Equities

Consumer product stocks have had a tough few weeks, as renewed strength in the U.S. dollar threatens to undermine sales prospects. However, there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic, especially in relative terms. Consumption has a lower economic beta than capital spending, particularly among consumer staples vendors. Consumer goods exports have started to rebound, even prior to renewed strength in emerging market currencies. The latter heralds at least a mild recovery in consumer product top-line growth. Domestically, retail sales at non-discretionary stores are outpacing sales at discretionary stores by a wide margin, another indication that in relative terms, profit conditions favor non-cyclical consumer goods vendors. We are overweight the S&P household products and S&P soft drink indexes.

Special Report

Highlights China's abnormal credit growth has been the result of speculative, high-risk behavior among Chinese banks - and not the natural result of the country's high savings rate. Banks do not intermediate savings into credit, and they do not need deposits to lend. Banks create deposits and money by originating loans. A commercial bank is not constrained in loan origination by its reserves at the central bank if the latter supplies liquidity (reserves) to commercial banks 'on demand'. What habitually drives credit booms are the "animal spirits" of banks and borrowers. We are initiating a relative China bank equity trade: short listed medium-size banks / long large five banks. Continue shorting the RMB versus the U.S. dollar. Feature For some time, the consensus view has been that rampant credit growth in China and the resulting excesses have been the natural result of the country's high savings rate, particularly among Chinese households. We have long argued differently: abnormal credit growth has been the result of speculative, high-risk behavior among Chinese banks and other creditors and borrowers. In this vein, China's credit bubble is no different than any other credit bubble in history. Although an adjustment in China might play out differently than it has in other countries where credit excesses became prevalent, China's corporate credit bubble is an imbalance that poses a non-trivial risk to both mainland and global growth (Chart I-1). Chart I-1China's Outstanding Credit Is Large Relative To Global GDP In a nutshell, Chinese banks have not channelled large amounts of household deposits into credit. Without mincing words, it is our view that banks have originated loans literally from "thin air" as banks do in any other country. In turn, credit has boosted spending, income and, consequently, savings. Do Deposits Create Loans, Or Do Loans Create Deposits? It is a widely held view among academics, investors and market commentators - including some of our colleagues here at BCA - that China's enormous credit expansion over the past several years has been a natural outcome of the nation's high savings rate. The argument goes like this: China has a very high savings rate, and it is inherent that household savings flow to banks as deposits. In turn, banks have little choice but to lend out on these deposits. The upshot of this reasoning is as follows: China's abnormally strong credit growth is a consequence of the country's abundant savings rather than an unsustainable excess. This argument hails from the Intermediate Loan Funds (ILF) model, otherwise known as the Loanable Fund Theory. This model suggests that deposits create loans - i.e., banks intermediate deposits into credit. Even though the ILF model is the most widespread theory of banking within academia and in textbooks, it unfortunately has little relevance to real-life banking - i.e., banking systems around the world do not function as the model posits. An alternative but much less recognized theory, the Financing Money Creation (FMC) model, asserts that banks create deposits from "thin air" when they originate a new loan. This is the model that banking systems in almost all countries in the world subscribe to. Indeed, whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower's bank account, therefore creating new money in the process (Chart I-2). In other words, bank loans create deposits and money. Chart I-2Commercial Banks: Credit Origination Creates Deposits Herein we cite various papers that discuss this matter and delineate the key points: "Banks do not, as many textbooks still suggest, take deposits of existing money from savers and lend it out to borrowers: they create credit and money ex nihilo - extending a loan to the borrower and simultaneously crediting the borrower's money account" (Turner, 2013). "When banks extend loans, to their customers, they create money by crediting their customer's accounts" (King, 2012). "Based on how monetary policy has been conducted for several decades, banks have always had the ability to expand credit whenever they like. They don't need a pile of "dry tinder" in the form of excess reserves to do so" (Dudley, 2009). "In a closed economy (or the world as a whole), fundamentally, deposits come from only two places: new bank lending and government deficits. Banks create deposits when they create loans." (Sheard, 2013). "Just as taking out a new loan creates money, the repayment of bank loans destroys money" (McLeay, 2014). The papers cited in the bibliography on page 18 elaborate on this topic in depth and readers are encouraged to review this literature. Bottom Line: Banks do not need deposits to lend. They create deposits and money by originating loans. Do Banks Lend Their Reserves At Central Banks? Another misconception about modern banking in general and China's banking system in particular is that banks lend out their excess reserves held at the central bank. Provided that Chinese banks have plenty of required reserves at the People's Bank of China (PBoC), some economists and analysts argue it is a matter of cutting the reserve requirement ratio to free up reserves (liquidity), which will allow banks to boost their loan origination. Again, we cite several papers as well as specific views from central bankers who reject the notion that banks lend out their reserves at the central bank: This comment by William C. Dudley (President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank) states "the Federal Reserve has committed itself to supply sufficient reserves to keep the fed funds rate at its target. If banks want to expand credit and that drives up the demand for reserves, the Fed automatically meets that demand in its conduct of monetary policy. In terms of the ability to expand credit rapidly, it makes no difference whether the banks have lots of excess reserves or not" (Dudley, 2009). "In fact, the level of reserves hardly figures in banks' lending decisions. The amount of credit outstanding is determined by banks' willingness to supply loans, based on perceived risk-return trade-offs, and by the demand for those loans. The aggregate availability of bank reserves does not constrain the expansion directly" (Borio et al., 2009). "While the institutional facts alone provide compelling support for our view, we also demonstrate empirically that the relationships implied by the money multiplier do not exist in the data ... Changes in reserves are unrelated to changes in lending, and open market operations do not have a direct impact on lending. We conclude that the textbook treatment of money in the transmission mechanism can be rejected..." (Carpenter et al., 2010). "...reserves are, in normal times, supplied 'on demand' by Bank of England to commercial banks in exchange for other assets on their balance sheets. In no way does the aggregate quantity of reserves directly constrains the amount of bank lending or deposit creation" (McLeay 2014). "Most importantly, banks cannot cause the amount of reserves at the central bank to fall by "lending them out" to customers. Assuming that the public does not change its demand for cash and the government does not make any net payments to the private sector (two things that are both beyond the direct control of the banks and the central bank), bank reserves have to remain "parked" at the central bank" (Sheard, 2013). More detailed analysis on this topic is available in the papers cited in the bibliography on page 18. Bottom Line: Banks do not lend out their reserves at the central bank. A commercial bank is not constrained in loan origination/money creation by its reserves at the central bank if the latter supplies liquidity (reserves) to commercial banks 'on demand'. Empirical Evidence: Savings Versus Credit This section presents empirical evidence that there is no correlation between national and household savings rates and loan origination. This is true for any country, including China. Credit growth and credit penetration (the credit-to-GDP ratio) have little to do with a country's or with households' savings rates. Chart I-3 illustrates that there has been no correlation between China's national or household savings rates and the credit-to-GDP ratio. China's savings rate was high and rising before 2009, yet the credit bubble formation only commenced in January 2009 when the savings rate topped out. Looking at other countries such as Korea, Taiwan and the U.S., historically we find no correlation between their savings and credit cycles1 (Chart I-4). Chart I-3China: Credit And Savings ##br##Are Not Correlated Chart I-4The U.S., Korea And Taiwan:##br## Credit And Savings Are Not Correlated Importantly, a high or rising savings rate does not preclude deleveraging. There were many two- to four-year spans of deleveraging in China when the credit-to-GDP ratio was flat or falling (Chart I-5) - i.e., the growth rate of credit was at or below nominal GDP growth. This occurred despite the country's high and rising savings rate. So, not only is deleveraging not unusual for China but it has also occurred amid a high savings rate. This contradicts the commonly held view that Chinese credit has always expanded faster than nominal GDP because the nation saves a lot. Deleveraging at the current juncture will likely be very painful, because the size of credit flows is enormous and even a moderate and gradual deceleration in credit will produce a major drag on growth. Specifically, the credit impulse - the second derivative of outstanding credit that measures the impact of credit growth on GDP - will be equal to -2.2% of GDP if credit growth moderates from 11.3% now to 7.8% in the next 24 months (Chart I-6). Chart I-5There Were Periods Of ##br##Deleveraging In China Too Chart I-6China's Credit Impulse Will ##br##Likely Be Negative As Chart I-6 also demonstrates, China's credit impulse drives Chinese imports, the most critical variable for the rest of the world. Chart I-7China: A Growth Engine Shift Since 2009 Further, it is possible to argue that vigorous credit growth generates robust income growth. The latter, in turn, allows a nation as a whole and households in particular to save more. If Chinese banks had not originated as many loans since early 2009 as they have, many goods and services in China would not have been produced and sold, and income growth for all companies, households and even government would be much lower. Even if the savings rate were held constant, less income would entail lower absolute amounts of both national and household savings. In short, China's exponential credit growth since 2009 has helped boost both national and household income levels, and in turn the absolute level of their savings. Chart I-7 illustrates that before 2009, mainland economic and income growth were driven by exports, but since early 2009, credit has been instrumental in generating income growth and prosperity. Finally, many analysts rationalize strong loan growth among Chinese banks by their robust deposit growth. This logic is flawed: Chinese banks have substantial deposits on hand because they originate a lot of loans. Bottom Line: China's and any other country's national or household savings rate does not explain swings in credit creation. Banks do not intermediate savings into credit. Rather, banks create deposits and money. What Drives Bank Lending? If a credit boom is not driven by abundant savings, what is the foundation for a credit boom in general, and the one currently underway in China in particular? Loan origination by a bank depends on that bank's willingness to lend, as well as general demand for loans. Also, depending on policy priorities, regulators often try to encourage or limit banks' ability to lend by imposing and adjusting various regulatory ratios. Barring any regulatory constraints, so long as there is demand for loans and a bank is willing to lend, a loan will be originated. Hence, in theory, banks can lend to eternity unless shareholders and regulators constrain them. In the immediate wake of the Lehman crisis, the Chinese authorities encouraged banks to open the credit floodgates. Thus, there was a de facto deregulation in the nation's banking system in early 2009 - policymakers encouraged strong credit origination. The experience of many countries - documented by numerous academic papers on this topic - has demonstrated that banking sector deregulation typically leads to excessive risk-taking by banks, and abnormal credit growth. These episodes have not ended well, with multi-year workouts following in their wake. By and large, a credit boom often occurs when risk-taking by banks surges and shareholders and regulators do not constrain them. This has been no different in China - the credit boom since 2009 has been powered by speculative and excessive risk-taking among banks and their management teams in particular, amid complacency of regulators and shareholders. Bottom Line: What habitually drives excessive credit creation are the "animal spirits" of banks and borrowers. Banks' and borrowers' speculative behavior and reckless risk-taking typically degenerates into a credit boom that often ends in an economic and financial downturn. It has been no different in China. What Constrains Bank Lending? The following factors can limit bank credit origination: Monetary policy can limit credit growth via raising interest rates, which dampens loan demand. Also, banks can become more risk averse when interest rates rise as they downgrade creditworthiness of current and prospective borrowers. Government regulations can impose various restrictions on banks, restraining their risk-taking and ability to originate infinite amounts of credit. In China, to limit banks' ability to lend, regulators have imposed several mandatory ratios on commercial banks, and also practice 'Window Guidance'. First, the capital adequacy ratio (CAR=net capital / risk-weighted assets). This ratio limits banks' ability to originate infinite amounts of loans by imposing a minimum level CAR. In China, most banks comply comfortably with CAR. The CAR for the entire commercial banking system is currently 13.1%. While the minimum requirement is 8%. The caveat is that in China, banks' equity capital is nowadays considerably inflated because they have not provisioned for non-performing loans (NPLs). If banks were to fully provision for NPLs, their equity capital would shrink significantly, and they would probably not meet the minimum CAR. Table I-1 shows that in a scenario of 12.5% NPL ratio for banks' claims on companies and zero NPL on household loans and mortgages as well as a 20% recovery rate, a full provisioning by banks would erode 65% of their equity. In this scenario, the CAR ratio would drop a lot - probably below the required minimum of 8% and banks would be forced to raise new equity (dilute existing shareholders) or shrink their balance sheets - or a combination of both. Table I-1China: NPL Scenarios And Banks' Equity Capital Impairment Second, the leverage ratio - computed as net Tier-1 capital divided by on- and off-balance-sheet assets. According to government regulation, this ratio should be at least 4%. As of June 30, 2016, the leverage ratio for the entire commercial banking system was 6.4%, comfortably above its floor. Nevertheless, as with CAR, the leverage ratio is overstated at the moment because the numerator - net Tier-1 equity capital - is artificially inflated, as it is not adjusted for realistic levels of NPLs, as discussed above. If 65% of equity is eroded due to sensible loan-loss provisioning and write-offs (as per Table 1), the leverage ratio would drop to about 2.3%, below the required minimum of 4%. Hence, banks would need to raise new equity (dilute existing shareholders), shrink their balance sheets or do a combination of both. Equity dilution is bearish for bank stocks and, if and as banks moderate their assets/loan growth, the economy will suffer. Third, regulatory 'Window Guidance' is implemented through PBoC recommendations to banks on their annual and quarterly credit ceilings, and on their credit structures. There is no official disclosure of this measure, and it is done between the PBoC, the Chinese Banking Regulatory commission (CBRC) and banks' management. In recent years, the efficiency of 'Window Guidance' has declined dramatically. Banks have defied bank regulators' efforts to rein in credit growth by finding loopholes in regulations. What's more, they have de facto exceeded credit origination limits by moving credit risk off their balance sheets and classifying it differently than loans. The result has been mushrooming Non-Standard Credit Assets (NSCA). Table I-2 reveals that on- and off-balance-sheet NSCA stand at RMB 10 trillion and RMB 19 trillion, respectively. Furthermore, banks have lately expanded their lending to non-depositary financial organizations that include trust companies, financial leasing companies, auto financing companies and loan companies (Chart I-8). This has probably been done to circumvent government regulations. Hence, Chinese banks have taken on much more credit risk than regulators have wanted them to by reclassifying/renaming loans as NSCA, and parking these assets both on- and off-balance-sheet. Table I-2China: Five Largest Banks Hold ##br##Only 40% Of Credit Assets Chart I-8Non-Bank Financial Organizations##br## Are On A Borrowing Spree From Banks In short, regulatory measures in China have not been effective at restraining credit growth in recent years. Bank shareholders are the biggest losers when banks expand credit uncontrollably, and then their default rates rise. The reason being that banking is a business built on leverage. For example, if a bank's assets-to-equity ratio is 10 and 10% of assets go bad (default with no recovery), shareholders' equity will completely evaporate - i.e., they will lose their entire investment. Hence, it is in the best interests of bank shareholders to halt a credit expansion when they sense deteriorating credit quality ahead. Doing so will hurt the economy, but limit their losses. Why have shareholders of Chinese banks not stepped in to curb the credit boom and misallocation of capital? We believe they have either been satisfied with such a massive credit expansion, which has initially driven shareholder returns up, or weak institutional shareholder mechanisms have meant they have been unable to enforce credit discipline on their banks. All in all, if China's or any other credit system is driven by the principals of capitalism and markets, creditors are the ones who should curtail credit growth - regardless of what impact it will have on the economy. If a country's credit system in general and banks in particular do not operate on principals of capitalism and markets, banks can expand credit infinitely, thereby perpetuating capital misallocation and raising inefficiency, leading to stagnating productivity - in other words, a move to a more socialist bend. Only in a socialist system do banks expand their credit portfolios in perpetuity, since they are not run to maximize wealth for shareholders. On a related note, there is another misconception that all Chinese banks are state-owned and the government will be fast to bail them out by buying bad assets at par. Table I-3 illustrates the ownership structure of 16 Chinese banks listed the A-share market, including the large ones. The state (central and local governments) and SOEs have a large but not 100% ownership stake. In fact, foreign investors have considerable equity shares in many banks. Table I-3Chinese Banks: Shareholder Structure Is Diverse Hence, a government bail-out of these banks at no cost to shareholders would mean the Chinese government is using taxpayer money to benefit domestic private as well as foreign shareholders. Given the considerable amounts involved, this will be politically difficult to achieve unless the benefits of doing so are explicitly greater than the costs of doing nothing. Chart I-9Commercial Banks Are On ##br##Borrowing Spree From PBoC We are not implying that a government bailout is impossible. Our point is that it will take material pain and considerable deterioration in the economy and financial markets before the central government bails out banks at no cost to other shareholders. No wonder the authorities have not recapitalized the banks so far. In the long run, if the Chinese government is serious about improving the credit/capital allocation process, it has to allow market forces to take hold so that creditors and debtors are not bailed out but instead assume financial responsibility for their decisions. This means short-term pain but long-term gain. The lack of demand for credit is an important constraint on credit origination. If there are no borrowers, banks will have a hard time making a sizable amount of loans. Liquidity constraints also limit banks' ability to expand their assets. Let's consider an example when liquidity constraints arise. Bank A originates a loan, and Borrower A wants to transfer money to its Supplier B, which has an account at Bank B. In theory, Bank A should reduce its excess reserves at the central bank by transferring money to Bank B's reserve account at the central bank. However, if too many borrowers of Bank A try to transfer their money/deposits to other banks, Bank A will run into liquidity constraints as its excess reserves dry up. In such a case, Bank A should borrow money from the central bank or the interbank market to replenish its excess reserves. Provided many G7 central banks are nowadays committed to supplying as much liquidity (reserves) as banks require, in these countries banks do not really face liquidity constraints in lending. The focus of advanced countries' central banks is to control short-term interest rates - i.e., they manage liquidity in a way to keep policy rates at the target. In the case of China, even though the PBoC has a high required reserves ratio (RRR) for banks, it apparently supplies commercial banks with whatever amounts of liquidity they require. Chart I-9 reveals that the PBoC's claims on commercial banks have surged by fivefold in the past three years. Given the Chinese monetary authorities have in the recent years been very generous in meeting banks' demands for liquidity, the high RRR has not constrained mainland banks' ability to originate loans. This contradicts some analysts' assertions that the PBoC can boost lending by cutting the RRR. As the PBoC presently fully accommodates banks' demands for liquidity, the significance and impact of required reserves has declined. On the whole, nowadays, commercial banks in China are not facing liquidity (reserves) constraints to expand credit. High debt servicing costs could constrain bank lending. Are there limits to the credit-to-GDP ratio? It is illustrative to consider a numerical example for China. Corporate and household debt presently stands at 220% of GDP and, according to Bank of Intentional Settlement (BIS) calculations, debt servicing costs (including interest payments and amortization) account for around 20% of disposable income (Chart I-10). If credit indefinitely expands at a rate well above nominal GDP growth (Chart I-11) and interest rates do not decline, debt servicing costs will rise substantially. For example, let's assume that mainland corporate and consumer leverage reaches 400% of GDP in the next several years. If and when this happens, debt servicing costs could double, approaching 40% of income assuming constant interest rates and debt maturity. Chart I-10China's Corporate And Household##br## Credit: The Sky'S The Limit? Chart I-11Will Credit Growth Slow Toward##br## Nominal GDP Growth? No debtor can continue to function under such debt burden. Hence, debtors will have to cut their spending (for companies it will be a reduction in capex budgets) or these debtors will need to borrow to pay interest and retire old debt. In short, this becomes an unsustainable Ponzi scheme, where debtors borrow to service their debt obligations. Anecdotal evidence suggests this is not rare in China nowadays. One way the authorities could reduce debt servicing is to cut interest rates to zero and lengthen the maturity of debt. This is what many advanced economies have done. If Chinese credit penetration does not stop rising, the PBoC will be forced to cut rates to close to zero. This in turn will lead to large capital outflows, and the RMB will depreciate versus the U.S. dollar. Bottom Line: The following factors can restrain bank credit origination: monetary policy (higher interest rates), government regulations, bank shareholders, lack of credit demand, liquidity constraints and high debt servicing costs. Investment Implications Chart I-12Short Small Banks / Long Large##br## Banks In China If banks' shareholders and other creditors in China act in accordance with their self-interests to preserve the value of their assets, they will have to reduce credit origination/lending. As a result, China will experience an acute economic downturn. This would constitute a capitalist-type adjustment, which in turn will lead to more efficiency, solid productivity growth, and reasonably high economic growth over the long term. However, it will also mean significant short-term pain. If the government bails out everyone, underwrites all credit risks, and gets even more involved in capital/credit allocation, the economy will not experience an acute slump for a while. However, this would represent a shift toward socialism and the potential growth rate will collapse in the next several years. With the labor force stagnating and probably contracting in the years ahead, China's potential growth will be equal to its productivity growth. In socialism, productivity growth is low, often close to zero. The growth trajectory in this scenario will follow mini-cycles around a rapidly falling potential growth rate. In brief, China's growth rate is bound to slow further, regardless of what scenario plays out over the next several years. Today, we are initiating a relative China bank equity trade: short listed small- and medium-size banks / long large five banks in the A-share market (Chart I-12). There has been more speculative high-risk lending from the small- and medium-size banks than the large ones. As we documented in our June 15, 2016 Special Report titled Chinese Banks' Ominous Shadow,2 the largest five banks have fewer non-standard credit assets than medium and small banks. If 12.5% of banks' claims on companies turn sour and the recovery rate is 20%, 100% of the equity of 11 listed small- and medium-sized banks will be wiped out. The same number for the large five banks is 42%. Hence, these 11 listed small- and medium-sized banks are more exposed to bad loans than the large five. Finally, mushrooming leverage entails that the monetary authorities should reduce interest rates drastically. However, lower interest rates will spur more capital outflows from the mainland. Hence, the RMB is set to depreciate further. We have been shorting the RMB versus the U.S. dollar since December 9, 2015, and this position remains intact. 1 We discussed this at length in Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China: Imbalances And Policy Options", dated June 12, 2012, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Chinese Banks' Ominious Shadow", June 15, 2016, link available on page 22. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com Bibliography Borio, C. and Disyatat, P. (2009), "Unconventional Monetary Policy: An Appraisal", BIS Working Papers, No. 292, November 2009. Carpenter, S. and Demiralp, S. (2010),"Money, Reserves, and the Transmission of Monetary Policy: Does the Money Multiplier Exist?", Finance and Economics Discussion Series, No. 2010-41, Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Washington, DC: Federal Reserve Board Dudley, W. (2009), "The Economic Outlook and the Fed's Balance Sheet: The Issue of "How" versus "When"", Remarks at the Association for a Better New York Breakfast Meeting, available at http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2009/dud090729.html Jakad, Z. and Kumhof, M. (2015), "Banks Are Not Intermediaries of Loanable Funds - and why this Matters", Bank of England, Working Paper 529, May 2015 King, M. (2012), Speech to the South Wales Chamber of Commerce at the Millenium Centre, Cardiff, October 23. Ma, G., Xiandong, Y. and Xim L. (2011), "China's evolving reserve requirements", BIS Working Papers, No. 360, November 2011. Turner, A. (2013), "Credit, Money and Leverage", September 12. Sheard, Paul (2013), "Repeat After Me: Banks Cannot And Do Not 'Lent Out' Reserves", Standard & Poor's Rating Services, August 2013, New York Werner, R. (2014b), "How Do Banks Create Money, and Why Can Other Firms Not Do the Same?", International Review of Financial Analysis, 36, 71-77. See King (2012), "Banks Are Not Intermediaries of Loanable Funds - and why this Matters", pp. 6, cited in Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhof, Bank of England Working Paper 529, May 2015. See Dudley (2009), "Banks Are Not Intermediaries of Loanable Funds - and why this Matters", pp. 13, cited in Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhof, Bank of England Working Paper 529, May 2015. See Carpenter and Demiralp (2010), "Banks Are Not Intermediaries of Loanable Funds - and why this Matters", pp. 13, cited in Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhof, Bank of England Working Paper 529, May 2015. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

The speed at which the health care sector has sunk toward the bottom end of this year's trading range has unnerved many investors. The hit to health care stocks reflects a rise in risk premiums related to concerns that the U.S. government will exert more control over price setting if the Democrats win the election rather than any immediate downshift in relative forward earnings drivers. The sector is extremely oversold, and once the election is over, attention will refocus on the relative forward earnings outlook. Our Indicators suggest that earnings momentum will stay positive. Our health care sector pricing power proxy has rebounded after cooling from red-hot levels, and is still much stronger than overall corporate sector pricing (second panel). That is confirmed by the pharmaceuticals producer price index, and employment cost index for health insurance, i.e. pricing strength is broad-based. There is still scant evidence of a downshift in consumer spending patterns in reaction to rising health care sector inflation. Real (volumes) personal spending on health care goods and services continues to grow at a mid-single digit rate, well in excess of the rate of overall consumption. That is consistent with ongoing earnings outperformance. Stay overweight.

This year's exodus from casual dining stocks has been justified on the basis of overvaluation and deteriorating industry performance. The National Association of Restaurants (NAR) survey of current performance has dipped into negative territory, as restaurant operators have reported a decrease in traffic. However, cost structures are being realigned to a more subdued sales run rate. The NAR survey shows that staffing plans are on the wane. That leads restaurant labor cost inflation. As the largest source of expenses, any decline in headcount would be welcome given that minimum wages in a number of states are set to climb next year. Restaurant sales growth has been unimpressive for the past several years. Subdued pricing power gains, and until recently, lackluster income growth among lower income consumers have weighed on revenue growth. The good news is that consumer confidence among low income earners is on the upswing. In addition, restaurant retail sales often follow the trend in the wealth effect. Financial wealth gains are rebounding, and provided the stock market does not suffer a sustained swoon, consumers' feeling of affluence may soon be bolstered. We recommended booking profits of 9% and lifted positions to neutral in yesterday's Weekly Report. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5REST - MCD, SBUX, YUM, CMG, DRI.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Boost restaurant stocks to neutral, as same-store sales should improve next year. A further upgrade requires evidence of top-line traction. The exodus from health care stocks represents an overreaction rather than a downshift in fundamental forces. Stay long. Recent Changes S&P Restaurants Index - Upgrade to neutral for a profit of 9%. Table 1 Feature Equity market buoyancy remains a liquidity rather than an earnings story. Fed commentary and the trend in global bond yields, a reflection of the global central bank narrative, continue to exert an outsize influence on short-term price action and momentum. In the background, earnings are a wildcard. Companies may be surpassing beaten down third quarter estimates, but the path of profits over the next several quarters is by no means assured and will determine the durability of any stock market advance. Even excluding the persistent drag from narrowing profit margins, courtesy of falling productivity and increasing unit labor costs, it is dangerous to look at the corporate profit outlook through rose colored glasses. The low level of economic growth, both at home and abroad, represents a major hurdle to the corporate sector. Total business sales have climbed back up to zero, but it is premature to forecast meaningful growth ahead based on moribund global export growth (Chart 1), and/or leading economic indicators. After all, sales growth has been virtually non-existent for years, reinforcing that earnings per share have been driven by cost cutting and buybacks. While measured consumer price inflation has crept higher, corporate sector pricing power remains virtually non-existent. The producer price index is still deflating, despite the rally in oil prices. U.S. import prices are very weak (Chart 1). The negative global credit impulse warns that there is still no impetus to reinvigorate final demand, and by extension, global profits (Chart 1). It is hard to envision an economic reacceleration as long as the corporate sector is more inclined to retrench than expand, as heralded by stressed balance sheets and weak durable goods orders (Chart 2). Chart 3 shows BCA's two U.S. profit models. The first one is based on reflationary variables, such as the dollar, bond yields and oil prices. It is designed to predict the trend in forward earnings momentum. This model has troughed, but is not signaling any upside ahead in already exuberant analyst earnings estimates (Chart 3, second panel). Chart 1Without Sales Growth... Chart 2... And Rising Costs... Chart 3... How Much Can Profits Improve? The second model looks at macro data such as new orders, labor costs and productivity growth to forecast the trend in actual operating earnings. This model is slightly more optimistic (Chart 3, bottom panel), and signals a decisive end to the profit contraction, albeit not a growth rate sufficient to satisfy double-digit analysts forecasts or rich valuations. The U.S. dollar is a major wildcard, as any sustained strength would compromise earnings. Typically, major profit expansions only occur after the currency begins to depreciate and labor cost inflation ebbs (Chart 2). The late-1990s was an exception, as profits climbed alongside the currency and amidst rising wage inflation (Chart 2). However, that was during an economic and credit boom, two key factors that are conspicuously absent at the moment. Nevertheless, as discussed in past Weekly Reports, the flood of central bank liquidity could sustain the overshoot in equity prices for a while longer. Investors have demonstrated a willingness to look through soggy profits as long as the liquidity taps remain open. Despite the possibility of a stubbornly resilient broad market, we do not recommend interpreting it as a sign of economic vitality, and consider it high risk. Our portfolio strategy is based on expected sectoral earnings trends, as liquidity is subject to the whims of central bankers. We recommend a largely defensive sector portfolio, with some exceptions, as discussed in last week's Special Report. Our cyclical exposure remains confined to consumption-oriented plays; this week we are lifting our view on restaurants. Restaurants: Buying Into Weakness Investors have gravitated toward washed out deep cyclical sectors rather than consumption-oriented plays in recent months. However, we doubt this trend has staying power, as outlined in our Special Report last week. Consequently, it is time to revisit the outlook for shunned consumer sectors, such as restaurants. This year's exodus from casual dining stocks has been justified on the basis of overvaluation and deteriorating industry performance. The National Association of Restaurants (NAR) survey of current performance has dipped into negative territory (Chart 4), as restaurant operators have reported a decrease in traffic. One of the major drags on restaurant same-store sales has been the gap in restaurant inflation compared with the cost of food inflation for eating at home. Relative inflation has soared (Chart 5). That has caused relative spending growth at restaurants vs. at home dining to drop sharply, in real (volumes) terms. However, next year could be different. If the inflation gap falls, as predicted by the decline in relative spending (Chart 5), then restaurant traffic should stabilize. Importantly, the odds of budgets for dining out being pruned even further are low. As long as wages and salaries growth is decent and consumer income expectations are firm, consumers should still allocate a rising share to restaurants relative to eating at home (Chart 5). There is plenty of scope for relative restaurant spending to rise on a secular basis (Chart 5, bottom panel). Clearly, if relative spending were to reaccelerate too quickly, then the inflation gap would stay wide, and same-store sales growth would stay punk. That is a risk to an optimistic view of future restaurant traffic. But the good news is that cost structures are being realigned to a more subdued sales run rate. The NAR survey shows that staffing plans are on the wane. That leads restaurant labor cost inflation (Chart 4). As the largest source of expenses, any decline in headcount would be welcome given that minimum wages in a number of states are set to climb next year. In any case, the most potent profit elixir would be a recovery in top-line growth, sourced both domestically and from abroad. Restaurant sales growth has been unimpressive for the past several years. Subdued pricing power gains, and until recently, lackluster income growth among lower income consumers have weighed on revenue growth. The good news is that consumer confidence among low income earners is on the upswing (Chart 6), which bodes well for casual dining out in the coming quarters. If our bearish view on refiners and gasoline prices continues to pan out, then a windfall from lower fuel prices may further bolster the outlook. Chart 4Expenses Set To Ease Chart 5Inflation Gap Should Narrow Chart 6Sales Set To Stabilize... In addition, restaurant retail sales often follow the trend in the wealth effect (Chart 7). The latter has pulled back this year, owing to the equity market consolidation and house price correction. However, financial wealth gains are rebounding, and provided the stock market does not suffer a sustained swoon, consumers' feeling of affluence may soon be bolstered. Even marginal improvements in store traffic should be impactful to same-store sales. Restaurant chains have been in retrenchment mode since the Great Recession. Construction activity is historically low, which implies limited capacity expansion (Chart 7). Contribution from abroad may become less of a drag. The industry garners roughly 67% of sales from overseas. The strong U.S. dollar, particularly against emerging market currencies, has deprived the industry of sales strength. Moreover, even in domestic currency terms, emerging markets consumption has been through a difficult period, as the Asian Hotel and Restaurant Activity Proxy spent most of the last year in negative territory (Chart 8). But EM currencies have stabilized and Asian restaurant activity has climbed back into positive territory in recent months. The upshot is that foreign revenue could make up any lingering domestic sales slack. All of this suggests that leaning into share price weakness in anticipation of improved prospects next year makes sense. Nevertheless, the S&P restaurants index does not warrant a full shift from underweight to overweight. There could still be earnings/headline risk given lackluster readings in coincident activity indicators, despite McDonald's earnings beat last week. Valuations are not cheap. On a normalized basis, the relative forward P/E ratio has dropped below its average, but still trades at a premium to the broad market. A return to above average levels is possible if operating margins expand on the back of sales improvement (Chart 9), thereby sparking higher return on equity, but it may be too soon to position for such an outcome. Chart 7... Or Even Improve In 2017 Chart 8End Of Foreign Drag Chart 9Still Not Dirt Cheap Bottom Line: Lift the S&P restaurant index (BLBG: S5REST - MCD, SBUX, YUM, CMG, DRI) to neutral from underweight, locking in a profit of 9% since our underweight recommendation last November. Health Care Crunch: Buying Opportunity Or Trend Change? The speed at which the health care sector has sunk toward the bottom end of this year's trading range has unnerved many investors. In fact, the sector has dropped back down to the levels where we added it to our high conviction overweight list. The question now is whether our positive views still hold, and whether would we add here if we weren't long already, or if something more sinister is at work? The hit to health care stocks reflects a rise in risk premiums related to concerns that the U.S. government will exert more control over price setting if the Democrats win the election rather than any immediate downshift in relative forward earnings drivers. While it is impossible to forecast with any precision to what extent pricing models may or may not change, the political appetite may be low for another overhaul of the sector so soon after the Affordable Care Act was implemented. Regardless, several observations suggest that the sector may already be undershooting, i.e. a Democratic victory is already discounted. Relative performance has experienced a clear uptrend over the last forty years, with cyclical swings oscillating around its upward sloping trend-line (Chart 10). It would be extremely rare for a bull phase to peak prior to hitting at least one standard deviation above trend. Instead, the price ratio hit trend and is now not far above one standard deviation below trend, a level one would normally equate with an economic boom when capital flowed to high-beta sectors. Cyclical technical measures also point to an undershoot. Our Technical Indicator has hit an oversold extreme (Chart 11), signaling that the sell-off is in the late stages. Our relative advance/decline line has also stayed firm, suggesting that the decline in the overall sector has not been broad-based (Chart 11). Chart 10Time To Buy, Not Sell Chart 11Buying Opportunity Whether a wholesale flight from the sector, and all defensives in general, looms is largely contingent on the path of inflation expectations, which have been in a multiyear decline. This trend reflects anemic global final demand and the repercussions from over-indebtedness. Lately, inflation expectations have firmed, but that may largely reflect the rebound in oil prices courtesy of hopes for an OPEC production cut, given the lack of confirming indicators of growth acceleration and renewed strength in the U.S. dollar. The latter is testing the top end of its recent range (Chart 11, shown inverted, bottom panel), and it would be highly unusual for inflation expectations to rise concurrent with the U.S. dollar. In a world of zero interest rates and limited aggregate demand strength, a strong currency is deflationary, especially for corporate profits. Those conditions keep bond yields low, and push capital into long duration sectors. Once the election is over, attention will refocus on the relative forward earnings outlook. Our Indicators suggest that earnings momentum will stay positive. Our health care sector pricing power proxy has rebounded after cooling from red-hot levels, and is still much stronger than overall corporate sector pricing (Chart 12, second panel). That is confirmed by the pharmaceuticals producer price index, and employment cost index for health insurance, i.e. pricing strength is broad-based. There is still scant evidence of a downshift in consumer spending patterns in reaction to rising health care sector inflation. Real (volumes) personal spending on health care goods and services continues to grow at a mid-single digit rate, well in excess of the rate of overall consumption (Chart 12). That is consistent with ongoing earnings outperformance. As noted in past research, the time to forecast negative relative earnings momentum is when consumers balk at higher prices. So far, a few high profile cases of exorbitant drug price increases have grabbed the spotlight, but in aggregate, consumers are not voting with their wallets. The biggest tangible negative for the health care sector may be that shares outstanding are no longer falling (Chart 13). That mirrors overall buyback activity, which has cooled markedly on the back of balance sheet deterioration and waning free cash flow. We doubt the supply of health care stocks is going to rise much, however, because the sector is in good financial shape, earning healthy returns and is not dependent on external financing. Chart 12Demand Driven Pricing Power Gains Chart 13Buybacks Are Dwindling Bottom Line: Health care sector risk premiums have climbed in response to polling results, but an apolitical check on relative earnings drivers and valuations points to a buying opportunity. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and growth over value.

Highlights The path of the least resistance for the U.S. dollar is up; this has far-reaching implications for monetary policy, global growth dynamics and asset prices. Dollar strength reinforces our view to overweight defensives vs. cyclicals and is a headwind to overall S&P 500 profits. Most of the gap between core CPI and core PCE can be explained by the medical care component. Overall, core PCE is likely to reach 2% over the next several months; a strong dollar means core goods PCE deflation will be sustained, but rising wage costs will put upward pressure on service sector inflation. Feature Amid the ongoing U.S. elections and Q3 earnings uncertainty, one of our higher conviction views is the likelihood of U.S. dollar appreciation. Our reasoning is straightforward: interest-rate differentials are the strongest 12-18 month predictor of currency trends,1 and relative economic performance between the U.S. and the rest of the world suggests that the gap between U.S. monetary policy and elsewhere will stay wide, and perhaps even widen (Chart 1). Chart 1Interest Rates And The Dollar Moreover, as we showed last week, the trade-weighted dollar provides good insurance against a variety of downside equity risks, even when a financial calamity occurs on U.S. soil. We remain dollar bulls. However, that does not mean that the outlook is without risk. The implications of further dollar strength are wide-ranging: How does dollar strength impact inflation expectations and monetary policy? How does the rest of the world cope with a rising U.S. dollar? How does the S&P 500 stand up to further dollar appreciation? Monetary Policy And The Dollar We have discussed the ramifications of the Fed Policy Loop, the interplay between Fed policy and financial conditions, since September 2015 (Chart 2). Since last year, each hawkish move from the Fed has been met by a sharp upward adjustment in the trade-weighted dollar and a sell-off in equities and credit spreads. Tighter-than-expected financial conditions have then forced the Fed to lower its outlook for future economic growth and adopt a more dovish policy stance. A more dovish Fed then caused financial conditions to ease and the dollar to fall, and this easing eventually emboldened Fed policymakers to move in a more hawkish direction. The loop then repeats itself. The reason this loop has been in place is because U.S. monetary policy is so far in advance of other central banks. For example, the ECB and BoJ continue to try to find ways to stimulate their economies, while the Fed is gearing up for a second rate hike. The point is that this feedback mechanism means that monetary conditions tighten in the form of a rising dollar, even without the Fed hiking interest rates by very much (Chart 3). The implication for investors is also clear: for equities, even though overall monetary conditions can tighten, rate-sensitive, domestically-exposed sectors such as telecoms can still perform well, because the tightening is coming mainly through the currency, rather than interest rates. For bonds, the policy loop means that sell-offs are likely to happen in fits and starts: the Fed knows that the process of normalizing interest rates will trigger bouts of volatility, because their actions are being exaggerated by movements in the dollar. This is one reason why we are not more eager to move aggressively underweight duration. Chart 2The Fed Policy Loop Chart 3Dollar To Do The Fed's Lifting? ROW And The Dollar Dollar strength, in the context of a robust U.S. economy, can be a good thing for some parts of the world. For example, a strong dollar means that European and Japanese exports will be more competitive. In this benign context, currency strength acts a growth re-distributor, taking growth away from the U.S., but transferring it to others, where the currency has been devalued. Our concerns focus squarely on emerging markets. Since the early 1980s, there have been no periods when EM share prices rallied amid strength in the real broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar (Chart 4). Chart 4EM Stocks Don't Like Dollar Strength It is significant that financial markets panicked in August, 2015 when the RMB was devalued by 2% ahead of the Fed's warning about a rate rise, and amid broad based U.S. dollar strength. True, the RMB has weakened periodically since then, without any real fallout for risk assets. Nonetheless, it is hard to say that the global economy - and China for that matter - is in significantly better shape than when the Fed began televising the last rate hike. We do not offer a forecast on the likelihood of further RMB devaluation. However, recent history is a reminder that dollar strength risks creating volatility in global markets. The latter would be especially true if worries about the EM credit cycle resurface. S&P 500 And The Dollar In the last major dollar bull market (1994-2002), U.S. stocks strengthened alongside the rise in the currency, offering some historical support that dollar strength does not necessarily hinder stock market performance. However, the global backdrop during that era was distinctly different from today. During the last half of the 1990s, the entire global economy experienced a supply-side, disinflationary expansion and credit binge. The U.S. was at the forefront of that expansion, and pulled the rest of the world (ROW) along for the ride. In other words, the U.S. and ROW were all moving broadly in the same direction. Today, the global economic backdrop is starkly different. Europe, Japan and China are all battling deflation and the major distinguishing trait of this business cycle is deficient demand and the need to de-lever. As we highlighted above, the U.S. has embarked on a gradual rate hike path, but most other central banks are trying new ways to reflate. In this world, currency movements act to re-distribute growth: a stronger currency can become a headwind to externally sourced profits, rather than a reflection of strong domestic demand. Indeed, the S&P 500 may become even more vulnerable to dollar strength: globally sourced profits as a share of overall S&P 500 profits has been in a steady climb over the past twenty years. Chart 5 shows that net earnings revisions are especially sensitive to currency moves, suggesting that further dollar appreciation would undermine already very lofty earnings expectations and would be a headwind for the broad market. Chart 5Beware The Dollar Drag From a sector perspective, dollar strength has already become problematic and is a main reason why we continue to advocate for defensive stocks relative to cyclical plays. Our U.S. Equity Strategy service published a Special Report on this topic last week.2 The Report outlined a seven item checklist of factors needed before tilting positions in favor of cyclicals. The first item on the list is dollar weakness. The full checklist is here: Chart 6Stick With Defensives Broad-based U.S. dollar weakness, particularly against emerging market currencies in countries with large current account deficits. An end to Chinese manufacturing sector deflation. A decisive upturn in global manufacturing purchasing manager's indexes. A return to growth in global export volumes and prices. A resynchronization in global profitability such that U.S. profits were not the only locomotive. A rebound in global inflation expectations. China credibly addressing banking sector weakness to the point where economic growth can reaccelerate rather than move laterally. Most of the items remain unfulfilled and our U.S. equity strategists believe that over the past several weeks, a technical adjustment has occurred in equity markets, rather than a fundamentally-driven trend change. In fact, the cyclical vs. defensive share price ratio appears to now be overshooting after having undershot. We expect leadership to revert back to non-cyclical sectors once the current rotational correction has run its course, given the lack of confirmation from the bulk of the macro variables on our checklist (Chart 6). The bottom line is that the U.S. dollar's path of least resistance is to trend higher. Dollar strength has already become restrictive for some U.S. industries, and unlike the late 1990s, we are concerned that further currency appreciation will act to restrain profit growth, rather than be reflective of a stellar domestic backdrop. Still, the Fed and other central banks' actions have proven to so far be a powerful antidote to earnings concerns: as long as the liquidity taps remain open, investors are willing to look through profit disappointment. We continue to recommend benchmark weightings to equities, but are highly attuned to this profit risk. What Is The True Inflation Rate? The Fed's target is 2% inflation. Core CPI has been above this rate for eleven months, implying that if the Fed's target was based on this measure, policymakers would have been much more aggressive in hiking interest rates. But the Fed's preferred measure, core PCE, is still stuck below the target. The CPI and PCE usually move together. The correlation between the two series is about 98% and divergences tend to be short-lived (Chart 7). Thus, the choice between the two series is often irrelevant, although the recent gap raises an issue for the Fed and the bond market: which measure is currently telling the right story? First, there are many alternative measures of inflation and in Chart 8, we show a selection of them. The median CPI uses the middle or median price change as its estimate of the underlying rate of inflation, irrespective of its share of the overall basket. The trimmed mean CPI removes the most volatile components of the index. The market-based PCE measure of inflation addresses concerns about using "imputed" prices (such as financial services furnished without payment) by leaving them out. Incidentally, this latter series, which is currently somewhat weaker than core PCE, is giving a similar inflation signal to our corporate price deflator. Together, these two measures suggest that the business sector is faced with a much tougher pricing backdrop than the core PCE and core CPI suggest. Chart 7Core CPI And Core PCE Usually Say The Same Thing Chart 8Various Alternative Measures Unfortunately, none of these alternative measures offer reliable leading information and do not help in understanding the divergence between core CPI or core PCE. However, understanding how the indexes are constructed does uncover important differences. Core CPI And Core PCE Explained The core CPI is a fixed-weight index while the personal consumption expenditure is chain-weighted. A fixed-weight index uses a constant basket of goods and tries to determine how much more an individual pays for an identical basket today versus a base year. A chain-type index measures how much it costs to a constantly evolving basket. The latter should be more representative of consumers' evolving buying habits. Historically, the different weighting methodology explains most of the gap between CPI and PCE inflation rates. The remainder of the gap is accounted for largely by the difference in the size of the weights used for the medical and housing components. Housing accounts for 40% of core CPI and only 17% of core PCE. Medical care accounts for 7% of core CPI versus 18% of core PCE. Currently, the gap between core PCE and core CPI is mostly explained by the medical care component (both the relative weights, but also the underlying prices used). In the CPI, only the portion that consumers spend on health care is taken into account, but the PCE also includes the amount that government agencies spend on consumers' behalf. The pricing information on the government funded portion is estimated from the PPI, which sometimes gives a different signal than the data supplied to the CPI from the consumer expenditure survey. The gap between medical care PCE and CPI has become particularly pronounced in the past few years. There is a lot of confusion about what is driving the spike in CPI medical care costs, with some pundits trying to find a political angle. Some blame higher insurance rates, while others blame drug costs. In fact, as Chart 9 shows, all elements of medical care CPI have contributed to the surge. Meanwhile, core PCE shows that medical care inflation has in fact been contained, some say, due to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare). It is not clear that this is the full story and forecasting future rates of inflation specifically in this sector is beyond the scope of this report. Over the next six to twelve months, we would expect some convergence between the two inflation gauges, as CPI medical care inflation peaks. More specifically, we would not be surprised to see the core PCE move slightly above 2%, but we think it is unlikely that much of an overshoot of the Fed's target can occur. Chart 10 shows the major components of CPI and we note the following: Chart 9Medical Care##br## Inflation Is Tricky Chart 10Major Components Of##br## Inflation At Crosscurrents Goods prices continue to fall. If our strong dollar view proves correct, deflation in this sector may persist for years. Recall that throughout the economic recovery in the first half of the previous decade, core goods price deflation persisted; that was during a dollar bear market. This time, dollar strength is likely to keep an even tighter lid on imported prices. Non-shelter service price inflation appears to be rolling over, after a surge earlier this year. The key for core service price inflation is wage pressures, since labor costs are the most significant input cost to U.S. service businesses. For core service price inflation to sustainably break above 3%, i.e. to return to the pre-Great Recession range, recent wage trends will need to be sustained, if not accelerate. Shelter prices are the most difficult segment to forecast. Our model for shelter inflation has flattened out, owing to a decline in market-tightness in multi-family properties. A reasonable working assumption is that shelter inflation stays around 3%, which is roughly the rate of shelter inflation that persisted prior to the housing bubble of the previous decade. Adding it up, core inflation is likely to drift gradually up: service sector inflation will likely trend higher with wage growth, but deflation in the goods sector will provide somewhat of an offset. The Fed has initiated interest rate hikes in the past when core PCE was under 1.5%, so there is historic precedent for policymakers to hike rates before the 2% target is achieved. Of course, this cycle is very different and there has been much talk of the need for policymakers to err on the side of ease for even longer, i.e. allow inflation to run much higher than 2%. Recent Fed communication suggests that a December rate hike is most likely, unless the data significantly worsen in the meantime. Thereafter, if our inflation view is correct, the Fed will find little reason to hike more than twice in 2017. Note: Last week, I had the pleasure of participating in our Geopolitical Strategy service's webcast on the upcoming U.S. Elections. In addition to a well-rounded debate on the U.S. political situation, we also discussed the present economic and investment landscape. To listen to the replay, please go here: www.bcaresearch.com/webcasts/index/131 Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report "Dollar: The Great Redistributor", dated October 7, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report "Defensive Dominance Has Bent, But Will Not Break", dated October 17, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com Appendix Monthly Asset Allocation Model Update Our Asset Allocation (AA) model provides an objective assessment of the outlook for relative returns across equities, Treasuries and cash. It combines valuation, cyclical, monetary and technical indicators. The model was constructed as a capital preservation tool, and has historically outperformed the benchmark in large part by avoiding major equity bear markets. Please note that our official cyclical asset allocation recommendations deviate at times from the model's recommendation. The model is just one input to our decision process. The model's recommended weightings for the major asset classes remained unchanged this month: neutral equity exposure at 60% (benchmark 60%), slightly overweight Treasury allocation at 40% (benchmark 30%) and underweight cash at 0% (benchmark 10%). The neutral portfolio recommendation for equities is in line with our qualitative defensive stance, in place since August 2015. Although the technical and monetary components of the equity model are still favorable, the earnings-driven component continues to warn that profits are likely to remain lackluster, especially relative to expectations. The allocation for a slight overweight in Treasuries continues to be supported by all three components of the bond model: valuation, cyclical and technical. While the valuation component continues trending towards expensive territory, a "buy signal" still exists for now. The cyclical and technical components of the bond model have retraced some of their bullish signals, but both still maintain a preference for Treasuries, especially relative to cash. Chart 11Portfolio Total Returns Chart 12Current Model Recommendations Note: The asset allocation model is not necessarily consistent with the weighting recommendations of the Cyclical Investment Stance. For further information, please see our Special Report "Presenting Our U.S. Asset Allocation Model", February 6, 2009. Market Calls

Special Report

Dear Client, I am on the road visiting clients in Toronto, Chicago, and Wisconsin this week, and as such there will be no regular Weekly Report. Instead, we are sending you a Special Report written by my colleague Marko Papic, Chief Strategist of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service. In this report, Marko argues that Hillary Clinton has not yet sealed the election, despite her high odds of winning. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy Highlights Clinton has a 65.5% chance of winning the presidency. A Trump win requires a surprise - such as in voter turnout. Still, we doubt Trump can punch more than 3% above his polling. Regardless of the outcome, multinational corporate profits will suffer. Go long the USD. Feature With the conclusion of the final presidential debate on October 19, the U.S. election is now in its final inning. Donald Trump's chances of mounting a comeback are slipping away (Chart 1). Could there be a Brexit-like surprise for the markets on November 8? And what are the investment implications of this year's unprecedented election? How Trump Can Still Win... Paddy Power, one of the world's biggest bookies, has begun to pay out bets to people who had wagered on Secretary Hillary Clinton winning the election. Meanwhile, according to Nate Silver, America's statistical Geek-in-Chief, Donald Trump has a meager 13.7% chance of winning the election.1 While our own model gives Clinton a 65.5% chance of winning, we have not forgotten Yogi Berra's wisdom: "It ain't over till it's over." There are three reasons why we would have held onto the pay-outs if we ran Paddy Power: Turnout assumptions could be wrong: Silver's quant model - and ours - is based on the assumption that the publically available opinion polls are high-quality data points. To iron-out the noise of an occasional bad poll, political analysts aggregate the polls to create a "poll-of-polls." The problem is that this method is mathematically the same as combining bad mortgages into securities. The idea is that each individual object (mortgage or poll) may be flawed, but if you get enough of them together, the problems will all average out and you have a very low risk of something bad happening.2 If there is a bias that is common to a large part of the data, then you are in real trouble. And why would there be a bias in election polls? For one, polling is not a science. It is an art. To extrapolate the results of an opinion survey of ~1,000 individuals to the general election of ~130 million people, polling professionals have to make turnout assumptions that are based partly on previous elections and partly on guesswork. This year, these assumptions are notoriously difficult to make as both candidates are extremely unpopular (Chart 2). This is bound to throw off pollsters' assumptions and may partially explain the regular gyrations that can be gleaned in Chart 1. For Secretary Hillary Clinton, the problem is compounded by the fact that she requires a high turnout to win. She needs the "Obama Coalition" of minorities and Millennial voters to show up as they did for President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. But we know that she struggled with the latter, with Senator Bernie Sanders picking up 70% of the youth vote in the Democratic primaries (Chart 3). If the 2016 turnout resembles the turnout from mid-term elections - which Republicans have generally won this century - then Trump could still have a chance. People may be lying: Another concern for Clinton is that she may be the 21st century Tom Bradley. Bradley was an African-American Mayor of Los Angeles who lost the 1982 California governor's race despite being ahead in the polls right up until election day. The "Bradley effect" theory goes that white voters lied when answering the polls in 1982 for fear of appearing racially prejudiced. Today, voters may be telling pollsters what they think is "politically correct," thus favoring Clinton in the polls. In the same vein - but ideologically opposite - the former Imperial Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, outperformed expectations in both the 1996 U.S. Senate election and the 1999 special election for Louisiana's First Congressional District. He lost both elections, but he managed to garner double-digit support both times. More recently, the June 23 Brexit vote surprised markets. In our view, investors and betting markets underestimated Brexit largely in spite of polls, which had been close throughout the campaign stage (Charts 4 and 5). BCA's Geopolitical Strategy outlined the case for why the probability of Brexit was much higher than the market assumption as early as March.3 Our concerns began to manifest in the polls with the "Leave" camp comfortably ahead throughout June. And then, from June 16 (one week before the vote) to June 23, the "Stay" vote surged ahead in the polls, garnering a 4% lead the day before the election. This surge in the last week was clearly false, as the "Leave" camp won by a 3.8% margin, a 7.8% swing on the day of the election. So, what happened? The vertical line in Chart 5 shows the day that Member of Parliament Jo Cox was murdered by a British ultra-nationalist. Our guess is that the stunning political assassination - an extremely rare event in the U.K. - created a "Cox effect" in the Brexit polling. Those who were polled may have mourned for Cox, or resisted being associated with the extreme views of a self-professed neo-Nazi, yet they silently stuck to their legitimate concerns regarding EU membership on the day of the referendum. Chart 4Online Betting Got Brexit Wrong... Chart 5...So Did Prominent Opinion Polls The Brexit example illustrates that lying to pollsters is not something that only happens in the past. It has happened as recently as June. Given Donald Trump's controversial statements - and particularly his misogynist rants going back to 2005 - American voters may be lying to pollsters when it comes to their choice for president. Chart 6Media Narratives Are Cyclical Media narratives: As our geopolitical team has stressed throughout this election, the news media work through narratives (Chart 6). These narratives appear to have influenced polls, leading to regular gyrations in support levels for the two candidates. Will the media have another "comeback kid" narrative for Trump in store ahead of the election? It cannot be discounted. And if the polls tighten to the 0-3% range again, the turnout concerns and the "Bradley/Cox effect" from above could be enough to swing the election for Trump. Bottom Line: Clinton remains the favorite to win the election, but her probability of winning is closer to 65.5% than the 85% that appears to be "priced in the market." ...And Why He Will Not Win While we are not comfortable calling the election a "done deal," we do believe that Clinton is a favorite. The BCA Geopolitical Strategy quantitative model predicts that she has about a 65.5% probability of winning.4 And the team's qualitative analysis of Trump's electoral strategy suggests that the hurdles to his victory are considerable, particularly in swing states Virginia and Colorado. Before we introduce the quantitative and qualitative models that underpin our election forecast, let us address the above concerns about turnout and the "Bradley/Cox effect" head on. In our view, the polls are telling the truth. We concede that Trump's support level may be underestimated by approximately 3%, which would not be out of line with the last five presidential elections (Chart 7). However, a Clinton lead greater than ~3% the day of the election will be insurmountable for four reasons: GOP primary: It was not the polling that got Trump wrong during the Republican primary race, but the pundits. The polls were generally accurate, particularly those in the swing states where polls tend to be frequent and sophisticated (Chart 8). Polls only underestimated Trump by more than 3% in Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania. Some of Trump's most controversial statements were made in late 2015 and early 2016 and yet they prompted no shame from his supporters when answering pollsters' questions. Turnout seesaw: Trump's strategy - which we dubbed "The Great White Hype" back in March - is a serious and mathematically viable electoral strategy.5 The effort focuses on boosting the GOP share and overall turnout of the white, blue-collar voter. The problem with this strategy, as executed by Trump, is that its effect could be a seesaw. Trump's rhetoric and policy proposals may appeal to less-educated, lower-income white voters, but may also reduce his support among well-educated, upper-income voters. This is a serious problem for Trump given that the 2012 exit polls indicate that Romney won college graduates by 4 points and voters earning $100k or above by 10 points. In other words, upper-income, well-educated voters are a key constituency of the Republican Party. And just as Clinton may have trouble getting Millennials and minorities to vote for her by the same margin as they did for Obama, Trump could be struggling to get key conservative constituencies out as well. Debates: All scientific polls taken after the debates have Hillary Clinton as a clear winner (Chart 9). This may seem surprising given the reaction of many pundits that Trump outperformed the very low expectations for him in the debates. Many analysts scored the debates close, but voters did not. Why? Because independent and undecided voters are just now tuning into the election and want to see candidates discuss serious policy issues and show leadership. Political science research shows that the direct influence of party identification decreases in presidential elections over time, but issues gain importance, especially after the presidential debates.6 As such, voters tuning into the debates were not discounting Trump's fiery rhetoric and behavior, they were appalled by it. We can't say we were surprised, as we have been showing Chart 10 to clients since February. Senate: If voters are hiding their true support level for Donald Trump, then their genuine preference should be revealed in Senate races where less controversial Republicans are contesting close elections. Instead, Republicans are on a path to lose four of their Senate seats, with another three in play (Democrats need four to take the Senate, assuming that Clinton wins the presidency, since Vice-President Tim Kaine would then cast the tie-breaking vote in that body). Democrats are ahead in Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Colorado. Nevada is also expected to stay blue. Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania are all still in contention, despite the GOP incumbent advantage in all three. Bottom Line: Despite the challenges that this election presents - two highly disliked candidates, questions about turnout, and concerns about polling quality - we doubt that Donald Trump can surprise his poll numbers by more than ~3%. With Hillary Clinton up by 6.4% in the latest RealClearPolitics poll of polls, this means that Trump has to start rallying now if he is going to have a chance on November 8. What Do Our Quantitative & Qualitative Models Say? Our geopolitical team's quantitative model predicts that Hillary Clinton will win the election with 335 electoral votes. The model, built using historical macroeconomic and election data since 1980, has been projecting a strong Clinton victory for some time.7 It currently shows that Clinton already has 279 electoral votes from states where she has more than a 70% chance of winning (Chart 11). These results mean that even under the unlikely scenario in which the GOP wins all the remaining swing states (North Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Ohio, and Iowa), Clinton will still win the election, all other things being equal. Meanwhile, our qualitative model relies on testing Trump's electoral strategy - boosting the share of the white vote accruing to the GOP - in the real world. We concluded in March that Trump did have a path to victory, albeit a very narrow one. Our research showed that Trump's strategy is mathematically viable, at least in 2016 when the white share of the total population remains large enough. We specifically showed that Trump would only need to increase white voters' support by 1.7% and 2.9% in Florida and Ohio, respectively, to flip those states, which seems quite reasonable. We also pointed out that getting a 5.7% swing in Iowa could be feasible. On the other hand, we showed that "flipping" Midwest states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin would require a very large swing of white voters in Trump's favor: 13.9%, 7.8%, and 8.1%, respectively. With those numbers, Trump would have to win nearly 70% of Michigan's white voters, 65% of Pennsylvania's, and 58% of Wisconsin's. Of the three, Wisconsin looks the most achievable. On the other hand, the GOP only managed to pick up 52% of the state's white share in 2004, the last time a Republican candidate for president won an actual majority of the popular vote since 1988. So, getting to 58% is a high bar given Wisconsin's recent electoral history. How did our qualitative model hold up in terms of state-by-state polling? It did really well! As we predicted, Trump has led the race or nearly led the race in Iowa, Florida, and Ohio (Chart 12). In Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, Clinton's lead has remained higher than 5% through most of the election cycle, even when the media narrative shifted against her (Chart 13). Chart 12The 'White Hype' Model Works Here Chart 13White Hype' Does Not Work Here If Trump were to win all the states that our White Hype model predicts as competitive, he would still be short of the necessary 270 electoral votes. Map 1 shows the ideal distribution of states for Trump, one that ignores the polls and assigns swing states to Trump or Clinton based on whether the White Hype model is feasible or not. Notice that the two remaining major states are Virginia and Colorado. For Trump to win this election, we believe that he needs to win one of the two (Colorado in combination with either Nevada or New Hampshire), in addition to all of Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Iowa. This is a tall order! Particularly given that his polling in Virginia and Colorado is poor (Chart 14). Chart 14Two Critical Swing States Bottom Line: BCA's Geopolitical Strategy quantitative and qualitative models both show that Hillary Clinton is a clear favorite to win the election, a view we have held since December 2015.8 Investment Implications: MNCs Vs. SMEs Our colleague Peter Berezin has already discussed the implications of a Trump victory: a stronger USD and a sell-off in stocks.9 We agree and would add that a rally in Treasurys would be likely in the event of a surprise Trump win (Chart 15). Chart 15Trump's Success Helps Safe-Haven Assets The rally in safe-haven assets would eventually give way, however, to a bear market in Treasurys as investors realized that Trump has no intention of controlling public spending or reining in the (already growing) budget deficit. Growth, and likely inflation, would surprise to the upside, allowing the Fed to hike rates beyond the 48 bps expected by the market through the end of 2018. We do not foresee that a Republican-held Congress would stand in Trump's way, despite the clear dislike between the Speaker of the House, Representative Paul Ryan, and Trump. Ryan would not go against a sitting president from the same party who just pulled off a revolutionary election. The entire House will face re-election in 2018 and moderate Republicans will be wary of standing up to Trump, lest he campaign against them in GOP primaries in a short two years. Investors are putting way too much faith in America's checks-and-balances to keep Trump from enacting his policies, at least in the short term. These are constitutional, legal, and technical checks, and political expediency often overrules all three. In case of a Clinton win, we would expect the House to remain controlled by the GOP. There are only about 38 truly competitive electoral districts in this race, according to The Cook Political Report.10 Given that the Republicans have a 60-seat majority in the House, a Democratic takeover would require Democratic candidates to defeat Republican Representatives in 30 out of 38 competitive districts. At best, this means that the current, market- bullish status quo of divided government will continue. With the House remaining in Republican hands, and Democrats clinging to a potential razor-thin control of the Senate (vulnerable to a post-Trump Republican comeback in 2018), the Clinton White House would be constrained on some of its most left-leaning policies.11 And what are the chances of cooperation on modest reforms? We think they are actually quite good. Unlike Obama, Clinton's victory will not be a popular sweep. She will not control Congress, she will likely receive less than 50% of the popular vote (due to the presence of two notable third-party candidates), and she will be the first candidate ever elected that has more voters saying they dislike her than like her. Therefore, the odds are slim that Clinton will come to power with the same level of confidence and agenda-setting vision as Obama did in 2008. Instead, we see two potential avenues for modest cooperation with the GOP-controlled House: Chart 16Corporate Taxes Have Bottomed Corporate tax reform: It is unlikely that we will see reform that lowers the already historically-low effective tax rates (Chart 16). However, broadening the tax base by closing various loopholes could be feasible. This will hurt S&P 500 multi-national corporations that have been able to lobby for special treatment over the past three decades. However, it will benefit America's SMEs, which are the backbone of employment and growth. Fiscal spending: Paul Ryan and moderate Republicans understand that there is a paradigm shift in America and that the median voter is moving to the left.12 After all, Donald Trump won the GOP primary with an unorthodox economic message that combined both left- and right-wing economic policies. As such, we would expect House Republicans to give in to a modest infrastructure spending plan from Clinton, in exchange for corporate tax reform. Even a modest plan could make a substantive difference for the economy given the high fiscal multipliers of infrastructure spending in an economy with low interest rates. This in turn would allow the Fed to surprise the markets with more than two rate hikes by the end of 2018 and thus sustain the USD bull market. If there is one trend that we are certain will end with the 2016 U.S. election, it is the dominance of American economic policy by the S&P 500, or perhaps the S&P 100. What Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders have shown is that challenging for the presidency no longer requires a cozy relationship with either Wall Street or the large multinational corporations (MNCs). We therefore do not expect a Clinton-Ryan coalition to care as much about the concerns of America's large corporations as otherwise might be the case. Policies that lead to higher effective corporate tax rates on major S&P 500 corporations, a dollar bull market, and higher wages are likely over the course of the next four years. The political pendulum is shifting in the U.S. and it should marginally favor growth, inflation, the USD, and SMEs.13 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see FiveThirtyEight, "Who Will Win The Presidency?" dated October 20, 2016, available at fiverthirtyeight.com. 2 "You mean like the 2008 Global Financial Crisis?" Yes. Like that. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Final Forecast & Implications," dated October 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Andreas Graefe, "Issues and Leader Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections,"Electoral Studies 32:4 (2013), pp.644-657. 7 For the assumptions underpinning our model, we encourage clients to read BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Final Forecast & Implications," dated October 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Strategy Outlook, "Stuck In A Rut," dated December 17, 2015, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see "House: Recent Updates," accessed October 20, 2016, available at cookpolitical.com 11 We believe that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for the Democrats to retain a razor-thin majority in the Senate if they get one in November. First, Democrats will have to defend 25 Senate seats (including two allied independent seats) out of 33 in contention in 2018. Second, Democrats always see a drop-off in voter turnout and enthusiasm in mid-term elections. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution," dated October 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights When interest rates are ultra-low, central banks have no margin for policy error. A small loosening or tightening has the potential to produce either a stall or catastrophic turbulence. The analogy is flying a plane at high altitude. Bond investors should have a strong preference for U.S. T-bonds over German bunds (currency hedged). Currency investors should prefer the euro over the dollar. For equity investors, valuations do not appear structurally attractive anywhere, once a sufficient equity risk premium is factored in. But a setback in the region of 5-10% could create a tactical entry point. Feature As the ECB Governing Council convenes for its October monetary policy meeting, an experience familiar to pilots1 provides a perfect analogy for central banks' very limited margin for error. Pilots call the experience "flying in coffin corner." Chart of the WeekUnusually High Turbulence For The German 30-Year Bund Next time you're in a plane climbing to 35,000 feet, here's something to think about; or perhaps, not to think about. As the plane gains altitude, its stall speed increases while its upper speed limit simultaneously decreases. For the pilot, this means less and less margin for error (Figure I-1). The plane's stall speed is the minimum speed to generate sufficient lift. At higher altitude, as the air gets thinner, the stall speed increases. Meanwhile, the plane's upper speed limit is set by the speed of sound. Airliners cannot fly too close to the speed of sound because the sonic shockwave produces violent and catastrophic turbulence. At higher altitude, as the air temperature drops, so does the speed of sound. Which means the plane's upper speed limit decreases. By the time the plane has reached the rarefied atmosphere of 35,000 feet, these lower and upper speed limits are barely 25 knots (30mph) apart,2 leaving almost no room for flight data misinterpretation or pilot error.3 Hence, at high altitude pilots morbidly say they are "flying in coffin corner." Analogously, in the rarefied atmosphere of zero or near-zero interest rates, central bank policy is also in coffin corner. When short-term and long-term interest rates approach the zero bound, there is no room for economic data misinterpretation or policy error. A small loosening or tightening of monetary policy has the potential to produce either a stall or catastrophic turbulence (Figure I-2 and Chart of the Week). Figure I-1Flying At High Altitude ##br## Has No Margin For Error Figure I-2Monetary Policy At Ultra-Low Rates ##br##Has No Margin For Error Avoiding A Stall At today's zero or near-zero interest rates in the euro area, a small loosening of monetary policy risks stalling the banking system, and thereby stalling the economy. A bank's core business is simple. Take in deposits, and lend them out at a higher interest rate than the deposit-rate - with the difference in the two defining the bank's net interest margin. A part of the net interest margin is a compensation for the risk of non-performing loans. This should be profit-neutral if correctly priced. The other large part of the net interest margin comes from the interest rate term-structure, as loans tend to be long-term while deposits are short-term. Hence, all else being equal, the bank's profitability suffers as the term-structure flattens. For a while, the bank can protect its profitability by cutting the interest rate paid on short-term deposits to well below the policy rate. However, once the policy rate hits zero, this profit-protection strategy hits a wall - because a negative deposit rate would risk an exodus of deposits into cash or cash-substitutes. Alternatively, the bank could charge a higher rate to borrowers, but this would tighten credit conditions. The third possibility is for the bank to suffer a hit to its already-thin net lending margin, but this would also tighten credit conditions. The pressure on the bank's profitability and share price would increase the cost of equity, making it harder to raise capital (Chart I-2). Given that an insufficient capital buffer is a major constraint to euro area bank lending, this would be a de facto tightening of credit conditions. The paradox is that at the zero bound, the smallest additional monetary loosening - via interest rate cuts or QE - risks stalling euro area bank credit creation (Chart I-3). Thereby it risks stalling economic growth. Chart I-2The ECB's QE Has Hurt Bank Valuations Chart I-3The Interplay Between Bank Profits And Bank Credit Creation Avoiding Violent Turbulence An extended period of ultra-low interest rates, and a commitment to keep them structurally low, has compressed the yields on government bonds pushing up their prices. As competing asset classes, the prices of corporate bonds and equities have also increased. This phenomenon is called the Portfolio Balance Effect. The big problem is that the prices of riskier assets have increased by more than is justified by the portfolio balance effect alone. This distortion is the result of a behavioural finance phenomenon called Mental Accounting Bias. Mental Accounting Bias describes the irrational distinction between the return from an investment's yield and that from its capital growth. The distinction is irrational because the money that comes from yield and the money that comes from capital growth is perfectly fungible.4 Rationally, what should matter is an investment's total return. But psychologically, the distinction between yield and capital is very stark. Fears about self-control cause people to compartmentalise yield as spending money and capital as saving money. Hence, people who want their investments to generate spending money - say, retirees - have an irrational focus on yield. Traditionally, the safe income from cash and government bonds satiates the people who irrationally focus on yield. However, in recent years, central banks' extended experiments with ZIRP, NIRP and QE have forced these yield-focussed investors out of cash and government bonds into risky investments. And just like every distortion, this phenomenon has generated memes to justify the act: 'reach for yield', 'search for yield', and 'there is no alternative' (TINA). But the irrational focus on yield instead of total return has artificially bid up the prices of risky investments. To the point that they no longer offer a sufficient risk premium5 for the very real possibility of substantial losses over a 5-10 year horizon (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). The unfortunate thing is that as central bankers have little expertise in psychology or behavioural finance, they have been blind to the very dangerous behavioural distortion that their monetary policy experiments have unwittingly unleashed. Chart I-4A Positive Yield On Equities##br## Can Produce A Negative 5-Year Return... Chart I-5...And Even A Negative ##br##10-Year Return The risk is that the smallest monetary tightening could trigger an aggressive unwinding of this behavioural distortion. Recall the violent turbulence in global financial markets at the start of the year after just one 25bps rate hike from the Federal Reserve. Now consider what might happen if the Fed hiked again and the ECB simultaneously announced a rapid tapering of its QE program. How Must The Pilots Fly? In a rarefied atmosphere, pilots have very little margin to alter speed without inducing a stall or violent turbulence. The same applies to central banks today. The ECB has the hardest piloting task. It is becoming difficult to justify the current aggressive pace of QE given the danger of stalling the euro area banking system; and given that the euro area's nominal GDP and nominal wage bill are both growing at a very respectable 3% (Chart I-6). But an abrupt end to the ECB's QE could create violent turbulence in QE-distorted financial markets. Chart I-6What Deflation Threat? Euro Area Nominal GDP And The Wage Bill Growing At 3% Hence, the ECB's best course of action is to hint at a very gradual deceleration of QE to start at some point in the second half of 2017. Turning to developed economy central banks in general, we remind readers of a very powerful observation. Since 2008, no major central bank has been able to hike interest rates by more than 1.75%. And every central bank that has hiked rates has had to start unwinding those hikes within a year, ultimately taking the policy rate to a new all-time low (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7Since 2008, All Rate Hikes ##br##Have Been Quickly Reversed Chart I-8Will The U.S. Be ##br##Any Different? No Given the turbulence that rate hikes will generate in the financial markets and/or the economy, we fully expect the Federal Reserve to go through exactly the same experience. The important upshot is that global central bank policy through 2017-18 will be considerably less divergent than is discounted. Bond yields could creep higher in the short term. But on a 1-year horizon, bond investors should have a strong preference for U.S. T-bonds over euro area bonds, and especially over German bunds (currency hedged). Over the same horizon, currency investors should prefer the euro over the dollar. For equity investors, valuations do not appear structurally attractive anywhere once a sufficient equity risk premium is factored in. Moreover, the potential for ECB QE-tapering combined with expectations for a Fed rate hike could generate some near-term turbulence. That said, a setback in the region of 5-10% could create an excellent entry point for a 3-month trade. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* There are no new trades this week. Last week's long silver/short lead pair trade has bounced sharply. And the short U.K. A-rated corporate bonds trade has achieved its 4% profit target. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. 1 Your author is a former pilot in the Royal Air Force reserve. 2 For an Airbus A330. 3 Tragically, a combination of flight data misinterpretation and pilot error at 35,000 feet was disastrous for Air France flight AF447 flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris in June 2009. Going through a storm, the airspeed indicator started giving a false reading and the pilot took the wrong corrective action, resulting in a catastrophic stall. 4 Assuming no difference in tax treatment of income and capital gains. 5 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Great Distortion... And How It will End" dated September 15, 2016 available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights EM tech stocks are overbought while banks are fundamentally vulnerable due to bad-loan overhang. EM stocks have never decoupled from the U.S. dollar and commodities prices. There has been no recovery in EM corporate profitability and EPS. We reiterate two equity trades: short EM banks / long U.S. banks, and short Chinese property developers / long U.S. homebuilders. Upgrade Thai stocks to overweight within the EM equity benchmark and go long THB versus KRW. Feature Our Reflation Confirming Indicator - an equal-weighted aggregate of platinum prices (a proxy for global reflation), industrial metals prices (a proxy for China growth) and U.S. lumber prices (a proxy for U.S. reflation) - has decisively rolled over, and is spelling trouble for emerging market (EM) equities (Chart I-1). In particular, platinum prices have relapsed after hitting a major resistance at their 800-day moving average (Chart I-2). Such a technical pattern often leads to new lows. If so, it could presage a major selloff in EM markets in the months ahead. Chart I-1A Red Flag From ##br##Reflation Confirming Indicator Chart I-2Platinum: A Canary##br## In A Coal Mine? The rationale behind using platinum rather than gold or silver prices is because platinum is a precious metal that also has industrial uses. Besides, we have found that platinum prices correlate with EM stocks better than gold or silver. The latter two sometimes rally due to global demand for safety, even as EM markets tank. Finally, platinum seems to be the most high-beta precious metal in the sense that it "catches a cold" sooner and, thus, might be leading other reflationary plays. In short, EM share prices have been flat since August 15, and odds are that they are topping out and the next large move will be to the downside. Can EM De-Couple From The U.S. Dollar? Many investors are asking whether EM risk assets can rally if the greenback continues to rebound. Chart I-3 illustrates that since the early 1980s, there have been no periods when EM share prices rallied amid strength in the real broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar (the dollar is shown inverted on this and the proceeding charts). The same holds true if one uses the nominal narrow trade-weighted U.S. dollar1 (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Real Trade-Weighted ##br##U.S. Dollar And EM Stocks Chart I-4Nominal Trade-Weighted ##br##U.S. Dollar And EM Stocks One could disregard these charts and argue that this time around is different. We don't quite see it that way. Chart I-5Nominal Trade-Weighted ##br##U.S. Dollar And Commodities Notably, the narrative behind the EM rally since February's lows has been based on the Federal Reserve backing off from rate hikes and the U.S. dollar weakening - with the latter propelling a rally in commodities prices. These arguments appear to be reversing: the U.S. dollar is already firming up and commodities prices are at best mixed. The broad index for commodities prices always drops when the U.S. dollar rallies (Chart I-5). In recent months, the advance in commodities prices has been uneven and narrow based. While oil prices have spiked substantially, industrial metals prices have advanced very little. The current oil price rally is proving a bit more durable and lasting than we thought a few months ago. Nevertheless, China's apparent consumption of petroleum products is beginning to contract (Chart I-6). Consequently, resurfacing worries about EM/China's demand for commodities will lead to a meaningful pullback in crude prices in the months ahead, especially since the likelihood that oil producers act to restrain supply at the current prices is very low. As for commodities trading in China such as steel, iron ore, rubber, plate glass and others, they have been on a roller-coaster ride in recent months (Chart I-7). Chart I-6China's Demand For Oil Products Is Very Weak Chart I-7Commodities Prices In China Bottom Line: There are reasonably high odds that as the U.S. dollar strengthens and commodities prices roll over, EM risk assets (stocks, currencies and credit markets) will start to relapse. EM Beyond Commodities: Still Shrinking Profits Table I-1EM Sectors Weights: In 2011 And Now Another question that many investors have been asking is as follows: Is there not a positive story in EM beyond commodities? Given that the weight of the EM equity market benchmark in commodities stocks - energy and materials - has drastically declined in recent years, from 29.2% in 2011 to 13.7% now (Table I-1), and the weight in technology stocks has risen substantially (from 12.9% in 2011 to 23.9% now), couldn't non-commodities stocks drive the index higher? In this regard, we have the following observations: Information technology stocks are overbought. The EM information technology equity index has surged to its previous highs (Chart I-8, top panel). This sector is dominated by five companies that have a very large weight also in the overall EM benchmark: Samsung (3.6% weight in the EM equity benchmark), TMSC (3.5%), Alibaba (2.9%), Hon Hai Precision (1%) and Tencent (3.8%). Their share price performance has been spectacular, and some of them have gone ballistic (Chart I-9). TMSC and to a lesser extent Samsung have benefited from the rising prices of semiconductors (Chart I-9, second panel from top). However, it is not assured that semiconductor prices will continue soaring from these levels as global aggregate demand remains very weak. In short, the outlook for semi stocks is by and large a semiconductor industry call, not a macro one. As for Alibaba and Tencent, they are bottom-up stories - not macro bets at all. At the macro level, we reassert that EM/China demand for technology goods and services as well as for health care will stay robust. Hence, from a revenue perspective, technology and health care companies will outperform other EM sectors. This still warrants an overweight allocation to technology and health care stocks, a recommendation that we have had in place since June 2010 (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Odds are that tech outperformance will persist, but we are not sure about absolute performance, given overbought conditions and not-so-cheap valuations. Excluding information technology, the EM benchmark is somewhat weaker (Chart I-10). Chart I-8EM Technology Stocks: Sky Is Limit? Chart I-9Individual Tech Names Are Overbought Chart I-10EM Equities: Overall And Excluding Tech There is no improvement in EM corporate profitability The return on equity (RoE) for EM non-financial listed companies has stabilized at very low levels, but it has not improved at all (Chart I-11, top panel). The reason we use non-financials' RoE rather than overall RoE is because in EM the latter is artificially inflated at the moment, as banks are originating a lot of new loans but are not sufficiently provisioning for bad loans. Among the three components of non-financials RoE, net profit margins have stabilized but asset turnover is falling and leverage continues to mushroom (Chart I-11, bottom two panels). Remarkably, the relative performance between EM and U.S. stocks has historically been driven by relative RoE. When non-financial RoE in EM is above that of the U.S., EM stocks outperform U.S. ones, and vice-versa (Chart I-12). This relationships argues for EM stocks underperformance versus the S&P 500. Chart I-11EM Non-Financials: ##br##RoE And Its Components Chart I-12EM Versus U.S.: ##br##Relative RoE And Share Prices Overall EM EPS is still contracting in both local currency and U.S. dollar terms (Chart I-13). Even though the rate of contraction is easing for EPS in U.S. dollar terms, it is due to EM exchange rate appreciation versus the greenback this year. Furthermore, EPS in U.S. dollars is contracting in a majority of non-commodities sectors (Chart I-13A, Chart I-13B). The exceptions are utilities and industrials, which both exhibit strong EPS growth despite poor share price performance. The latter could be a sign that strong industrials and utilities EPS have been due to temporary factors and are not sustainable. Chart I-13AEM EPS Growth: Overall And By Sector Chart I-13BEM EPS Growth: Overall And By Sector Banks hold the key. Apart from commodities/the U.S. dollar and tech stocks, EM banks' share prices are probably the most important precursor to the direction of the overall EM benchmark. Financials are the second-largest sector in the EM equity benchmark (26.4% weight), so if bank share prices break down, the broader EM index will likely relapse. Our analysis of bank health in various EM countries leads us to believe that banks are under-provisioned for non-performing loans (NPL) (Chart I-14A, Chart I-14B). As EM growth disappointments resurface, investors will question the quality of banks' balance sheets and push down bank equity valuation. Hence, odds are bank share prices will drop sooner than later. Chart I-14AEM NPLs Are Unrecognized ##br##And Under-Provisioned Chart I-14BEM NPLs Are Unrecognized ##br##And Under-Provisioned In turn, concerns about EM banks will heighten doubts about overall EM growth and the EM equity benchmark will sell off. Bottom Line: EM tech stocks are overbought, while banks are fundamentally vulnerable due to the bad-loan overhang. As commodities prices relapse anew and worries about the EM credit cycle resurface, the EM benchmark will drop considerably. An Update On Two Relative Equity Trades We reiterate two relative equity trades: short EM banks / long U.S. banks, and short Chinese property developers / long U.S. homebuilders. For investors who do not have these positions, now is a good time to initiate them. Short EM banks / long U.S. banks (Chart I-15). The credit cycle in EM/China will undergo a further downturn: credit growth is set to decelerate as banks recognize NPLs and seek to raise capital. Even if a crisis is avoided, the need to raise substantial amounts of equity will considerably erode the value of EM bank shares. Meanwhile, risks to U.S. banks such as a flat yield curve and a possible spillover effect from European banking tremors are considerably less severe than the problems faced by EM banks. Importantly, unlike EM banks, U.S. banks' balance sheets are very healthy. Short Chinese property developers / long U.S. homebuilders (Chart I-16). Chart I-15Stay Short EM Banks##br## Versus U.S. Banks Chart I-16Stay Short Chinese Property ##br##Developers Versus U.S. Homebuilders Chinese property developers are on the verge of another downturn, as the authorities have tightened policy surrounding housing. Residential and non-residential property sales have boomed in the past 12 months, but starts have been less robust (Chart I-17). The upshot could still be high shadow inventories. Going forward, as speculative demand for housing cools off, property developers' chronic malaise - high leverage and lack of cash flow - will come back to play. Remarkably, property stocks trading in Hong Kong have failed to break out amid the buoyant residential market frenzy in the past 12 months, and are likely to break down as demand growth falters in the coming months (Chart I-18). Chart I-17China's Real Estate: ##br##Sales And Starts Will Contract Chart I-18Chinese Property Developers: ##br##On A Verge Of Breakdown? Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy & Frontier Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Thailand: Upgrade Stocks To Overweight And Go Long THB Versus KRW The death of King Bhumibol Adulyadej marks the end of an era not only because he symbolized national unity but also because his entire generation is passing. This generational shift has far-reaching consequences for Thailand's political establishment: in the long run it could hurt the Thai military's - and its allies' - attempt to cement their dominance over parliament. However, as Box II-1 (on page 17) explains, there is a low probability of serious domestic instability over the next 12 months2 - although beyond that risks will be heating up. For now, the military junta faces no major political or economic constraints: The junta has already consolidated control over all major organs of government and has purged or intimidated political enemies. The military will have to turn power back to parliament, or make a major policy mistake, for the opposition movement to rise again. The government's fiscal deficit has been stable (around 3% of GDP) over the past few years, public debt is at 33% of GDP, government bond yields are low and debt servicing costs are at 5% of total expenditures (Chart II-1). Hence, the military government can ramp up expenditures further to appease the disaffected. Indeed, the military junta has already accelerated public capital expenditures (Chart II-2) and investments have poured into the Northeast, a populous base of opposition to the junta. Chart II-1Thailand: More Room ##br##For Fiscal Stimulus Chart II-2Thailand: Government ##br##Capex Has Been Booming Likewise, fiscal expenditure has also accelerated in areas such as general public services, defense, and social protection (Chart II-3). Additionally, the Bank of Thailand (BoT) has scope to cut interest rates as the policy rate is still above a very low inflation rate (Chart II-4). This will limit the downside for credit growth and contribute to economic and political stability. Chart II-3Rising Public Spending Chart II-4Thailand: No Inflation; Room To Cut Rates The large current account surplus - standing at 11% of GDP - provides the authorities with plenty of fiscal and monetary maneuverability without having to worry about a major depreciation in the Thai baht (Chart II-5). Amid this sensitive political transition, the central bank will likely defend the currency if downward pressure on the baht emerges due to U.S. dollar strength. Therefore, we recommend traders to go long the Thai baht versus the Korean won (Chart II-6). Despite Korea's enormous current account, the won is at risk from depreciation in the RMB and the Japanese yen. Chart II-5Enormous Current Account ##br##Surplus Will Support The Baht Chart II-6Go Long THB Against KRW On the whole, although the Thai economy has been stagnant (Chart II-7), fiscal spending and low interest rates will limit the downside in growth. Bottom Line: We expect relative calm on the political surface in Thailand over the next 12 months and a stable macro backdrop. Therefore, we are using the latest weakness to upgrade this bourse from neutral to overweight within an EM equity portfolio (Chart II-8). Chart II-7Thai Growth Has Been Stagnant Chart II-8Upgrade Thai Stocks ##br##From Neutral To Overweight In addition, currency traders should go long THB versus KRW. Ayman Kawtharani, Research Analyst aymank@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com BOX 1 The Military Coup In 2014 Pre-empted The King's Death... The May 2014 military coup was timed to pre-empt this event. The king's health had been declining for years and it was only a matter of time until he died. This raised the prospect of an intense political struggle that could have escalated into a full-blown succession crisis. Thus the military moved preemptively so that it would be in control of the country ahead of the king's death and could reshape the constitutional system in the military's favor before his death, as it has done. ... And This Means Stability For Now If the populist, anti-royalist faction had been in control of government at the time of the king's death, it could have attempted to manipulate the less popular new king and take advantage of the vacuum of royal authority in order to reduce the role of the military and their allies. That in turn could have sparked a wave of mass protests from royalists, pressuring the government to collapse, or a military coup that would not have carried the king's implicit approval like the 2014 coup. That would have fed the narrative that a final showdown between the factions was finally emerging, and would have been highly alarming to foreign investors. But Risks Still Linger Make no mistake: a new long-term cycle of political instability is now emerging. Potential military mistakes and the return to parliamentary rule are potential dangers. The country's deep divisions - between (1) the Bangkok-centered royalist bureaucratic and military establishment and (2) the provincial opposition -have not been healed but aggravated since the 2014 coup and the new pro-military constitution: The junta's constitutional and electoral reforms will weaken the representation of the largest opposition party, the Pheu Thai Party, and will marginalize a large share of the 65% of the country's population that lives in the opposition-sympathetic provinces. It is also conceivable that the new king could trigger conflict by lending support to the populist opposition. For instance, he could pardon the exiled leader of the rural opposition movement, or he could transform the powerful Privy Council. However, we do not expect discontent to flare up significantly until late 2017 or 2018 when the military steps back and a new election cycle begins.3 We will reassess and alert investors if we foresee a rapid deterioration in the palace-military network, or in the military's ability to prevent seething resistance in the provinces. 1 The narrow U.S. dollar is a trade-weighted exchange rate versus the euro, Canadian dollar, Japanese yen, British pound, Swiss franc, Australian dollar, and Swedish krona. Source: The Federal Reserve. 2 The exception is that isolated acts of terrorism remain likely and could well strike key areas in Bangkok, signaling the reality that the underground opposition to military dictatorship remains alive and well. 3 The junta will use the one-year national period of mourning to its advantage and opposition forces will not want to be targeted for causing any trouble during a time of mourning. The junta could very easily delay the transition to nominal civilian rule, including the elections slated for November 2017. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

A Special Report published yesterday showed that while there have been hints of stabilization in global economic growth, there is a dearth of evidence pointing to a meaningful acceleration. Global manufacturing surveys have stabilized, but are oscillating around the boom/bust line rather than recording incremental gains. Inventory destocking may have finally run its course, based on the trough in the U.S. business sales-to-inventory ratio, but it is premature to forecast improvement in final demand. Keep in mind that ex consumption, the U.S. economy is in recession. Heavy truck sales have been an excellent business cycle indicator for decades. Truck orders tend to be an early indicator for activity. Heavy truck orders peaked in 2015, and the shipments-to-inventory ratio is heading rapidly toward recession levels. Meanwhile, both global trade volumes and prices are still languishing in the deflation zone. These trends are not conducive to cyclical sector earnings outperformance, and we reiterate our defensive portfolio position. Please see yesterday's Special Report for more details.