuroda's dovish approach. Now all nine policy board members have been appointed by the Abe administration. Please see "Two new Bank of Japan policymakers join board," Japan Times, July 24, 2017, available at www.japantimes.co.jp.